The NOAA weather service has been unusually confused recently.
For several days they have been forecasting “rain showers” followed by a “red flag” warning. The latter is severe fire danger due to extremely low humidity and Santa Ana winds and the oddity is not that those conditions would follow rain showers, but that severe fire danger would do so. Following a very light rain things would dry out in a matter of hours, granted, but what they have been forecasting has been a system with a really good connection to tropical moisture.
They were saying that most of it would bypass us and go into Arizona, but that we would get showers and some steady rain for 24-36 hours. Amounts, they said, would only be about a tenth of an inch in San Diego, although they admitted that there was uncertainty in the forecast.
Well, the “showers” that were supposed to be arriving later this evening have been pounding on my roof since about 4AM, pretty much without a break. I don’t have a rain gauge any more, but I’d estimate we’ve had at least an inch so far.
The problem lies in forecasting the activity of a "cut off low," a low pressure system over the Pacific that is not connected to the jet stream. These things can sit motionless for days, and when they do move their direction and speed are pretty much random since there is no "steering current" of air to direct them.
What’s interesting is that the “Current conditions” on the NOAA site say that showers are moving through the area now and that the best chance for significant rain is late this afternoon and tonight. So, what is this that we are getting now? Well, according to them, “showers.” All I can tell you is that at times I’m finding it difficult to hear the radio because the “showers” are making so much noise on my roof. We may need an ark when the heavy rain gets here.
This may go from being one of the driest Novembers on record to one of the wettest, in the space of one day. If it keeps up it could become one of the wettest Decembers as well.
All kidding aside, this is much needed stuff; more than welcome. The only problem is that it is coming down hard enough that it may very well cause serious flooding problems in the recently burned areas of the county. Some prevention work has been done, but not anywhere near enough and some of this rain is quite heavy. The people who suffered through the fires do not really need to have more problems added on.
Keep them in your prayers.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Arming the Sunni
Sometimes I just don’t get it. Either I’m an idiot or…
I’ve been reading about the U.S. arming Sunnis for quite a while now, and I’ve remained on the sidelines because I just don’t have enough facts to form an opinion. I’ve leaned toward thinking that it was probably not a good idea, but the people doing it are a lot better educated in these matters than I, and they are in the thick of it while I’m sitting safely here at my keyboard in calm and sunny San Diego.
Then there’s this article in McClatchy News today. In part,
“More than 60,000 have had fingerprints and DNA taken and had retinal scans, American officials said, steps that will allow them to be identified later, should they turn against the government.”
Now I’m getting into the “what are they thinking?” territory.
If someone is blasting away at me with an AK-47 how, exactly, is me having his fingerprints, DNA and retinal scan going to help my cause in any way, shape or form? What, I’m going to hold his DNA up in front of myself and he’s going to hold fire because he’s unwilling to shoot himself?
“Hey, guy, this is you. Hold your fire. You’re shooting yourself in the spit.”
He might not want to shoot his fingerprints either. Hold those up too. Somehow I think diving into a foxhole or shooting back at him might be just a bit more effective.
Or maybe not arming the guy in the first place.
But we’re cool because they’re going to stop handing out weapons and uniforms when they have armed a mere 100,000 Sunni. And we are leaving, what, about 30,000 to 50,000 troops there. Oh good, we’re only outnumbering ourselves by 3:1 or maybe only 2:1. I’m so relieved.
The Iraqis claim that some of the “security forces” we’ve armed are already engaged in the final mopping up of ethnic cleansing, but our military denies that. Well, duh. Of course our military denies that. Hell, under those circumstances I would deny that, and I usually tell the truth. Our military obfuscates based on wishful thinking, so of course it denies that it gave weapons to people who then used them to intimidate and even kill innocents. The military doesn’t even need to know that facts of the issue, it can merely deny that it happened. Business as usual, case closed.
There is a saying, I believe it’s an Arab one, to the effect that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
We complicate that a little. (Well, we complicate everything, usually more than a little.) In our case, if you fight us we will either kill you or we will throw you in a prison and leave you there forever. Unless you come up to us and say that you want to fight our enemy. (Please note that this is not the same as surrendering. If you surrender we will throw you in a prison and leave you there forever.)
