Ann Coulter's Shit Does Too Stink!

For The Record, I Never Said The Things I'm Saying Here

2009-10-14T08:33:00.001-07:00

This morning Joe Scarborough went to Rush Limbaugh's defense. Rush is complaining that people are attributing statements to him that he never made. Just like Yogi Berra. "I didn't say the things I said." is the famous quote. Interestingly enough, there is no proof that Yogi ever said that. Only unlike Yogi, Rush wants to sue. It is, of course, the American way.

I found Joe's defense of Rush admirable. And it came a little more than a week after Rush had questioned Joe's masculinity. Way to man up, Joe! Hold out for eight whole days before you knuckle under and kneel before the Supreme Leader! That chickified head of the GOP, Mr. (Ms.?) Steele didn't last a weekend before kowtowing.

But I understand where Rush is coming from. Yogi gets blamed for things he never said. Rush gets blamed for things he never said. Ironically, Rush has often said that Al Gore claimed he invented the Internet. And of course, Al Gore never said that. Should Mr. Gore sue?

It is one of my biggest peeves, right after people not using revolving doors, when so-called journalists take statements and paraphrase them, taking them out of context, changing the context, changing the wording, not verifying any facts in a statement, just to get a hotter story out of a statement. And once the changes begin, the statements can transmorph into anything. Go back and check out exactly what Nancy Pelosi said about the CIA, not what was screamed on political babble shows, but what she actually said. Oddly enough now that more information has come out, not a soul is asking for her resignation, not even an apology.

But Joe should be able to understand how these things can happen. He is world class when it comes to altering a statement and re-phrasing it so that the statement changes.

For example, this morning he had on that whack-job Jim Cramer. Cramer made a comment that China is becoming the most powerful nation on earth. Joe immediately shot back that there was no way that China was going to "take over the world."

Of course not Joe, because that is not at all what Cramer had said. I don't think it's adult ADD that makes the words, both context and meaning, change in your head. I think you could just possibly be that stupid. Or you may be a pathological liar.

I wouldn't put it past you to be both.

You Can't Fix Stupid. But Can You Tax It?

2009-10-07T12:30:00.000-07:00

The comedian Ron White has a routine with the tag line that you can't fix stupid. I like him, except for his Texan loyalty to an indiscriminate use of the death penalty. But I was thinking about it the other day, when trying to figure out health care reform.

Obviously adding scores of millions of people to the rolls is going to be costly. Yes, there will be inherent savings in ER costs, and savings from early detection and treatment. And yes there is probably some waste and fraud in the system, though why that needs special legislation to fix is beyond me. But even after that there will be additional costs. And it does not appear that the cost reductions are going to come by equal reductions in the profits of health insurance companies and other related entities. So there will have to be taxes, or revenue enhancements.

It would seem obvious, since we call ourselves a Christian nation, and we like to brag about how we are the richest and most powerful nation ever in the history of everything, that coughing up a few bucks, OK a few hundred billion, would be worth it for this endeavor. But of course it isn't. Spending trillions to set up swords for us to fall on in Iraq and Afghanistan are well worthwhile, but enriching the lives of every American, well that's not my problem. Besides, some of them might be immigrants.

I was watching the Dallas / Denver football game on Sunday. Tony Romo threw another errant pass, and Troy Aikman's comment on it was, "He under threw him, even though it was over his head." I don't know how much Mr. Aikman makes to make these incredibly stupid comments, but I bet it covers some pretty good health insurance.

So I'm thinking that maybe we should tax stupid. I believe it should be handled like the social security taxes. It should be paid equally by the stupid person, and by the stupid employer who hires him. So in this case, Mr. Aikman has to chip in a large amount of cash, as well as Mr. Murdoch.

Mr. Murdoch will have a very large return, there would be a lot of names listed.

Now I know that there are people out there that just about everyone would agree are stupid, yet they function well in the jobs they hold. They would be exempt. I'm talking about stupid people who are getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars, millions of dollars. Or even just tens of thousands of dollars, per episode. Like John and Kate (the Plus Eight should be exempt), or the Real Housewives of anywhere. These people would be taxed, the lousy waitress I had last week wouldn't.

While watching the Rachel Maddow show last night, I was tempted to add a tax on people who affect society by the stupid things they believe. Rachel was interviewing that PR whore and miserable human being, Rick Berman.

He is not stupid, but he speaks the language. He is a master at communicating with stupid people, and gets them to buy into his lies. An example, he stated that the average family income of minimum wage owners is nearly $50,000. In some pieces he has written he has used the figure of $47,000. This makes people think that the minimum wage is adequate, and shouldn't be raised. It is also a damned lie. In order for a couple to earn $47,000 in a year, each one would have to work about 3,450 hours per year, or 66 hours a week, every week. In that scenario, the $47,000 would be quite substantial, as they would have no time to spend any of the money.

I was truly struck by another comment Mr. Berman made last night, while trying to justify why he will not release information on the donors to his various non-profit groups who put out this disinformation. "People don't want to have their right to free speech curtailed by people coming after them." Wow! I'm sure that's exactly what the framers of the Constitution had in mind. The freedom to speak in anonymity, hiding behind a rock.

The freedom to speak should imply that you back your words, and stand up for them. Not hide.

Mr. Berman isn't stupid, but should be taxed out of existence.

Growing Up Scarborough

2009-09-22T11:16:00.000-07:00

My buddy Joe Scarborough was visibly distraught this morning. He was talking with Max Blumenthal about his new book, "Republican Gomorrah" and his You Tube segment, "The Unauthorized 9-12 Teabagger Tour." I've picked up the book but as yet haven't read it. (I'm still very much slogged down by my buddy Joe's tome. With my nicotine withdrawal going on, I can't get very far before I throw the book across the room.) But if you haven't seen the video, exit this site now and take a look. I'll wait.

Pretty funny, isn't it.

Well Joe didn't think so. He didn't spend a lot of time talking with Mr. Blumenthal about the book. I suppose one reason is that it is in a way at odds with Joe's book. It's hard to justify a political movement as being the last hope, when someone says it has already been destroyed.

But Joe was livid about the comments Mr. Blumenthal recorded at the event. Joe's hysteria is not based on the fact that this group represents a small sliver of the lunatic fringe of America and that the video does not acknowledge it.

Joe has been ranting about the demonstrations and the town hall meetings for months. He insists that these demonstrations are the same old, same old that's been going on in politics for years. He talks about the antics at anti-war demonstrations, Second Iraq, not Viet Nam. He claims that the minority has been calling the President illegitimate since Clinton. Each time he does, Mika the bobble-head, nods her head. When Pat Buchanan or Mike Barnicle are around, they agree wholeheartedly.

But this morning, Mr. Blumenthal had the temerity to disagree. He states that the biggest difference here is that prior demonstrations have not had significant politicians agreeing with the loopy-heads. That in previous years, the nuts were just that, that they did not represent a view of a major party. Joe fulminates. He demands proof of these allegations. Mr. Blumenthal brings up Senator Jim Demint, but Joe demands more proof. Joe should check out Mr. Blumenthal's blog. First thing back at the office, Mr. Blumenthal pulled his notes and posted them.

There have been nuts at political demonstrations since there have been demonstrations. I think the fact that there is more coverage, more cameras, more vehicles for disemination of the demonstrations has spawned more and more and wackier and wackier demonstrators. Only so many people can get on the Springer show.

I totally disagree with Joe (surprise) about the legitimacy of the President. I know of no such claims about Clinton. And to try to compare the legitimacy claims on Bush and Obama is absurd. Claiming illegitimacy due to a hastily rendered 5 - 4 decision on voting results in a state controlled by the candidate's brother is not at all comparable to claiming that President Obama was not born in Hawaii and has been part of a conspiracy for forty plus years.

But why I am so pissed with Joe on this topic goes a little deeper. He likes to think of himself as an intelligent, practical spokesman for his cause. But the way he demonstrates this is the reason I would have loved to grow up with this man as my father. Anything I would do that was wrong, I could just say that one of my siblings did it first. Get caught with your hand in the cookie jar, well Patty did it first. Play doctor with the neighbor's daughter? Jimmy did it first! Set fire to the church? Johnny did it first!

And knowing how this practical, intelligent man deals with the psychos at the Tea Bag parties, Papa Joe would have to say, that's OK my son. It's not a problem.

I'm Having a Hard Time Saying Something Nice

2009-09-17T09:48:00.000-07:00

With all the uncivil discourse that has been going on of late, I thought I would follow the adage that if you can't say anything nice about someone, don't say anything at all. (I do though still get a kick out of how Alice Roosevelt Longworth had it paraphrased and embroidered on a pillow she brought to parties - if you can't say anything nice about someone, come sit next to me.) So I haven't been saying anything, because there is not a lot of good out there.

But a friend expressed some concern yesterday that I hadn't written anything in a month. I am alive and as healthy as always. Maybe even more so, though I don't feel it. My central nervous system feels as if it was put together by my cheap father, with faulty, below code wiring. I have reduced my daily cigarette intake from about three packs a day, to a little below one. Which puts me back at the level I was smoking during Nixon's second term. And I feel the same angst and anger at politicians that I did then.

There are a lot of jerks out there right now, being jerky on a lot of topics. It's OK. I am saying something nice when I only call them jerks. Joe Wilson is one of them. The rudeness he displayed aside, he pulled a switch and side-tracked health care reform, turning the process towards immigration reform. Which is a separate topic. But he has welded them.

If you exclude illegal aliens from receiving any federal health benefits in a reform bill, than they are going to receive federal, state and local health benefits by showing up sick at a county health facility. Mr. Wilson, if you don't want them treated, work out a feasible policy for immigration reform. Till then, shut up.

All my lily white friends at Morning Joe have been up in arms about Former President Carter's remarks. It's beautiful the way they, and numerous others in the media, distort exactly what Mr. Carter said, and then shoot it down. He talked specifically about the most egregious of the demonstrators, and how many of them were racially motivated. But Joe and his buddies make it seem as if he called all non-liberal whites racists. And they vehemently deny that.

But the worst of the jerks out there are those conservatives who continue with the non-denial denials about death panels. John Meacham has a good intro to this week's Newsweek, "I Was a Teen Aged Death Panelist." I just do not believe how these people treat end of life issues! You would have thought that the travesty that was the end of Terry Schiavo's life would have had people re-think the issue.

Near the end of my mother's life she was asking everyone she could to get her drugs to end her life. She couldn't walk, hear very well, see very well, the use of her hands was limited, and she was in almost constant pain. I cried and told her I couldn't do anything for her. It was heart wrenching. Eventually she asked her home health care worker. The medical system then, all of four years ago, responded by hospitalizing her for depression. I was livid at her doctor. The only quality she had in her life was knowing that she was at home, the familiar smells and images. And they took that away from her! Sadly, they were not able to cure her of her depression, her "suicidal tendencies" before the stroke relieved her pain.

These end of life issues need to be addressed. There was little I could do then. Just as there was little I could do this morning when a beautiful 34 year old woman whom I love dearly said, "If you really loved me you would make the pain stop." I cried, caressed the few parts of her body that don't ache, and told her I couldn't. All I could do was pour her another shot of Jameson's. I want her around forever, and I want her to feel no pain. And I can't have both wishes. And we could truly use some end of life counseling. Unfortunately, because of her preexisting condition, she has no insurance.

Joe Scarborough is constantly telling me that seventy some percent of Americans are happy with their health insurance. Fucking good for them!

Running in Circles

2009-08-13T14:14:00.000-07:00

A long time ago I had some respect for Chuck Grassley, the Senior Senator from Iowa. That's long gone. Last week he had some bizarre show-and-tell thing on the Senate floor, with a story board about the deficit and Sir Taxalot. Jon Stewart thought he had gone to Medieval Times and needed an excuse to write it off.

At that point, I thought he had just gone senile, or possibly just showing it. But it got weird the other day. The President, at his town hall meeting, mentioned that he had a working relationship with Grassley and Senatory Johnny Isakson of Georgia, an attemtp at bi-partisanship.

The very next day, Grassley was foaming at the mouth, more than the usual drool, about how people should be scared, and that the government was coming to kill your grandmother. Isakson was vehemently denying the President's remarks that the Senator had long been a proponent of the government reimbursement for end-of-life counseling. The only thing he couldn't deny was the official record of his sponsorship.

