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.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
You Can't Fix Stupid. But Can You Tax It?
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Growing Up Scarborough
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.
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.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
I'm Having a Hard Time Saying Something Nice
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!
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Running in Circles
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.
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.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
The Blind Leading the Blind
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.
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.
Friday, July 24, 2009
LA LA LA LA LA . . . . .
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!
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!
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
We've Come A Long Way, Baby!
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.
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.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
At my wits end - no catchy title
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.
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.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Rest in Peace Michael Jackson
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.
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.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Role Reversal
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.
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.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Effective Communications
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.
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.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Fear Factor
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.
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.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Joe Wrote a Book!
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.
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.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Empathy, Shmempathy
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.
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.
Friday, May 29, 2009
A Letter To Rachel Maddow (With Apologies to Meg)
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."
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."
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Tennis Anyone?
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
It's Pat!
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Words, Words, Words. (Hamlet Act 2, Scene 2)
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Brilliant!
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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)