If you walk up to us and say that you want to fight the same guys that we are fighting we will take your fingerprints and DNA, scan your retinas (“Don’t fire until you see the whites of their eyes, men.”) and will hand you some weapons and a uniform, pat you on the head and give you some kind of blessing.
And then we will, if we have any sense, run like hell. Or not.
I’ve been reading about the U.S. arming Sunnis for quite a while now, and I’ve remained on the sidelines because I just don’t have enough facts to form an opinion. I’ve leaned toward thinking that it was probably not a good idea, but the people doing it are a lot better educated in these matters than I, and they are in the thick of it while I’m sitting safely here at my keyboard in calm and sunny San Diego.
Then there’s this article in McClatchy News today. In part,
“More than 60,000 have had fingerprints and DNA taken and had retinal scans, American officials said, steps that will allow them to be identified later, should they turn against the government.”
Now I’m getting into the “what are they thinking?” territory.
If someone is blasting away at me with an AK-47 how, exactly, is me having his fingerprints, DNA and retinal scan going to help my cause in any way, shape or form? What, I’m going to hold his DNA up in front of myself and he’s going to hold fire because he’s unwilling to shoot himself?
“Hey, guy, this is you. Hold your fire. You’re shooting yourself in the spit.”
He might not want to shoot his fingerprints either. Hold those up too. Somehow I think diving into a foxhole or shooting back at him might be just a bit more effective.
Or maybe not arming the guy in the first place.
But we’re cool because they’re going to stop handing out weapons and uniforms when they have armed a mere 100,000 Sunni. And we are leaving, what, about 30,000 to 50,000 troops there. Oh good, we’re only outnumbering ourselves by 3:1 or maybe only 2:1. I’m so relieved.
The Iraqis claim that some of the “security forces” we’ve armed are already engaged in the final mopping up of ethnic cleansing, but our military denies that. Well, duh. Of course our military denies that. Hell, under those circumstances I would deny that, and I usually tell the truth. Our military obfuscates based on wishful thinking, so of course it denies that it gave weapons to people who then used them to intimidate and even kill innocents. The military doesn’t even need to know that facts of the issue, it can merely deny that it happened. Business as usual, case closed.
There is a saying, I believe it’s an Arab one, to the effect that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
We complicate that a little. (Well, we complicate everything, usually more than a little.) In our case, if you fight us we will either kill you or we will throw you in a prison and leave you there forever. Unless you come up to us and say that you want to fight our enemy. (Please note that this is not the same as surrendering. If you surrender we will throw you in a prison and leave you there forever.)
If you walk up to us and say that you want to fight the same guys that we are fighting we will take your fingerprints and DNA, scan your retinas (“Don’t fire until you see the whites of their eyes, men.”) and will hand you some weapons and a uniform, pat you on the head and give you some kind of blessing.
And then we will, if we have any sense, run like hell. Or not.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Purpose of Regulation
Quite a few years ago government regulators sued at great length and expense to break up AT&T into smaller companies. Part of the deal was that consumers no longer were forced to rent equipment from the phone company, paying many times its value, but could buy whatever equipment they wanted and be able to use it with the phone company's service. That was when regulation was being managed for the benefit of the consumer.
Not so much any more. When you buy a cell phone it can only be used with the carrier that you bought it from. If you want to switch providers you must buy a whole new phone. We also have broadband internet service that is controlled by two massive corporations. Regulation is being managed for the benefit of corporations rather than for consumers.
A few years back European regulators forced Microsoft to unbundle its operating system and now they are taking on Apple. They don't like its policy of selling the iPhone and requiring the buyer to use the service provider of Apple's choice. U.S. regulators had no problem with that policy.
Similar regulatory policies mean that most of Europe has much faster and cheaper broadband internet access than we do here in what used to be the most technology-advanced country in the world.
So let's think about what "democracy" means. As a form of government, it means more than merely allowing people to vote. It means governing for the benefit of the people. Seems like Europe is better at bringing that off than is the United States, which governs for the benefit of corporations.
Not so much any more. When you buy a cell phone it can only be used with the carrier that you bought it from. If you want to switch providers you must buy a whole new phone. We also have broadband internet service that is controlled by two massive corporations. Regulation is being managed for the benefit of corporations rather than for consumers.
A few years back European regulators forced Microsoft to unbundle its operating system and now they are taking on Apple. They don't like its policy of selling the iPhone and requiring the buyer to use the service provider of Apple's choice. U.S. regulators had no problem with that policy.