Elected Republicans are just plain scared of being associated with the President. They know that their base doesn't like the man, and they are that worried about losing that support. Their math is a little fuzzy though given the decreasing numbers in that base, and the increasing numbers against the conservative ideals. But I've never thought that Republicans could count.

It's a vicious circle they're caught in. They must keep turning further and further right to please a smaller and smaller base.

It's fun watching them. Except for the Sir Taxalot cartoon series.

The Blind Leading the Blind

2009-08-05T15:28:00.001-07:00

One nice thing about California, by the time I get up Morning Joe is history. But I'm back in Chicago now, and Joe is pissing me off again. The other day he and Peggy Noonan were moaning about the effect Obama's policies will have on the poor, struggling families making over $250,000 per year. As Joe mentions, those in New York or California are hit with large state and local burdens, and if they have a couple of kids, any additional taxes would be an undue burden.

Joe, and Ms. Noonan, here's a tip. When you don't know what the hell you're talking about, shut up. Especially when you're in the media and many people take your words as truth.

I'm an MBA/CPA. I don't talk a lot about rocket science. But I can talk your ear off about tax policy. I would venture to guess that neither of you have ever picked up an economics textbook, or an accounting book, or the US Tax Code. Yet you go on and on about it.

It's like the miserable Chicago Tribune. Today they had another editorial bemoaning the fact that Wal-Mart is having difficulties getting another toehold in Chicago. The mention 200 construction jobs, and 500 new jobs once the store is open.

The Trib is bankrupt. And they went out of their way to do some stupid things to become bankrupt, eg, buying the LA Times without checking on the half a billion tax lien they had. They have absolutely no business lecturing on anything involving a dollar sign, they don't have the competence.

By the way Trib Editorial Board, the 200 construction jobs are very temporary. And there will be no new net jobs. Do you really think there are people with piles of money just waiting to spend it at a closer Wal-Mart? No, the jobs gained at Wal-Mart will be offset by jobs lost at smaller retailers. No net jobs. Read an economics book.

Back to Joe and Peggy. Tax policy is made at the taxable income level, not the gross income level. So the higher income people affected by new tax policies do not make $250,000, they make considerably more. The "poor" family that Ms. Noonan was talking about making $251,000, probably gross in the $300 to $350 K area. After their state and local income tax deductions, and their mortgage and real estate tax deductions and the personal exemptions for themselves and their kids, they have $251,000 left. They are not poor, they are not struggling. And I'll bet they have some pretty damned good health insurance.

But, Joe and Peggy may already know that, and they are purposely misleading their listeners. I wouldn't put it past them to be feckless lying whores.

LA LA LA LA LA . . . . .

2009-07-24T13:45:00.001-07:00

I'm in vacation mode, so there's not much to complain about. Well there is much to complain about. Race relation topics are abounding. I could talk about the Gates case, but it's much too simple. The cop did everything right, until he arrested a man for being loud in his own home during the day. That's not a crime.

I could talk about my friend Dr. Monica Crowley. I saw her the other night on O'Reilly and they were discussing President Obama's speech to the NAACP. It struck me as odd that they were discussing it a week after it happened, but many thing on the O'Reilly show strike me as odd. Dr. Crowley thought that the President had made a fine speech, but, and with her there's always a but, she went on to tell us all about the problems that the African-American community had with it. Like she has any clue as to what the African-American community has to say about anything.

But like I said I'm in vacation mode. A special friend of mine has a special reason to need to spend some fun time in the sun, so we're going to spend the next 8 days in and around Venice Beach.

But I will leave you with an ironic tale. I'm a huge White Sox fan, and I rarely miss a midweek afternoon game. There's nothing better than taking off work and having some beers and watching White Sox baseball. But, because of the aforementioned vacation, I really needed to get some things done at the office. So I gave my tickets to a friend.

As it turns out, Mark Buehrle pitched the eighteenth perfect game in MLB history. I was a little upset that I missed it. My friend, who had had a relationship gone bad with Mr. Buehrle, was upset that she was there. We were probably the only two people in the world who were hoping that he would give up a hit.

Off to LA LA Land!

We've Come A Long Way, Baby!

2009-07-22T14:50:00.000-07:00

For the past few weeks I've heard a lot of commentators discussing Judge Sotomayor's racist attitudes. Outstide of some dumb blonds on Fox, it's mostly been white males. The discriminatory practices of Judge Sotomayor and her ilk is tearing at the fabric of this country. Mike Barnicle said that the country has had enough after decades of these practices. Pat Buchanan has been going ballistic, and was put down very well by Rachel Maddow the other night. Good for her.

But an event occurred last week that was just recently reported that puts quite well the state of racial equality in this country. Harvard professor Henry Gates, Jr. was arrested for disorderly conduct. He was in his home at the time having just "broken in" because of a problem with his locks. A passer-by had seen Professor Gates and another black man trying to gain access to the house and called police.

So for all the white male whiners who are concerned that their fellow white males are being denied access to jobs across the country, like the New Haven firefighters, I think you need to take a step back and look at the situation a little closer. The playing field has not been sufficiently leveled.

Though I guess we should all be proud of the progress we've made. If you think about it, if Professor Gates had tried this 40 years ago, the cops would have shot first and asked questions later.

At my wits end - no catchy title

2009-07-21T14:52:00.000-07:00

I feel that my education has been wasted. I was reading a piece in the business section on MSN.com that stated that there have been 6.5 million jobs lost since the recession started in December of 2007. Now I know that knowledge of economics is not a prerequisite for writing for MSN.com/Money, and it's been quite a few years since I studied the topic in B-school, but a recession is 2 or more consecutive quarters of zero or negative growth in GDP.

The fourth quarter of 2007 showed a 2.3% growth, followed by an increase of 3.5% in the first quarter of 2008, with subsequent quarterly increases of 4.1% and 3.4% before tumbling 5.8% in the fourth quarter. So I'm really thinking that the recession started closer to December, 2008. And I think the job loss has been smaller in the last eight months.

But it got me thinking as to why this writer would create his own version of economics. Is he trying to blame the Bush Administration for a recession? The job losses in early 2008 can be blamed on their economic polices without rewriting economic policy. Is he trying to ease criticism on Obama? That might be, as every Fox talking head is now saying that Obama owns the economy, the budget deficit (even though the budget year started under GWB), and oddly enough the entire national debt. But then the economic knowledge of Fox News, to say nothing of the Bush Administration, would make the guy at MSN.com/Money look like a Nobel laureate.

Or as someone said on Morning Joe today, the tar is starting to stick to Obama. Just to show that Pat Buchanan is not the only racist on MSNBC.

Rest in Peace Michael Jackson

2009-07-08T13:47:00.000-07:00

Never was a big fan. I liked some of the stuff he did with his brothers when I was 12, but not a big fan of his solo work, except maybe the song about the rat. But I am hoping he will rest in peace, and then the news channels can cover something else. Because of the almost non-stop coverage I was forced to watch a lot of Fox last night. And my head still hurts.

O'Reilly was kind of funny. He had a segment where Steve Doocy and some blonde played a version of Name That Tune. It wasn't the blonde from the Fox and Friends show. Though she had a doozy, or would that be doocy, of a comment the other day. Talking about Obama's visit to Russia she mentioned that we need to improve our relations with them, as they have more influence on the world scene than they've ever had. She may be too young to remember the Cold War, but you would think that she'd have at least heard of it.

Anyway, Doocy and the other blonde had no clue as to song names. The blonde got indignant that The Doors' song LA Woman wasn't LA Woman. She claimed to have every Doors recording and know every song. O'Reilly claims that he does a mean Jim Morrison. It was freaky.

Speaking of Russia's influence on the world, Hannity had Haley Barbour, who is seriously being talked about as Presidential timber. Yeah! But he was talking about how we can't have any more of these arms treaties and how Reagan brought down the Soviet Union by building up arms. Do any of these people read history books. Who initiated the INF agreement which led to START?

Hannity several times was bashing the President for not recognizing the fact that we are the sole super power in the world. Combining this with his bashing Obama for not speaking out more on the situation in Iran, and his bashing of the handling of the Uighurs being released from Guantanamo now makes for an interesting confluence of events.

The Uighurs, an Islamic people, are revolting against the Chinese. I wonder who Sean will be asking Obama to rail against? I guess it doesn't matter, as we are the lone super power in the world. China being bigger, more populous, having an incredibly larger standing army, being a major economic power, especially when it comes to our imports and the subsequent ownership of our national debt, and having nuclear capabilities is obviously not a super power.

We have thousands of nuclear warheads, Sean would probably say. He's not quite aware that it doesn't take thousands to put a pretty big dent in the world as we know it. He, like all the neo-cons still think that our armed forces are the most powerful around. Given the commitments we have in the Middle East, I think we might have a tough time proving that to the Chinese.

Anyway, can we let Jackson rest in peace so I can get some unfair and unbalanced news?

And to my good friend Joe Scarborough, you need some new news writers. Not only to avoid your insanely funny, funny stupid not funny ha ha, discussion of the story you tried to report on Al Gore (Mika you need to know the difference between the text of a speech and a news report about the speech) but you really need someone to know that there is no such word as Iceburg.

Role Reversal

2009-06-30T13:55:00.001-07:00

This is just too funny. The Supreme Court ruling yesterday on the New Haven Fire Department has just got the conservatives kerfuffled. They are trumpeting the case to show that Judge Sotomayor truly is a racist, she hates white men. It's obvious from her decision on the case, though you have to read between a very small number of lines.

But if you read those lines you'll find that what she, and the other members of the panel, did was to uphold the law. No judicial activism here. And what do you find when you read the majority opinion of Justice Kennedy in the case? Uh oh!

Yes. Judicial activism. Justices Roberts and Alito committing the cardinal sin. They swore they wouldn't. Every one of their conservative sponsors touted them as strict constructionists.

And they are all full of shit. Truly. They are.

At least we should now all see that there is no such thing as being a strict constructionist. That it is the responsibility of the judiciary to change laws at times. We should also see that the conservative movement is truly racist. They are all fearful of the decline in the power of the white male.

The best comment was from Mike Barnicle, an old white man. He applauded the court for eliminating employment in the workplace and ending the bias that has been applied for, as he said, these past few decades. These past few decades!

We've been subjugating women, men of color, gays, people with handicaps for millennia. More than just subjugating, abusing, torturing, killing. Long past the time when Jesus told us not to do it anymore.

And poor Mike Barnicle and the other old white males have been having to go through this for decades. Well not Barnicle, he's only been denied employment for his plagiarism.

So the Right will only stand for activist judges when it props up their racist system.

Leonard Pitts had a great column last week on the racist Right. You should read it.

On a personal note to my good buddy Glenn Beck. The US didn't buy Alaska in the 1950's, you ignorant dolt. It was the 1860's. Read a book. Hit yourself in the head with a book.

And don't try telling me that you misspoke. You were saying the reason we bought Alaska was for oil. We didn't know from oil, where to find it, what to do with it when the deal was negotiated by Secretary William Henry Seward, who may have been the last living righteous Republican.

Effective Communications

2009-06-25T09:30:00.000-07:00

So I'm reading where Ahmadinejad is saying that President Obama is acting just like Former President Bush. Imagine what he'd be saying if Obama had foolishly listened to the Grahams and McCains and Krauthammers. He'd probably be saying the same things, but it would've made him sound believable. Quite a feat at that!

But maybe President Ahmadinejad is listening to that fatuous, farcical phony, Monica Crowley. I saw Dr. Crowley on the O'Reilly Show last night. She was actually trying to give the credit for the demonstrations in Iran to Bush. She said it is the democracies now established in Afghanistan and Iraq that are leading the Iranian people to force their own democracies. The governments in Afghanistan and Iraq were democratically elected, but with the insurgencies, the violence that has been there since, well since we started it, one could hardly hold them up as the ideals free and peaceful countries of the world are hoping for in the Middle East.

Also, we all have to remember that even if the Islamic Republic in Iran is overthrown, the people wearing the green still do not trust the United States. Even the people under thirty have heard all about the Shah and Savak. This is an area where Admadinejad does not have to lie. And we were the ones who installed the Shah.

O'Reilly had a conversation with Barney Frank on his show last night. In Bill's typical debating style, he was constantly interrupting his guest. And Congressman Frank called him on it. Bill's response was that there will always be interruptions.

He's a jerk. But at least he's an honest jerk. He openly admits that he's rude, crass and was brought up with absolutely no common courtesy.

But of course the best example of effective communications yesterday was Governor Sanford. I truly believe he was trying to put the entire crowd into some kind of trance with his stream of consciousness rantings. It might have worked if The State did not have copies of his e-mails.

I used to say that the difference between Republicans and Democrats was that they were both trying to do the same thing, but the Democrats were doing it one woman at a time. I believe the right is trying to usurp that strategy.

Fear Factor

2009-06-22T13:40:00.000-07:00

Last week, Ed Schultz started a brouhaha when he said that Former VP Cheney wanted an attack on the US so that he could come back and say I told you so. I think Cheney is the devil. Actually I think the devil is Cheney's henchman. But I disagree with Ed. This is just part of the Republican platform, and has been for years. They just want to scare everyone, and then repeat the mantra that Democrats are soft on defense, soft on terrorism, ill-advised in foreign affairs.

That is what's going on with the Republican leadership and the neo-con talking heads in response to the President's words on the situation in Iran. He's tepid. He needs to make a stronger response. Listen to Senators McCain and Graham on yesterday's talk shows. Their statements are eerily similar. Almost as if they are just parroting proscribed talking points.

Charles Krauthammer's last column stays on message in his recent column, "Showing Weakness Toward Iran's Fate". He states that we are missing a chance to capitalize on events such as the ouster of Hezbollah in Lebanon. He says that a revolution in Iran right now would do to Islamism what the collapse of the Soviet Union did to communism. His logic is a little specious, as communism as a socio-economic system has collapsed, yet the totalitarian rule in China and the former Soviet Republics is still rampant.

That political vermin, Dr. Monica Crowley, has also been cackling about the tepid response. I saw her on McLaughlin this weekend and she was bemoaning that Obama should be like Reagan in dealing with the USSR. She was impassioned in screaming how this administration could abandon those huddled masses yearning to breathe free in Iran.

One of my favorite people in the world, Lawrence O'Donnell, demanded of her that she give an example of what she thought Obama should say. She quickly started talking about some piece in the NYT, she repeated "the New York Times, even" as if to show that liberals supported her theory. Of course the piece she was talking about had nothing to do with her theory. She never did, and I'm betting never will, answer O'Donnell's question What a bitch!

Funny, for the previous two weeks the bitch was lumping every Muslim, from the nut who shot the recruiter in Arkansas to al-Qaeda to the other 1.5 billion of them into one group who were only concerned with destroying the United States. Hey bimbo! They're Muslims in Iran.

These doofi are not just preaching to their choir. They are trying to convince the independents, the Joe Six-Packs in the Democratic party that the Democrats, as the GOP has done for decades, can't handle National Security issues.

It is great that Hezbollah has lost power in Lebanon. And how did that happen, because the US hadn't intervened. Reagan challenged the Soviet Union, but not on elections. Neither Carter nor Reagan did anything when the Solidarity movement had it's roots. That's why it was successful. Had we endorsed Lech Walesa, the government would have had a reason to quash it.

We should not intervene, nor unduly comment on this situation in Iran. If for no other reason than what happened in 1953. When we intervened in "disputed" elections in Iran, and foisted the Shah on the Iranian people. Americans tend to forget that that happened, but not the consequences. The Iranian people remember it all. With hate and anger.

Joe Wrote a Book!

2009-06-19T12:59:00.000-07:00

I'm reminded of the Groucho Marx line - "From the moment I picked up your book, to the moment I put it down I was convulsed in laughter. Someday I intend reading it."

I've just been too pissed off to write the last few weeks. I've been watching a lot of Fox, so it's understandable. They have some of the stupidest people in the world on their shows. The brown haired guy who is not Steve Doocy has to be the dumbest. Two examples of things he said recently:

Talking about Chastity Bono going through a sex change he asked if a lesbian
becomes a man does he still date women.

On a story about a boy who disappeared fifty years ago, mentioning that the
boy's father had been assigned to Mitchell Field in New York, he said that is
where Lindbergh landed.

So I wind up watching more Morning Joe. For the past few weeks it has pretty much been an infomercial for his book while he was there. Fortunately, he's been whoring it around the country and has missed a lot of face time on the show. I'm not that upset.

But today, as the self-appointed new leader of the conservative cause, he got on his soap box about a new poll out that he says proves that he was prescient about the budget deficit situation. The poll shows that a majority of Americans want the administration to concentrate on reducing the deficit no matter how it affects the economy. Which is what Joe says he's been saying for months. When he was saying this, I must have been watching the Fox Nimwits in the Morning show.

Joe is in favor of reducing the deficit now. Or is it in the out years, his new favorite phrase? I'm not exactly sure how the poll question was phrased, but the answer, from Joe specifically, is crap.

I'll put it to you this way Mr. Scarborough, if you really feel we need to reduce deficits and you're not as concerned about the economic affects, let's do it. Let's start taxing the wealthy.

When I read your book, I'm pretty sure I will not find that scenario mentioned.

Empathy, Shmempathy

2009-06-02T14:37:00.001-07:00

So all of the conservatives are now jumping on Jude Sotomayor calling her everything from biased to racist. They also have a problem with her supposed empathy, based on her comments about a Latina possibly doing better than a white male. They want a justice who will only use the rule of law in rendering decisions.

Bull!

No one uses only the rule of law. If it were that simple, if everything were so black and white, we wouldn't need lawyers. We could just program the facts into the matrix, and the rule of law would decide. Everyone making these legal decisions, from county judges to Supreme Court Justices, to the OJ Simpson jury, sees the same facts differently and makes different decisions. How else could Plessy v Ferguson, the "separate but equal" doctrine, have been the rule of law for so long? Because it was decided by seven white males who grew up in the 19th century and couldn't empathize with a black man.

As far as empathy goes, I love how the conservatives are handling it. They are all bringing up the now infamous Ricci case from New Haven where Judge Sotomayor was on the panel that did not remand the case back to the lower court. Every conservative columnist and talking head, from Dr. Krauthammer to Ms. Coulter, start out with the same introduction. They talk about the dyslexic fireman who had to hire people to read to him in order to study for the test he past.

No discussions about disparate impact, or the rule of law in this case. They're empathizing with the white male fireman. I know why Dr. Krauthammer empathizes with him, they're both white males. Why does Ms. Coulter do it? I'm not saying she's a white male, but I wouldn't put it past her.

On another note, I'm starting to enjoy watching Fox Nuts in the Morning. Today the news poll was if you think that George Bush will get credit for the success in Iraq. If you're wondering if there has been success in Iraq, they had already reported that the number of civilian deaths in May was at its lowest since 2003. Success is measured by a decreasing body count.

Tragically, they did not report that the US service death toll was the highest in years.

A Letter To Rachel Maddow (With Apologies to Meg)

2009-05-29T08:01:00.000-07:00

I really feel you're becoming the liberal Bill O'Reilly. I just don't appreciate the jumping on conservatives just because they're conservatives. If there is something specific that they are espousing and we, or you, or I, find it is despicable, jump on them for that belief, not just because they're conservative. That's what O'Reilly does. That's what Hannity does. That's what the blonde bimbi on Fox do.

In the third episode of "The West Wing" President Bartlett is making a speech. I dislike the discontinuity (just like it bothers me that Andy and Barney were cousins on their first episode but never again, but that's a rant for later), since as an economics student I don't know where he would have had a civil procedure professor, but in his speech he said:

"I had a civil procedure professor who said once...'When the law is on your side, argue the law; and when the facts are on your side, argue the facts...When you don't have the law on your side, when you don't have the facts on your side, bang your fist on the defense table as loud as you can.' Well, we've got the law on our side now, and we've got the facts on our side now..."

O'Reilly, et al bang their fists on the table. We've got the facts on our side, and we're getting the laws on our side, so Rachel, you've got to get your facts right, and you've got to do a little research and reflection on them. Unlike what you did last night.

In trying to do a gotcha thing with Scalia's quotes, you apparently didn't read the quotes, or understand them. You had me squirming, as apparently was Nina Totenberg, as you went on and on about Scalia's apple and Sotomayor's orange.

Scalia said that laws are made at the district court level. Sotomayor said it is done at the appellate level. There's a difference, all courts are not the same.

Scalia's point, and I disagree and will explain later, is that laws are "made" at the district court level, which is why you need so called strict constructionists at the higher levels to overturn them. Sotomayor's point, to which I disagree somewhat, is that those laws are not "made" at the district level, but at the higher levels. There's a difference.

I disagree with both of these legal scholars. Laws are made by the legislative branches, at all levels. However, as most of the legislators are not what we would call legal scholars, their attempts to enact laws may be in opposition to a previous law or precedent. More often, a party who is being impacted by the legislation will develop an interpretation that the new law is in violation of an existing law. These parties are rarely considered strict constructionists.

When this happens an action is taken, typically in a district court. This is where I find the quack Scalia to be wrong. Rarely is a decision made at this level where the district court judge will make a ruling that changes the new law. And even if he or she does, it rarely stops there. So I believe that Scalia is wrong in this interpretation.

Scalia's comments were made to rally the right against so called activist judges. Sotomayor's comments, which are more accurate in that changes to laws are more often made in the higher court, was to a group of law clerks. Her aim was to tell them that the more interesting clerk work is done at the higher levels, as it more often has more impact.

But laws are not made at any judicial level. Whether or not enacted laws are operable is determined in courts. And this often upsets people, as the judicial interpretation is different than their own. And those making those decisions are then labeled as activist judges. Not because they make an interpretation, all judges do that, but because they make one that somebody doesn't agree with.

My point is that facts are unique, words are special, they are important. In your occupation you need to be much more careful. Context is important, quotes cannot be paraphrased, nuance weighs in.

By the way, love your show.

PS to my dear friend Meg:

I know this screed will upset you, as you're a big fan. So am I. But to her this stuff is just a job. But its impact involves my life, my liberty, etc. I'm just saying what Phil Esterhaus would say, "Let's be careful out there."

Tennis Anyone?

2009-05-28T14:06:00.000-07:00

I've got to stop watching TV. I was totally freaked out last night. It was part Bizarro world, part bizarre. I was screaming at Chris Matthews for being a putz, I was agreeing with Bill O'Reilly, and I was staring slack jawed at Dennis Miller. I really have to find a new hobby.

Matthews was trying to do a gotcha moment with the junior senator from my home state, Roland Burris. He had tape recording conversations between Burris and Robert Blagojevich, and had Burris on the line. Now I am hardly a fan of Burris, but I didn't hear anything in the conversation that was that untoward on Burris' part, the Blago brothers seem shady, but not so much Burris. But Chris thought he had him. Because of a huge, and rather stupid, leap by Matthews. Burris, in response to the pressure by Blago's brother, said " I might be able to get Wright to set something up.", referring to his partner. Matthews played the quote for him and Burris responded. Then a few minutes later Matthews says "but you promised to have your partner hold a fundraiser." I'd be in a lot of trouble if every time I said I might be able to do something and wound up being held to a promise.

Chris, when you play recorded conversations you don't get to edit the words. And the words matter.

Bill O'Reilly was doing a segment on some Canadian professor who is against any tightening up of regulations on Facebook, etc. about sharing pictures by young people. O'Reilly, though not even getting close to anything involving parental involvement, was upset with the concept, which is, especially for him, quite rational. I started questioning my own values when I realized this. But then he went on and on and eventually showed his true nature. He asked the question to his guest about who was the enemy here. In O'Reilly's world it's black and white, good and bad. No issue is complex. There has to be an enemy. I felt better.

I also felt better when his Patriot award for the night went to Bill Clinton. For telling a self-deprecating joke. Patriotic? O'Reilly's a boob.

But then he went into his "Between Barack and a Hard Place" segment, for which he should pay royalties to Chicago's Second City troupe. This segment involves poor Fox lapdog Alan Colmes and the miserable twit, Monica Crowley. They each get to say a good thing that Obama has done and bad thing he has done, and then they argue about it. Crowley's bad thing was the President's handling of the North Korea situation. When Colmes tried to corner her with the facts that George Bush was guilty of the same actions, Crowley started veering off message. And then, in Bizarro world fashion, O'Reilly also tried to pin her down. But like all of the blond conservative talking heads, she will change the subject and when backed into a corner will just start spouting conservative buzzwords. And again I was scratching my head about O'Reilly.

Finally he helped me back into reality by putting Dennis Miller on. Miller starts out his segment by putting some type of flower in his mouth and doing some type of flamenco dance. It was an homage to Sonia Sotomayor. It was unbelievable. Only Fox would allow, hell pay for, an idiot to disrespect an entire ethnic class. And the Republicans wonder why they don't attract more of the Hispanic vote.

Since Judge Sotomayor's nomination there has been much outrage about that nomination vis a vis her gender and ethnicity. Most of that has come from old angry white men, though a lot of younger dumb blonds have chimed in. I understand why the white men are angry. They are losing the control of the situation that they achieved through their hard efforts in being born a white man. I am an old angry white man, and I feel a little concerned by making these comments, as the other white men may beat me up. That's one of the things they're good at, and their chief method of problem solving.

But heroically, or as O'Reilly might mislabel it patriotically, I will say that her life story is wonderful, and I believe that her life and how it has shaped her thinking is a valuable thing for the Supreme Court.

Gotta run. There's an angry mob of white guys looming.

It's Pat!

2009-05-27T14:08:00.000-07:00

So I tried again to watch Fox and Friends in the Morning, but couldn't last very long. They had a guest blond bimbo, Carrie Prejean, the pro-opposite-marriage Miss California. It was kind of funny for a while, she mad the other dufi seem to be of average intelligence. Then she brought her preacher on, some former coked out football player, and I couldn't take it.

So I had to go, well I didn't but I did, watch Morning Joe. Of course the topic of the day was the new Supreme Court nominee. And it didn't take long for me to start throwing things at the TV.

Mike Barnicle started with his concerns about Judge Sotomayor. Of course it had to to with that vile discrimination case in New Haven. Though not specifically upset with the case, his concerns had to do with the one paragraph opinion she had written. How could she decide something so important in just one paragraph? Then he let on that he had not read the paragraph, if he had he maybe could answer his question. Or better yet not even ask it.

Then Joe went on a tirade about how Republicans always treat Democratic high court nominees with respect, and always vote to approve, a "favor" Democrats don't return. He then brings up Bork, Thomas, who the Democrats hated because he was a black conservative, and Alito, reminding us of how Alito's wife had left the room in tears.

Well Joe, the Democrats excoriated Bork because he was a true political hack. He, against all rules, fired the Watergate Special Prosecutor, something nobody in the Nixon Justice Department would do, as they had respect for the law. Someone who would violate rules for pure political purposes, does not sit on the Supreme Court.

Clarence Thomas had almost no paper trail. That was the biggest objection to him, not that he was a black conservative. The sex stuff all came at the last minute, the paper trail was the biggest problem as there was no way to determine how he might work on the court. And since his elevation, there is still almost no paper trail. We have to rely on tell all books to see how he works with the other Justices.

But the one who got me really crazy was Pat Buchanan. He of course is also upset with the New Haven case. The man is so distraught at the end of a society ruled by rich white males. He's beside himself. He then also launches the whole activist judge blather. We need to have jurists who follow the Constitution.

Pat, bullshit.

No one wants a strict following of the Constitution. You want them to follow it as you interpret it. Just as you interpret the Bible to be God's law that homosexuality is an abomination, yet a few verses away when the Bible says not to eat pork, you interpret that differently. Just as you interpret the Bible to say that abortion is an abomination, even though it isn't even mentioned.

Take the Second Amendment: the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. Timothy McVeigh was one of the people. A thermonuclear device is an arm. Not even you, Pat, would be willing to accept laws that would allow a homicidal maniac the right to possess a nuclear weapon. Yet that is what a strict interpretation of the Constitution would provide.

And thank heavens not everyone has the same interpretations that you do Pat. Some of us actually think Nixon was a jerk.

Words, Words, Words. (Hamlet Act 2, Scene 2)

2009-05-26T13:03:00.000-07:00

I followed Fox News the last few election cycles, keep your friends close and your enemies closer. I was, for the most part, able to handle it. I've tried watching it recently and it's getting tougher. Maybe it's due to the regime change. Maybe because it's not an election cycle. Maybe I'm just getting older and crankier.

I'm seriously getting ticked at journalists, commentators, talking heads, etc. who can't properly use the English language. That's their job. That's the sole reason for their existence: to use words properly. And they can't handle it. Especially Fox.

I can pretty much deal with Bill O'Reilly. He's just a buffoon. I get a kick out of his new Platinum Service. Apparently if you throw him some money, you get some extras out of his web site. Exactly what I don't know, and I don't think he's going to see any of my money in the near future.

What bothers me is his use of the language. He has a new feature on his show, Pinheads and Patriots. He identifies and disparages a stupid person, that's the pinhead. And then he lauds another person and he calls that person a patriot. Last night he lauded Greta Van Susteren as the patriot. What had she done that was patriotic? She injected Ana Marie Cox with epinephrine after an apparent food allergy reaction. Patriotic? No, love of country had nothing to do with it. Heroic? No, Ms. Van Susteren was at no risk to herself. Christian? Very.

But if you want to see people being paid large amounts of money to ostensibly communicate, but who just don't understand communication, at all, you've got to watch Fox Friends in the Morning.

Some snippets from the last week:

The brown haired guy who's not Steve Doocy was talking about the Steelers linebacker who didn't join his team in visiting the White House. He referred to him as " a teammate of the team."

The dumb blond in the middle, when giving the tease about Judge Whats-His-Name, who is their "legal" analyst: "the judge will be here in a moment's notice to discuss it."

Glenn Beck was flabbergasted this morning about Democrats and foreign policy. He was dismissing them because of their current complaints, saying that they don't understand that the current policies are a direct extension of progressive policies from the early twentieth century.

Brown haired guy, he's either a teammate, or of the team. Blondie, it's in a moment. Glenn, what was progressive a century ago is no longer progressive. Some of us actually move with the times and react to changes.

Today was the best for blondie and the brown haired guy. They got very confused with their teleprompters. Brown haired guy was reading a viewer's comment about their important story about a dog laundry machine, and he read it as if the woman's last name was Tennessee. The group joked about that for a while and it was great fun.

A short time later, the blond was introducing the day's news poll, and in giving the answers to the question also indicated that your choice is hotels. The group then let her know that she had not realized that the poll was sponsored by Choice Hotels. They laughed over it, and then Hemingway punched them in the mouth.

Sorry Woody, I had to.

Brilliant!

2009-05-20T15:06:00.000-07:00

I'm going to give away Nancy Pelosi's strategy. I don't think it will have any effect on those who oppose her, one because nobody reads this blog anyway, and even if the Republican leadership did, it's a fact that they don't read well or understand things. Their political bias gets in the way.

The reason I'm doing this is because I've had it up to here (I'm holding my hand real high right now) with so-called journalists and commentators. They don't take any time to do any research, to actually read statements, they're all in the gotcha game. The only real journalism going on now is being done by the Frontline folks. They do incredible work, but as what's need in any successful endeavor, it takes time.

Nancy Pelosi wants a truth commission. President Obama does not, at least not at this time. He has way to many things on his agenda, and he would like the help of some Republicans. Or at least not have them holding torches and pitch forks. And he doesn't want Congressional Democrats to call for one, as this would have almost the same effect. So Nancy Pelosi won't make the call for a truth commission.

So she gives some press conferences discussing the briefings by the CIA. She disagrees with what has been reported. What has been reported is a simple notation that the briefers discussed the ongoing EIT's. When questioned on this, she states that the information she was given was inaccurate and incomplete. When asked if the CIA lied she says "I believe they did."

Headlines across America then said that she called the CIA liars. She didn't. She thinks, she believes they have lied. She has no proof, it's a gut feeling. The CIA has lied in the past. Hell, part of their business plan involves lying.

If the so-called journalists had stopped to fully read her statements, had done some homework, they could have seen what she's trying to do. One of the other people in the room that September day was then Congressman Porter Goss. He did an Op-Ed piece for the Washington Post. The so-called journalists and columnists say that this proves that what Pelosi said was wrong. However, if they read and understand what he said -

"Today, I am slack-jawed to read that members claim to have not understood that the techniques on which they were briefed were to actually be employed; or that specific techniques such as "waterboarding" were never mentioned."

they should be able to get a clearer picture. Mr. Goss uses he words "actually to be employed." His take on the meeting then was that they had not been employed at that time. Exactly what Pelosi said.

But now the rabble is after Pelosi. And you know what, the only way they're going to be able to sort this out is with some sort of commission or investigation. The one Pelosi wants. The one that will shatter any credibility that the Republican Party has left.

Brilliant!

Sometimes When You Bite the Hand That Feeds You

2009-05-18T13:48:00.000-07:00

So, I'm trying to wean myself from Morning Joe. I keep trying to watch Fox and Friends in the morning and it is really hard. Not because I can't take the right wing histrionics, but because they are so gosh darn stupid.

I just giggled this morning when they were running their poll as to whether or not Pelosi should resign. Sixty percent of their viewers believe so. I don't have a cell phone to text my vote, nor do I Twitter, so I couldn't vote.

I had to turn it off when they were talking with the real chubby Baldwin brother, I think it's Stephen. He was discussing Pelosi's problem and said "She got her big foot stuck in her mouth. Sometimes when you bite the hand that feeds you, it turns around and bites you in the ass." I'm still shaking my head thinking about the imagery. I guess he's better when someone writes the lines for him. Actually, I've seen him in a couple of movies and he's really not any better.

My cable system sucks. RCN. I've got something like a thousand channels, but half of them are HD and I don't have HD. Subtract the infomercials, radio stations, and such and I've got maybe a couple hundred. Take out the crap and we're starting to talk a reasonable number. But at any given time, dozens of the channels are "temporarily out of service" on my TV. So I'm limited as to what I can watch.

I'm rationalizing, I love to hate Joe Scarborough. Today he was in fine form. First, he was echoing that nut job Monica Crowley. Apparently they believe that President Obama is following the lead of Former President Bush. By keeping the torture photographs secret, and by continuing some military tribunals (and as Joe said, keeping Gitmo open indefinitely) Obama has learned that Bush was right and he was in error.

Obama is attempting to keep the photographs secret for fear of reprisals from the Arab world. A legitimate rationale. I mean, actually using a rationale, an involved thought process, is an improvement. Bush kept them secret because he was under orders from Cheney to keep everything secret.

As far as the military tribunals, I think Mr. Scarborough and Dr. Crowley really need to gain a perspective. The Bush Adminstration waylayed hundereds of people and shipped them to Gitmo. They started a few tribunals, and realized they had some legal issues. They probably should have invested in competent lawyers instead of trusting the law firm of Miers and Gonzales.

President Obama's plans are to continue with the military tribunals in about a dozen cases, where there is legal authority to do so. Which means that he is not continuing the Bush policies in about 95% of the cases. So Dr. Crowley, if you think about it, if you are capable of rational thought when it comes to a Democratic Administration, he really isn't following the Bush Administration policies.

Praise the Lord!

He Said, She Said, We Said, They Said, I Said, You Said . . . .

2009-05-14T13:36:00.000-07:00

O for a muse of accurate reporting. Between the politicians and the talking heads one never knows what's going on. And then there are those damned bloggers, you can never believe anything they say.

So Liz Cheney, Dick Cheney, and echoing Cheney my buddy Joe Scarborough,insist that water boarding developed significant information that helped us find more al-Qaida members. There are memos that prove it. In other words, torture works. Yesterday a top FBI anti-terrorism agent, and an interrogator in the hunt for bin Laden, stated to a Congressional committee that they did not get any significant information and in fact the enhanced interrogation techniques were slow and burdensome. So who's not telling the truth.

Cheney has not always been totally truthful about his Haliburton pension, Saddam Hussein trying to obtain uranium, the link between Iraq and al-Qaida. Well actually about a whole lot of things. On the other hand Ali Soufan the ex-FBI agent was hiding behind a screen. And he's an Arab.

I was watching TV last night and saw a lot of commentary on the whole effectiveness of torture thing. Bernie Goldberg and O'Reilly were talking about it. Hardball had a segment on it. I got to thinking that all of these people who are talking about it have no experience with terrorists, what makes them tick, how they react in situations. None of the people talking on TV, almost no congressmen, no one in the Bush State Department, the Bush Administration. Ditto for knowledge of interrogation methods. So to the truly unschooled layman, the concept of doing what ever you need to get done while the bomb is ticking makes some sense. We all know what Jack Bauer would do. But the screenplays for "24" were not written by people with any more expertise in terrorism or interrogation methods. They were written by people with expertise in suspense.

So Goldberg and O'Reilly and the Cheneys and Scarborough, shut up. Listen to Ali Soufan. Wait until memos are declassified. Talk about evidence, not speculations.

Another area where we're hearing more and more and learning less and less is what was said to Nancy Pelosi about enhanced interrogation techniques. She is now insisting that she was not told specifically that waterboarding was in use. John Boehner is insisting that it was. But John Boehner was not in the room. The CIA agents who were in the room aren't talking. There is talk that their notes may be declassified, but up to now we only have a brief description of the topics discussed on a chart. Porter Goss was in the room but he's not saying much.

Again, stop the speculation. I understand that as a politician, Pelosi feels an obligation to answer charges. But until we have more information, I don't think John Boehner should be talking about the matter.

Then again, I don't think John Bohner should be doing much talking at all.

I Will Keep Asking

2009-05-12T11:47:00.000-07:00

I feel like John Wheelwright, the narrator of John Irving's "A Prayer for Owen Meany" who knows full well that when he reads a newspaper he will find some story on the Reagan Administration. When he reads it it fills him with anger that can take days to subside. He tries to avoid the newsstands and machines, but can't. I'm the same way with Morning Joe.

I thought it wasn't going to be too bad. Joe was "on assignment." So the gang was chatting with the alternate White House reporter, who's a lot cuter than Chuck Todd. So my blood pressure remained normal, well normal for me.

Then on comes Liz Cheney, the daughter of the former Veep. And she blathers on and on, being an apologist for the old man, and he needs as many as he can get. She blames the administration for not talking with her dad. Apparently they're talking to everyone about torture, but not to him. When asked if her dad's approached the White House to give them his information, she says he has not, but the White House should be approaching him. The mountain to Mohammad.

She goes on and starts talking about the many accomplishments of the Bush Administration. No, seriously. And then it comes out. She says one of the good things her dad and the other guy did was to not let Iraq return to being a safe haven for terrorists.

It's a line we've all heard many times. We've heard it many times because that's the plan. It's a trick that Cheney learned from Joe Goebbels and the Nazis, one of many. If you tell a lie often enough, people begin to believe it. And the folks sitting around the Morning Joe set have obviously have heard it often, because they didn't get upset that lies were being told on their show. But it's a lie. Dick Cheney knows it. Liz Cheney knows it. Mika Brzezinski knows it. Mike Barnicle know it. Even the fatuous Willie Geist knows it. But not a damned one of them confronts Cheney.

Then Joe Scarborough calls in. An editor from Time Magazine referred to him last week as a new leader of the Republican party. Or was it a leader of the new Republican party? Anyway, I figure as some kind of leader of something, and in an effort to give the show that's named for him some smidgen of character, I was thinking he was going to correct Ms. Cheney.

No.

I don't hear everything that Joe has to say because I'm retrieving things I had thrown about the room during Ms. Cheney's diatribe. But I do hear him when he goes back to his latest topic du jour. He talks about the information in some classified CIA documents that prove that the enhanced interrogation tactics have been successful.

Joe, if you know the exact details of those memos you need to present yourself to the U.S. Attorney, plead guilty to accessing classified information and hope by naming your sources you can get a softer prison term. If you don't know the exact details of the memos, shut up. Just shut up! Just because Dick Cheney says the information is there, doesn't mean it's there. He's lied before, he will lie again.

I know why Joe is considered a leader in his party. He's either a criminal, or a liar. Or quite possibly both.

When are people going to learn that in order to prove your point and further your cause, you need to use the truth?

Annie Get Your Gun

2009-05-11T11:09:00.000-07:00

Over the years, various gun advocate groups have been pushing legislation, at the state and local level, to allow people to carry guns, either openly or concealed. One of the catalysts for this movement has been the shooting incidents at workplaces and on campuses throughout the country. In my home state of Illinois such legislation is being considered, in response to the incident at Northern Illinois University on February 14, 2008.

Today, there was again a tragic gun incident at the workplace, where an overly stressed man killed five of his co-workers before being apprehended. I'm not sure that there will be any calls for more carry laws, as the man was a soldier and the incident occurred outside of Baghdad.

This shows the pure lunacy of these concealed carry laws. In March of 1981, a man pulled a gun on a group of people in Washington D.C. and manged to shoot several of them, despite the fact that many in the group were the best trained and best equipped bodyguards in the world. The man was John Hinckley and the bodyguards were the U.S. Secret Service. But I'm sure that an untrained, ill-equipped person at a college campus could do much better.

I've held an unloaded pistol in my hand, with my palm flat, for about two seconds before returning it to my cop friend. That is my hands on experience with guns. But it shouldn't take a gun expert to know that you pretty much have to have the gun loaded, in your hand, with the safety off and aimed at the evil-doer in order for it to have preventative value.

A gun is an offensive weapon, not a defensive one. The only way to defend yourself with a gun, to ensure that someone doesn't shoot you, is to shoot him first. You know, like the Bush Doctrine. Of course, if that someone doesn't have a gun or their intent wasn't to inflict harm, that would be a big problem for you. You know, like the Bush Doctrine.

But the gun advocates feel that since there are a lot of untoward people with guns (Gee! How did that happen?!?) that they feel the need to protect themselves. Or, they argue that the bad guys won't feel so free to use them if they know that their potential victim is carrying. I think that if thieves thought that their potential victims were carrying, they would shoot first and rob later. You know, like the Bush Doctrine.

Maybe its that they feel they need to belong to a bigger crowd of like-minded thinkers. Happiness is a warm gun. If every man, woman and child was packing, we would feel the love. You get a gun and I'll get a gun honey and we'll all go down to the . . . no, wait that's a line and a pole. If everyone started carrying I think the song going through some people's minds would be Bruce Cockburn's "If I Had a Rocket Launcher."

But I guess the gun advocates possess that innate quality to identify the bad guys. And there seems to be this old wild west idea that you can out draw the bad guy. I don't get it.

Hell, even Wyatt Earp didn't get it. That's why he banned guns in town.

Impeach Pelosi !!!!!!!!!!

2009-05-08T11:25:00.001-07:00

Starting last night, I've seen a lot on the news about how Nancy Pelosi lied. I saw clips of her on the Rachel Maddow show saying that she was not briefed by the CIA on the usage of waterboarding. Well, she says that she was briefed, but it was her understanding that the waterboarding procedure was perfectly legal, and not yet in use.

However there is now new information that shows that Pelosi was briefed about the procedure, and told it was in practice. I watched Mika Brzezinski and Peggy Noonan wringing their hands and sighing about how it seemed that Pelosi was in trouble, and could not understand how she got herself into this. The malicious miserable moronic Michelle Malken (like the alliteration?) says Pelosi knew from day one, and that Pelosi is a liar!

Oh boy! What a gotcha moment! So I looked at the "evidence" of what she knew and when she knew it. What absolutely proves what she knew is the notation: "Briefing on EIT's including use of EIT's on Abu Zubaydah, background on authorities, and a description of the particular EIT's that had been deployed." Whoa. Nailed her!

In 25 words or less, the CIA indicates what their recollection of the meeting were. I'm not doubting what the CIA briefers remember from the meeting. I'm not saying this is a he said, she said situation. There are, for obvious reasons, no recordings or transcripts of the meeting. Porter Goss was in the room and, in his comments to date, talks about the development and descriptions of the techniques, but does not mention that they were informed that they were in use.

After wringing her hands Peggy Noonan, as the expert on communications, should have realized that communications isn't about what is said, it's about what is heard. When I was a college professor I would plan my lectures diligently, spoke effectively, put the important information in writing in handouts or on the board. I found out, while reviewing test papers, that members of my class did not correctly hear what I said.

I don't know how many business meetings I have been involved in where everyone is in unison about what was discussed and then leave the room to proceed in several different directions from the map that had been drawn. I've given members of my staff what I thought were very explicit directions, only to have a project I couldn't recognize deposited on my desk.

Nancy Pelosi is too consummate a politician to state an obvious untruth in February knowing that it would come out. If she wanted to obfuscate, she could have said she did not let the information out for security reasons. Or that she had tried, within the constrictions of the CIA operations, to ensure that we did not break any laws. But instead she related what she remembered from the meeting.

It's about what is heard, not what is said.

I think we should waterboard Pelosi, Goss, and the CIA briefers to find out the truth.

I think we should waterboard Michelle Malkin just to shut her up for five minutes.

I'm Starting to Dislike People Less and Less Everyday

2009-05-07T13:17:00.000-07:00

I thought it was going to be a good day. Joe Scarborough was missing from Morning Joe. It was so pleasant. But they did talk about him. He's got a big article in Time Magazine next week. The editor referred to him as one of the new leaders in the Republican Party. I'm feeling better and better about the Democrats!

Earlier this week Joe was talking about how you had to keep individual tax rates lower to help small businesses, who create the most jobs in this country. The US Chamber of Commerce said basically the same thing, in reverse, when commenting on Obama's plan to eliminate tax havens, saying that higher taxes would bring about job losses. Joe made his comment because he's a non-thinking person who just echoes the Republican chants. The US Chamber of Commerce flat out lied. Jobs are created and lost based on the need for the jobs. If you lowered taxes the Ford dealership down the street would not hire more people to not sell cars. If you raised taxes, those in the road construction business would still hire people to get to work on the stimulus projects.

Every day this week on my walk to work I've seen people walk into traffic expecting the cars and bicyclists to get out of their way. And it's not just people talking on cell phones. This morning I saw a group of people ahead of me at a new hotel, which used to be the SRO hotel I lived in during harder times. It appeared to me that they were blocking the entire sidewalk. As I got nearer and changed perspectives, I could see that they had indeed left a path for someone to walk through. As I walked past, I could hear that most of them were Europeans. This explained the common courtesy, a term that has become an oxymoron.

I was talking with people the other day about the swine flu. Someone made the comment that what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. I used to believe that, but now that I think about it, I'm not dead and I'm not that strong.

I watched some of O'Reilly the other night. I'm trying to keep up with Fox to insure that the Republican Party is not changing. O'Reilly might be too stupid to live, but that qualifies him to work at Fox. He was talking with someone about Obama's policies. He is obviously in favor of torture, but he's against using drones in Pakistan. When arguing for torture he started out with "If I'm waging a war, I'm in it to win, and I'll do whatever I have to do!" But he doesn't like the way the drone's are used in Pakistan because women and children are being hurt. Apparently that doesn't fall under whatever.

O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann have to stop their bickering about which network is gaining / losing money and viewers. It's going below the fourth grade and making me cringe. So are Snickers' ads. Can we all stop eating Snickers bars until they fire that moronic ad agency?

President Obama announced that his administration has identified $17 billion in spending that they can trim. Everyone scoffs at this as such a picayune amount. Compared to the entire budget, yes. But when was the last time you saw an administration trimming the budget?

Manny Ramirez got busted for using performance enhancing drugs. I've got to find my ticket, cause I think I won the pool.

The Bankrupt Leading the Bankrupt

2009-05-04T09:31:00.001-07:00

So I again watched Morning Joe, I know, I know. He was very full of himself today. He'd been on Meet the Press, which hasn't involved a political figure meeting the press in decades, to plug not only his new book, which isn't out yet, and not only his show, which is carried on a sister station, but his new self-appointed role as a leader in the conservative / libertarian movement, He still doesn't know if there is a difference. This is more an assumption on his part into the role than an ascension, as the power vacuum, along with the idea vacuum, in the movement is staggering.

So he said some stupid things today, of course, and I had thought about commenting on them here. But then my Chicago Tribune arrived, late again, and in going through it, they really pissed me off. So I decided to dig into them.

What really got to me this morning was when I got around to doing the crossword puzzle. I'm addicted and, if I must say so myself, very good at them. But I couldn't find an answer to fit. Now, this isn't the reprinted NYT puzzle, which will occasionally use symbols or multiple letters in a box, so I was quite confused. I was convinced senility was sinking in, something many of my friends are already convinced has occurred.

After seeing a clue for across that was in the middle of a string of empty boxes, I finally realized that they had a misprint in the puzzle. The clues did not match the squares. Riled, but somewhat relieved, I proceeded to read the comics. Again the senility fears crept in, as many of the strips that are serialized, or somewhat serialized, were way out of kilter. For Better Or Worse was back at Elizabeth's wedding, while on Monday Elizabeth was two years old. Brenda Starr was on a back street somewhere in India yesterday, and today was in a tree house. Maybe my friends were right. But I caught the date on the strips that I thought were in a time warp, and they were as the artists had put in 8-28-08.

I have said in the past that the Trib should mind their own business when it comes to how other organizations run their shops. But I was more concerned with the financial ramifications, I always thought that the Trib had been run pretty well. Operationally, I mean. Their recent changes to the format of the paper are inane, but at least they put the paper out according to the silly format specifications. Now it seems they can't get anything right.

So I had to laugh again at some of the suggestions they've had in their running series on cleaning up Illinois politics. Today they tried taking Mayor Daley to task, which you think would be relatively simple. They're upset that his administration won't release information. I guess things are getting tight with the Tribune budget. In more prosperous times they would simply sue to get this information. I guess that's more of a luxury these days.

Yesterday they laid out their plan to make Illinois government better. Most of them are lame, dried out suggestions, for instance, people need to get more involved. Walking to work this morning I saw a protest outside the Chinese consulate. It was one man with a "Free Tibet" sign. The political involvement these days is pretty lame. The Fox News Teaparties notwithstanding.

But one of the causes of this is the shoddy news coverage we receive. With its new look, the Trib has relegated hard news to the way back of the paper. Or not at all as it comes to the Republican budget plan. The front page is all glitz, glamour and human interest stuff, unless Blago was indicted. Page 2 is Kass, nuff said. Page 3 is made up to look like a pop culture web page. The Trib puts the running of our various governments on the back burner, but gets upset that there isn't anyone excited about it.

One plan that they suggested will probably take root. They want the State Constitution amended to have the opportunity to recall elected officials. Sure, let's take the easy way out. I think maybe it's the gaming culture, but how do you allow a do-over in the running of our very lives?

Say you have a close election where a candidate just ekes it out. In the early part of that term, he disappoints some of his supporters. All of a sudden you've got a majority of people who are against this person. Let's throw the bum out! Have another election. Well first we'd need new primaries.

I want to stop here and ask anyone, anyone to explain to me why the nomination processes for the major political parties are paid for with government funds. They are private institutions, let them pay for them.

So now we've paid for the recall, the primaries and the new general election, and a few months later the candidate ticks somebody else off. Really, that is not that far fetched. Do-Over! And the cycle starts again.

This saves money? No wonder the Trib's broke.

The Wal-Mart Miracle!

2009-05-01T09:26:00.000-07:00

Today's Chicago Tribune editorial takes it to the mayor and the City Council for not letting Wal-Mart build a new store on the south side. From the one store that is operating in Chicago, they list some pretty impressive statistics: 430 new jobs, $3.6 million dollars in sales taxes for the city. It makes you wonder why the council doesn't want a Wal-Mart on every corner.

I mean, to create those new jobs without any other store having to cut back! And to boost the city tax coffers by that much in a two and a half year period, on top of the sales taxes provided by Wal-Mart's competition. It truly is a miracle!

Yeah, I know. The tax dollars and jobs were not created out of thin air. There has been some increase, but that is due to growth, both economic and population. And that could have been easily absorbed by existing stores whose purchasing and labor relation policies are more, well how can I put this humanely, ok, humane.

Is the Trib being disingenuous? In most cases they are. Here I think it's a situation where they just don't know nothin' about money. Finance, economics these are ideas that don't get processed well in the Tribune Tower. I know this from a piece of paper, their bankruptcy filing.

Their problems aren't all Sam Zell's fault, though that greedy little bastard wound up screwing everybody. The banks, the Trib employees. Everybody but himself. Yes, he lost some cash, but he's not eating mayonnaise sandwiches because of it. I think it's ironic that the biggest asset they had to sell, the Cubs (not much of an asset in my book, but whatever), he bungled the deal, forcing a much too long of a process holding out for a specially structured deal to avoid some capital gains taxes. Held out for so long that the market dropped around him. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

And their problems aren't all to blame on the downtrends in the newspaper business. But having a couple of business degrees hanging on my wall, I could have told them, and actually have been saying it for years, you're going to go broke if you give away your product for free. It's true. I've done the math!

The Trib's problems started long ago. They just didn't manage their affairs very well. Because they were not familiar with the due diligence process, they bought a huge tax liability with the LA Times. Well, it's not like they paid any extra for it. It was one of those buy one get a half a billion dollar debt to the IRS deals.

So these are the wise men in the sky who are telling the city about fiscal responsibility. Over the last few weeks they've been giving accounting lessons to the Obama administration, the State of Illinois, Cook County, etc. OK, the last couple really need some lessons, but they should come from a qualified teacher. Not the Trib.

I guess people in ivory towers, OK limestone, shouldn't throw bricks either.

Hungry Libertarians

2009-04-30T13:26:00.000-07:00

So I tried watching Fox News to get their spin on the tailspin that the Republican Party is in, but it's tough. I watched for a little while yesterday, I almost switched when one of their guest book panderers made a comment about Obama's disturbed mother being part of the reason he is the way he is. I did switch when, as Colbert refers to him, the brown haired guy who's not Steve Doocey, in a tease for an upcoming segment about prison furloughs, no not Willie Horton, referred to them as "guys in prison, who are out."

So I moved one down the dial, boy does that term age me, to Morning Joe. It seems Joe's written a book. Good for him. It is apparently about conservatism. Joe, just like Arlen Specter, is no longer a Republican. He is a conservative / libertarian. Apparently, Joe doesn't know if there is a difference.

On one of his shows last week, he had on Suze Orman and Donny Deutsch. The were discussing ways to survive during the down economy. I was wondering how any of these people would know, when Joe told the story about his father being laid off from Lockheed during a previous recession. It seems Mr. Scarborough, and industrial engineer, couldn't find work in his chosen field, so took a job selling insurance. This was on topic for Deutsch's point against Orman. Deutsch saying that one shouldn't wait for the right job to come along, they should take whatever job they can get.

This is a valid point, and good for Mr. Scarborough for doing it for his family's sake. And Joe is proud of that, which he should be. But there is the implication that there are people out there who wouldn't take the job. The implication that there are shiftless, lazy, indolent people out there, living off the government dole.

I'd like to remind Joe that there were probably 40 people applying for that job. Joe's dad got it. Joe kind of forgets that the other 39 people, the other 39 families continued to suffer. Joe, as a proud conservative / libertarian, gives the impression that Democrats don't value the hard work that his father did.

Democrats do value it, but we also are concerned about the other 39 families. We are concerned that they have at least a bare subsistence living. That they have access to health care. That their children have access to education. When Joe was sworn in as a Congressman, he put his hand on the Bible, a book about helping the sick and the poor, and swore to uphold the Constitution, with its preamble about establishing justice and promoting the general welfare, and just doesn't seem to care.

I don't recall ever meeting a poor conservative or a hungry libertarian. Do they exist?

Elephant Burial Grounds

2009-04-28T14:47:00.000-07:00

Arlen Specter, who had such great faith in the pristine magic bullet from the Warren Commission, no longer has faith in the Grand Old Party. I've had respect for the Senator over the years, but I can't help seeing him as rat fleeing a sinking ship. I don't blame him, I understand his reasoning, both philosophical and political. I also can't stop giggling about the Republican Party.

Contrary to what a lot of my friends think, I was not around for the demise of the Whig Party. I have read a lot about the times, and the situation was just so much different. The Republican Party was truly born out of the slavery issue. And it was pulled together not just by disaffected Whigs, but some of the true leaders of that party. Men like William Henry Seward, Salmon Portland Chase, and Abraham Lincoln.

The Republicans like to call themselves the party of Lincoln, which always makes me laugh. Yes he was one of the original leaders, and the first President elected as such. But if you read his first Message to Congress, the State of the Union address of the time, you will see that the Republicans quickly abandoned his ideals. And Lincoln abandoned them. He was reelected under the Union Party banner. Yes the Republican party eventually endorsed his candidacy, but he was no longer in that party.

What I'm not seeing now, but what occurred then, is leadership to new ideals. The leaders of the Republican party, such as they are with a 21% approval rating, are still welded to the Reagan ideals, low taxes, smaller government, conservative fiscal policies. Unfortunately, the only one of those they have been able to pull of are the lower taxes. And also unfortunately, those lower taxes have truly only impacted a small percentage of the population.

I believe that Mr. Specter will not be the only Republican to switch. The impact will be severe. As the party fails to accomplish anything in Washington, the money flow will fall. This is going to have repercussions at the state and local level. I think we are seeing a true sea change.

Now there is a strong possibility that a new party could form in the center. One would think that this would be the natural occurrence, with the dregs of the Republican party continuing their march further and further right, a political vacuum is bound to occur. There aren't many moderate Republicans, at least they don' t claim to be in public, but I think some may come out of the closet. And there are quite a few Blue Dog Democrats. There would seem to be enough to coalesce in the middle.

At the same time, President Obama is a pragmatist, and smarter then most politicians. I think there's a good chance he can keep a majority of Democrats, and democrats, behind his standard for the next few years.

All and all it's going to be good fun. I'm going to have to watch a lot more Fox News. At some point in the next few years I think they might even get a clue as to what is happening.

And The Truth Shall Set You Free

2009-04-27T09:53:00.000-07:00

So I was reading John Kass in the Chicago Tribune yesterday. I've seen him reprinted in other papers around the country, which seems a little strange. He mostly writes about local politics, and crime. Also he sucks.

My friend Meg used to read him religiously, till she just could not take anymore of his crap. Meg doesn't like the fact that he claims to be a conservative, though he doesn't spell that out very well. He's more against liberals than a conservative. At least as far as I can tell. Meg also thinks he's an idiot, uses faulty logic, and just doesn't write very well.

I wouldn't call him an intellectual, but I wouldn't call him necessarily an idiot. He's written for both the Trib and the Sun-Times. Although, both of those papers are in bankruptcy, so I'm not sure that is as ringing an endorsement. I once wrote to him to try to correct him on an address he used in a column. It took six or seven e-mails back and forth, including a Google Earth satellite picture, to get him first to understand what I was attempting to do and show that he was using the wrong numbers. This though I think is becasue he doesn't listen to, or read, what other people are saying.

His logic is faulty. I've imagined him having had a pet cat he named Dumbo, because of a drawing of his that his mother praised. The drawing, of course, was a connect-the-dots drawing of an elephant that he had drawn as a cat.

I have to agree with Meg though, he just doesn't write very well.

The column from yesterday is not put together very well. The bulk of it is comparing the support needed for CIA agents and the like, with the support needed to be an investigative reporter, which is what Mr. Kass likes to think he is. This is mostly because his column replaced Mike Royko's, who also fancied himself an investigative reporter. Royko really wasn't. I happen to know that the biggest story he "broke" was due to a phone call he received from the pissed-off future ex-wife of one of the principals in the story. But at least Royko could write!

In his lead up to his analogy, Kass attempts to denigrate President Obama, so that the reader, who he hopes will understand the analogy, will then dislike the President. He uses a couple of quotes that Kass says proves that the President "bowed to his base in the hard political left by reversing himself", though a simple reading of the quotes shows it is indeed an elephant, not a cat.

The quotes are from Rahm Emanuel:

"He believes that people in good faith were operating with the guidance they were provided," said Emanuel, no fool. "They shouldn't be prosecuted. ... It's time for reflection. It's not a time to use our energy in looking back in any sense of anger and retribution."

and from the President:

"With respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say, that is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general," he said. "I think there are a host of very complicated issues involved there."

It's pretty clear that there are different people referred to here. Those "operating with the guidance they were provided" and "those who formulated those legal decisions."

I want to interject here that most people on every side of this issue should agree that the Army personnel from Abu Ghraib were acting under orders, we now know came from the DOD. They were not "bad apples" as Don Rumsfeld indicated, they were not letting things get out of hand, they were following orders and should be released from the stockade immediately.

Back to my point. Kass is sort of dumb, but he should be able to tell the difference between the people referred to in the quotes. So should his editors. But the references are there intentionally. He is lying, at the very least misleading.

What I don't understand are people who will lie, mislead, obfuscate to prove a point. If their point is right, they should not have to lie. They really need to step back and think that if they need to use mis-truths to prove their point, it might be time to re-think their point.

I have no idea what Mr. Kass would draw from this. Maybe a duck.

Proving the Negative

2009-04-24T14:33:00.000-07:00

So the Republican leaders, and their talking heads, are now on the attack. And they're hitting several fronts. They're attacking the Democratic leadership, Nancy Pelosi specifically, and saying that she was aware of the torture, and condoned it. They're also using the old familiar fear tactic, implying that the ends justified the means, in order to save American lives.

The interesting thing about the what did Pelosi know and when did she know it tactic, is that it is not coming from people who were in the room. Yes, she was given information on the torture, what specifically nobody is for sure saying. The specifics of the information, and the method of presentation, are key. If she, and the other leaders, were informed that the tactics had been deemed legal, then unless she had been schooled in international law, she would not have raised any objections.

It's similar to the charge that Democratic congressmen, who gave Bush authorization for the war, had seen the evidence against Saddam and okayed it. That may have happened, but I'm darned sure that it was the cherry picked evidence, and I'm willing to bet it was pretty gussied up. Yes, these Democrats bought a pig in a poke. With lipstick.

As to the fear factor, yes the President should do whatever he can to protect American lives. But as a Constitutional officer, he must uphold the law. The Geneva Convention occurred not during the heated times of war, but in the cool, calculated, negotiated times of peace, when people could reflect on the horrible things that people are capable of, and try to stop them.

And so leaders of the civilized world are aware of the laws, and as such know that if they violate them, they will need a real damned good reason to do so. And, don't get me wrong, saving American lives is a damned good reason in my book. But what's getting lost in all the shouting, and this is intentional on the part of the conservatives, is that there is no proof that this information could not have been obtained legally. They never even tried. My god, they used people who had familiarity with methods designed to obtain false information! If there truly are documents showing that the torture produced information that thwarted attacks, that means that the administration screwed up again. They didn't obtain the planned misinformation, they got real information.

My buddy Joe Scarborough said today that such documents exist, that they reveal in clarity the direct line from information obtained through torture on to the arrests of people who were planning another attack. I wonder how he knows this, as even Dick Cheney does not have access to these documents.

Hm mm

Conspiracy Theory

2009-04-22T13:23:00.001-07:00

So my latest conspiracy theory is that the Bush Administration went out of their way to create the monumental screw up in the economy so that the Obama Administration and the Democratic Congress would be so overwhelmed that they wouldn't have an opportunity to look backwards and see the incredibly stupid things that were done.

I think they also hoped that the economy, and the business trends in general, would have had a more adverse impact on the newspaper business, especially the NY Times. The Times is going through some serious problems, but they can still put together a pretty good story.

Their latest one about the cluster-, well you know, surrounding the enhanced interrogation (some people refer to it as torture - toh-may-toh, toh-mah-toh) is almost unbelievable. George "Slam-Dunk" Tenet, I now believe, was an even bigger screw up than Michael "Heckuva Job" Brown. The CIA hired psychologists to assist them in these methods, they got them from the army program for training soldiers to endure torture. Yes, I mean torture, not enhanced interrogation methods. They had been through some practice tortures, but had never done the real thing. These were the experts.

The Administration was also convinced that we needed these methods, as they were the only ones that the terrorists would react to. These were people who would've been on one of the planes on 9/11, willing to give up their lives for their cause, and the experts figured that scaring them to, almost, death would make them give up their secrets. There was no other way.

I imagine over the next few years, once the economy is back on track, there is going to be a marathon truth conference. I'm not sure that there were that many illegal activities. Well, the Yoo memos on torture, the loss of the pallets of money in Iraq, the Halliburton contracts, I think there might have been some minor infractions there. But for the most part, a lot of the other things, the build-up to the war, the shift in focus from Afghanistan to Iraq, WMD's, Katrina, etc., were just partyhack, unfoucused, inexperienced, people who didn't analyze enough, didn't plan for congingencies, blindly followed orders, and pretty much just acted stupidly.

So, I guess I've disproved my theory. I think the economy screw-up was just another day at the office for the Bush Administration.

Why Doesn't Cheney Hide Anymore?

2009-04-21T12:14:00.000-07:00

From years hiding in his bunker, Dick Cheney is everywhere now. Criticizing this, criticizing that, except for anything that happened while he was in office. He firmly believes that Obama has made us less safe. The only thing protecting us was mistreating people at Guantanamo and other places unknown.

This is the man that wouldn't release a scrap of paper. He tried saying the VP position is not in the Executive branch of the government, that it's in the Legislative branch, in order to shield himself and his papers from any scrutiny. Now he's looking to declassify CIA files. He needs them for his book.

He claims that if this information is released that it will justify the use of the enhanced torture methods. Interesting, since he already has claimed they were justified, and legal. At least in his bunker, not in the real world. We had better hope it was.

He's going to make a big splash, and the media, even those not at Fox, are going to buy into it. As it makes a good story. The problem is that the files will not be able to justify the torture. Cheney wants to show that the enhanced methods produced information, and that information led to the discovery of attacks being planned that were thwarted.

I have no doubt that the enhanced methods produced information. (Though, I wonder. Did these guys, after doing 182 water boardings on the same guy, sit there and look at each other and say, "I think one more time should do it!") The question, and one that the files will not be able to answer, is could this information been obtained legally and morally. We'll never know, as the CIA was directed to use them on the "high value" detainees.

The other question is was the value of the information obtained greater than the losses in prestige we experienced. Was it greater than the new terrorists created through the use of these methods?

Ugly Americans

2009-04-20T09:22:00.000-07:00

So Newt Gingrich is upset with the way the President conducted himself at the Summit of the Americas. He's probably also upset that those other countries are using the name America.

And since he's upset, you can bet that Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchanan are too. And they are, I again made he mistake of watching Morning Joe today. Joe was apoplectic that Obama didn't respond to the evisceration of America. Well I, too, would be upset if someone had eviscerated America. So I checked to see when this had happened.

Turns out it didn't. Hugo Chavez did have the effrontery to give the President a book. Had he done this to Bush, it would have meant war, Bush not being the big reader and all. Chavez and Obama also exchanged smiles and handshakes. At least Obama didn't bow to him, or give him a back rub.

Daniel Ortega spoke for about an hour denouncing US foreign policy over the last century. I think this is what Joe had in mind, I guess one man's evisceration is another man's rant. My guess is that Newt, Joe and Pat wanted the President to denounce the denunciation. But I don't see how? Not while being honest.

Our foreign policy history in Latin America has more stains on it than my tie. How could we answer Ortega? Should we say we didn't have a policy supporting the rebels in his country, one that violated our own laws? I think that one still bothers him just a tad. Maybe Obama should have responded that he was lucky we stole Panama (fair and square) instead of Nicaragua. Heck, it would have been a shorter canal.

Of course, that's not our only fiasco in Latin America. Let's see, the Chiquita Banana revolution in Guatemala, which returned the land to the rightful owners, Chiquita Banana (United Fruit Co.) How's that liberation of the Puerto Ricans from the imperialistic Spaniards going?

As we spin around the world, it gets worse. We "liberated" the Philippines at the same time we 'freed' the Puerto Ricans. There was a little mop up exercise with the native people who didn't understand that our meaning of freedom was different than their meaning of freedom. These language things can be troublesome. About fifty years later, they finally got their freedom. Interestingly enough, the US Army used water boarding on the Filipinos.

When George W. Bush talked about bringing democracy to the Middle East, I just had to roll my eyes. Iran had formed a democratic government, elected a parliament and Prime Minister. Unfortunately, this guy thought that, like the Guatemalans, the Iranians owned the land, including the oil rights. The accountants at Anglo-Irani Oil (later British Petroleum) quickly figured out that this policy might adversely affect the profit margins. So they called the Dulles boys and badda boom, badda bing! The PM is out, and the Shah is in. And we wonder why the Iranians don't trust us.

I love America, and am proud to be a citizen. I am proud of countless acts that our fore bearers performed around the world to bring safety, freedom, equality to foreign lands. But just as we didn't always do a perfect job domestically, e g civil rights, we have not always done the right thing across the seas. And sometimes it hasn't bitten us squarely in the ass. (Ho Chi Minh was at Versailles trying to free his country in 1919. Nobody would talk to him.)

But to hear Newt and the gang, we've always been perfect. And no one else has. I understand the concept of speaking softly and carrying a big stick. I'm not sure I get the concept of ranting like a jingo and carrying an overused, overtired, mortgaged to the hilt stick.

A Simple Twist of Fate

2009-04-16T11:37:00.000-07:00

So I caught a bit of the Rush Limbaugh show. I'm not sure what he was trying to do, but he was all over Obama for killing defenseless, teen aged, black Muslims. He may have been trying to speak to the liberals out there and raise their ire. If that was his plan, he has to figure out that most liberals don't listen to him, or believe him. It may have been satirical, and what's funnier than shooting pirates. Just ask Yosemite Sam.

I'm pretty sure the conservatives were really bummed that the rescue of Captain Phillips worked out so well. You know they were hoping for something to go wrong, so they could blame the Obama administration. The way they jumped on Clinton for Somalia (though HW put the troops there) or for Bosnia, but curiously not W for Iraq. Or the way they jumped on Carter for the failed hostage rescue.

Which got me wondering. If a gust of wind, or a large wave had occurred just as the Seals fired, Captain Phillips would be dead and the pirates would be alive. This surely would have pleased Rush, not that he truly cares about the teen aged black Muslims, but then he could go on for weeks about Obama's lack of military service, his incompetence, etc.

Then I wondered about the haboob in April of 1980. How things have might have been different if the wind had died down. A haboob is a desert sandstorm. The one I am referring to happened as the US military was attempting to rescue the hostages in Iran.

Had that mission been successful, Ted Kennedy doesn't run against Carter in the primaries, and a much stronger politically Carter defeats Ronald Reagan. The conservative movement no longer has its storied leader, and the whole world is completely different. Our deficit situation would no longer exist, and Rush Limbaugh would still be spinning disks in St. Louis, though by now he would have been replaced by the Ryan Seacrest show.

I don't know who is pulling the weather strings upstairs, but whoever it is has an odd sense of humor.

One Lump or Two?

2009-04-15T10:38:00.000-07:00

So today is tax day, and tea-bag day. If nothing else, some tight-assed Republicans have learned a new sexual technique. Or at least that it exists.

People are so upset about their taxes that they plan to meet in town squares around the country and make a pile of tea bags. Well, for one thing, they'll be some stimulus for the grocery stores. I'd bet that the majority of these people, even if they can name their government representatives - national, state, local, etc, would not be able to tell you how these representatives have voted on various tax issues. The complaint is that taxes are too high, not necessarily that spending is too much or spent on the wrong things. They still want good schools, good roads, a healthy economy, good jobs, a safe neighborhood, safety from foreign invaders, etc. They just think we could get that stuff cheaper.

They are complaining that the various stimulus payments and bailouts are too high, but they're not paying for them. These are simply added to the debt.

But it gives these people a chance to put on funny clothes and get on TV. It beats telling their stories to Jerry Springer. And I'm sure there will be as many fights as Springer has. Ah, American democracy at its finest! We'll know we've accomplished our mission in Iraq when they have tea bag protests.

I made the mistake of watching Morning Joe again this morning. There was a Reuters news item that Janet Napolitano has concerns about right wing groups, their rantings and the effects they may have on people, mostly returning veterans that they might react by terrorism. Issues such as immigration, taxes, the first black President, etc.

Joe was incensed. You could tell it really affected him, cause he couldn't think straight. This was evidenced by the leaps he took every time he went back to the item. He went on about what would have happened if a Republican administration had issued warnings about left wing groups. Next time he talked about it, he used the example of Dick Cheney telling Tom Ridge to watch out for and monitor left wing groups. Now you can truly imagine Cheney doing that, and I wouldn't be surprised if he did. But there was nothing in the Reuters story that indicated that anyone had told the Homeland Security head to do this. But Joe lays out his analogy, implying that he had. Further along, he rants about Obama monitoring veterans, which again is not in the Reuters story, but the synapses in Joe's mind work differently.

There wasn't a lot of information in the story, but I understand the concerns. I saw someone the other night from some 2nd Amendment group who was explaining why guns sales are up. One of the reasons was fear of the government, including, I kid you not, proposed changes in health care. Can't you just see it! "Momma, grab another box of Double Ought, they's a comin' to alter my deductibles!"

There are the mental health problems we've been experiencing with the veterans returning from combat. There's the vigilante groups patrolling the border. Irate tea-baggers. They're letting gays marry in Iowa and Vermont. Rush Limbaugh feels he has more and more power.

And if you don't think something terrible could possibly arise out of these things, I give you two words.

Timothy McVeigh.

GOP Congressional Priorities

2009-04-14T12:48:00.000-07:00

The GOP Congressmen have finally gotten around to doing something. Wait, if you're thinking they have improved their wildly successful alternate budget - no nothing there. A new view on the stimulus? Nope. An answer to the banking crisis? Sorry. New tax cuts to bring down the deficit? You would think so, but no. The environment? Right. Energy policy? No, sorry no new tax cuts for big oil. Foreign affairs? Nada. A new timetable for Iraq? Zip.

No, they've come out with new attack commercials on Congressional Democrats. Three months into the new Congress, 19 months before the next elections. I guess you can't start too soon.

I've never liked negative campaigning, but I have to admit it can be successful. However, after you've maligned an opponent, you need to show an alternative. These commercials don't. They just make fun of the Congressman. They don't say how a Republican might do it different. They don't say who would make a difference. No new ideas, no fresh face.

They do have a face on them though, that of Speaker Nancy Pelosi. They didn't pick up on it in 2006 or in 2008. The idea of a Democratically controlled Congress just doesn't scare most people like it does Rush Limbaugh and his audience. I think that the GOP uses sound data. By that I mean they think that loud protests must be coming from a large group of people, instead of one really loud nut screaming at the rain.

The Republicans just can't accept the fact that a majority of Americans don't believe another small for them, big for others, tax cut will bring the deficit down. And small wonder, since it won't.

The GOP will have you believe it will by using the Reagan tax cut, or even the Kennedy tax cut as examples. These tax cuts did increase government revenues. The Kennedy cut brought the top rate down from 90%, the Reagan cut down from 70%. The previous rates were confiscatory. The cuts did free up a lot of capital and provided incentives for new technology. The Bush cut from 39% to 35% freed up enough capital to blow up a bubble. Which it did.

Since tax cuts won't work, they have to rely on scaring the public. And they are scary people.

Efforts to fight bailout top $7 trillion

2009-04-13T07:53:00.000-07:00

Are there still journalism schools out there? If so, when people graduate where do they work? Obviously not at the MSN web-site and their news headline. Just a little point to the folks there, the trillions of dollars are not fighting the bailout, they are the bailout.

If there are journalism schools out there, it seems now that a required course is "How to Come Up With Bad Puns for Headlines." The really crap papers have been doing this for quite some time, but now the Tribune is doing it. I've never liked their editorial stands, but they have had some renown for their journalism. But they lost it, it must be something with printing it tabloid style.

Communication everywhere now just sucks. People and organizations, who are in the business of communicating, have forgotten how to do it. The aforementioned Trib, in an effort to save paper (though for cost rather than environmental reasons) has gotten into twittering information in the baseball standings. They feel the need to put some information about each team in the standings, but leave themselves only about 140 characters to do it. Today's tidbit was the last time each team pulled off a triple play.

Watching my White Sox yesterday, they were posting blatantly inaccurate information up on the screen - wrong averages, and they even showed you how they calculated them!

Last week on the Today Show, Matt Lauer was chatting with Fox News Analyst Laura Ingraham. The title had something about Obama apologizing to Europe. I would have expected Ingraham to be the one saying he had apologized (he hadn't) but it was NBC who was putting out the misinformation. I guess the truth just doesn't sell anymore.

I'm reading today about the heroic rescue effort in saving the captain from the pirates. It was darned good shooting, but it was not heroic. If they hit the pirates, he's saved. If they missed, he was dead. The rescuers didn't risk a thing, it was really cool, but not heroic.

The pirates are upset. They remind me of the conservatives who were angry when President Carter ceded the Panama Canal back to Panama. "We stole it fair and square!" I wonder what the Somali word for aaargh is.

I guess I am just old fashioned. I should be able to show more creativity and could have said the above in less than 140 characters.

Phil Spector was just convicted of murder. His mistake was not using the Wall of Sound to muffle the gun shots.

I got that in under 140 characters!

Walking and Chewing Gum

2009-04-06T10:28:00.000-07:00

So for weeks now I've been hearing the complaints from Obama's critics that he is not focusing his efforts on the economy. He's worried about education, the environment, education, etc. I guess we've gotten to the point, after eight years of inefficiency, that we think our President can't walk and chew gum at the same time.

I heard an CNBC reporter last week voice her complaints, though strictly about the banking situation, that it should be "all hands on deck!" I guess that meant that Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates should have been concerned about the banking situation instead of Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan etc. And obviously they should have been more worried about the banking situation than North Korea.

At least Newt Gingrich knows that the administration should have been concerned about North Korea. Of course in his eyes, Obama blew it. He should have launched a preemptive strike against the missile. Since we obviously have the spare funds, and spare troops to launch a third front.

My favorite line from Gingrich was "I just think that it's very dangerous to have a fantasy foreign policy, and it can get you in enormous trouble." Like the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld policy of regime building in Iraq wasn't a fantasy.

Since the Republican Party does not have a left arm, they are forced to constantly turn further and further to the right. Any move in the other direction is seditious, as they have been pointing out for years. They are trapped by their own oratory, so they now must use the only weapons in their arsenal, fear and tax cuts, and they can only appeal to their base by stating that America must go after those who are hell bent on our destruction. They cannot see that preemptive action against the North Koreans would be costly, both in money and bodies, and further erode our international standing.

Don't they remember the end of the Cold War? Just as what happened to the Soviets, Pyongyang is going to run out of money, and Kim Jong-il will run out of power long before they can get a bomb, and a missile to shoot straight.

I guess that is too sissified for Mr. Gingrich, who has a long career in the military and foreign affairs. His idea is to draw first, not from his holster but from a nuclear submarine in the Sea of Japan. Just like in the Reagan oaters, the bad guy will be bested.

Probably not, but his supporters, all couple of dozen of them, will know he's strong.

Joe Scarborough is an Ass

2009-04-03T10:03:00.000-07:00

So I woke up about 2:30 this morning and couldn't get back to sleep. There was some good stuff on the TV, though I couldn't watch most of it because my cable system, RCN, sucks. So I was not in the best of moods when Morning Joe came on at 5, though I'm not sure I can be in the right mood for that show, because Joe Scarborough is an ass.

So Joe starts fulminating about the staggering National Debt. He hearkens back to more halcyon days when his hero, Ron Reagan, was President. He states that the accumulated debt of all the Presidents prior to Reagan was $1 trillion. He goes on about the current situation, the $12 trillion debt that he says "has Obama's footprint all over it." Obama has signed one spending bill, and Joe thinks it was for $11 trillion dollars. That's because Joe Scarborough is an ass.

Joe forgets to mention that President Reagan left office with a National Debt just shy of $3 trillion dollars. Joe Scarborough is an ass, but he is also a conservative Republican, by which I mean a god damned liar. Those of his ilk will always leave you with the impression that Democrats are wastrels and Republicans are thrifty. How do you triple the debt in eight years by being thrifty. You don't. Conservative Republicans don't conserve money. The last Republican President to have a balanced budget, or a surplus, was Eisenhower! But Joe won't tell you that, because Joe Scarborough is an ass.

By the end of George Bush's last fiscal year, this coming September, the debt will have doubled since he took office. Joe will now say that Bush wasn't a conservative. Joe didn't mention any of this the last eight years. He's now like St. Paul, the scales have fallen from his eyes and he sees the light - Hallelujah! Bush was not a conservative. When I say he's like St. Paul, it's about the blindness. St. Paul was, well, a saint. Joe Scarborough is an ass.

Later, Andy Card joins Joe and there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth over the debt. Andy Card, as Chief of Staff, was the first mate on the good ship Piss All the Money Into a Hole. His explanation was that the Democrats exerted too much power during the Bush years. He really said that! Joe nodded in agreement, or else was just doddering. Joe Scarborough is an ass.

It's always the Democrats fault. The control they exerted was obviously hiding the veto pen from the President. The Congressional Democrats must have been the ones who loaded pallet upon pallet full of hundred dollar bills, hundreds of tons of them, and sent them off to Iraq where they went missing. (Nobody is in prison for this, by the way.) Joe agrees wholeheartedly. Joe Scarborough is an ass.

Later, Joe asks Peggy Noonan why there is not more of an outcry from the public as to this deplorable situation. She says that the majority of Americans are more concerned about their day to day lives, that they don't get up each morning overly concerned about government finances. That may be true. It also may be true that if people like Joe Scarborough didn't lie to them, they might have a better understanding of what was truly happening. Joe Scarborough is an ass.

Joe twitters. He's not an ass because he twitters, but Joe Scarborough is an ass. I saw an interview with the guy who founded Twitter. He had a great quote as to the 144 character limit: "creativity will be inspired by these constraints." Really, he said that. I think it's funny.

I also think that Joe Scarborough is an ass.

Another Tribune Bankruptcy

2009-04-02T07:27:00.000-07:00

After already filing for financial bankruptcy, The Chicago Tribune today filed for moral bankruptcy. And I'm not talking about the imbecilic thing they did with the Live section. (I can write that, but I don't know how to say it, is the section name the verb or the adjective?) No, it was the item that was conspicuously missing from today's paper.

The Congressional Republicans released their budget yesterday. I heard it on the news, saw it on the internet, some guy even blogged about it. So I wanted to see the Trib's take on it. Went through the front page, nothing there. The Business section, nope. I looked at the Obits thinking I might find:

Party, Grand O. 154, died yesterday after long struggle with trying to impose the will of the few on the many . . . .

but, alas, no.

So the Trib's take on it was to pretend it never happened. If they reported on it, then the Editorial Board may have had to comment on it. The integrity of that board, and I realize I'm being generous, would not allow them to comment unfavorably. So, they ignore it?

If they agree with the plan, they should report it and state their support. If they disagree, they should report it, state their disagreements, and chastise the leadership. But to ignore it?!?!

Then again, they did strike that ostrich like posture during much of the previous administration. So I guess they are being consistent. Morally bankrupt, but consistent.

Interesting note, when I spellchecked, the Blogspot spellchecker doesn't recognize the word internet.

Or Blogspot.

GOP's April Fools Joke!

2009-04-01T12:02:00.000-07:00

They tried before to destroy Social Security, now they are trying to destroy Medicare. These are supposedly Christian people with family values, yet they really don't want to see the elderly taken care of. At least not if it means the rich won't get richer!

Their attempt several years ago on Social Security was to pull money out of the system, going into privatized accounts. The end result of this was to hasten the bankruptcy of the system, in the name of trying to save it.

Just think of what the value of those privatized accounts would be today!

Now they are pulling a similar stunt with Medicare, trying to pull people out of the system, when those dollars are necessary to sustain it. They just don't get it!

Social Security and Medicare are insurance policies. Those of you old enough to remember your old pay stubs would have seen OAI for the deduction. Old Age Insurance! It was meant to be insurance against being broke when you retired, not a pension plan!

You buy the policy, alright it is forced on you as a responsibility as a citizen, in case you need the insurance later in life. Just like you buy auto insurance in case you need it. If you don't have an accident, you don't get your money back. If you have sufficient assets and income, you don't need another monthly check, you don't get the monthly check. Same thing for Medicare. If you can afford a better policy, get a better policy!

Again, it just makes me shudder to think of people who call themselves family oriented, family valued Christians even considering ending these programs which dramatically improve the lives of our elderly.