Similar regulatory policies mean that most of Europe has much faster and cheaper broadband internet access than we do here in what used to be the most technology-advanced country in the world.
So let's think about what "democracy" means. As a form of government, it means more than merely allowing people to vote. It means governing for the benefit of the people. Seems like Europe is better at bringing that off than is the United States, which governs for the benefit of corporations.
Monday, November 19, 2007
True Grits
When Jimmy Carter was elected president the entire country started serving grits, but the pap served in most of the country is a pale imitation of grits and I never, ever order them at a restaurant on the left coast. We are in North Carolina and had breakfast at the Waffle House this morning. Grits. Real grits. Good stuff.
After breakfast we drove from Raleigh to Asheville. The color of the trees was beyond description. It was almost like what I imagine an LSD trip might be like. Wow.
My wife kept harassing me about the signs for NASCAR goodies and asking if I wanted to stop and shop. No.
After breakfast we drove from Raleigh to Asheville. The color of the trees was beyond description. It was almost like what I imagine an LSD trip might be like. Wow.
My wife kept harassing me about the signs for NASCAR goodies and asking if I wanted to stop and shop. No.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Dollar Dip
I have been using a Canadian company for web hosting for years, hosting sites for clients and a couple of sites I do volunteer work for. Their rates have been steady at $6.95/month Canadian, $4.95 American.
You know where I'm going with this, don't you?
I haven't started a new site in quite a while, and yesterday I had cause to do so. I selected my plan and was quite suprised to see that it was priced at $6.95/month Canadian, $6.95 American. I scratched my head a moment as I thought, "Wow, their price went up." Oh, duh.
You know where I'm going with this, don't you?
I haven't started a new site in quite a while, and yesterday I had cause to do so. I selected my plan and was quite suprised to see that it was priced at $6.95/month Canadian, $6.95 American. I scratched my head a moment as I thought, "Wow, their price went up." Oh, duh.
The Bleak Landscape
I’m beginning to come around to the point of view of people who just ignore the political landscape in this country. It’s an increasingly large number of people and I am increasingly sympathetic with their view. The political landscape is bleak and disheartening, and becoming more so.
For a while I had some enthusiasm for Obama, and perhaps an even slightly higher degree of enthusiasm for Edwards, but now I just want all of them to go the hell away. I don’t want any of them in the oval office.
After endless “debates” I just don’t believe a word that any of them say, and I don’t think for one minute that any of them believe anything that they say either. They are just “playing tapes” in response to questions.
Often it seems that they don’t even listen to the actual question. They just pick a tape to play back in response to certain key words that they picked out of what the questioner said.
And the media gives points to whoever has better tapes, not noticing when the politician fails to actually answer a question but swooning over how “tough” or “polished” the politician sounded.
When Edwards charged Clinton with being unresponsive to questions, for instance, she validated the charge by coming back with the non-response that her healthcare plan was better than his. The media loved it; reported than she really floored him with her “response.” They failed to note, of course, that she didn’t answer his charge.
What they also didn’t note is why her health plan “includes everybody” while Edwards’ plan does not. Clinton’s plan requires, requires that those not covered by employer coverage purchase private insurance. From whom must they purchase that insurance? From the companies that have donated millions to her election campaign. She has a plan to help people do that, but she’s not going to reveal that until later. Presumably after she’s elected.
(I’m not sure why she doesn’t just require everyone to be healthy, but…)
Obama is no less a triangulator than Clinton, aggressive in one appearance and meek in the next. He adopts whatever appearance he thinks the audience of the moment wants to see, or whatever attitude the media he’s facing will appreciate and applaud. His campaign is the antithesis of the audacity he advocated in his book.
I still have some appreciation of Edwards, but the media is so devoted to kicking him off of the bus that as part of the political landscape he is all but meaningless. I don’t think his ideas and intentions are hopeless, but I think the media has made his campaign pretty much dead in the water.
We don't even need to go into my thoughts on the Republicans.
This will all eventually pass and we will have another president. Almost certainly not one that will serve this country well, based on the campaign to date, but only a very few presidents have served this country well and we have survived. This country is bigger than one person, however misguided or well-intentioned that person may be.
Old Glory’s survival is more precarious now, but it will endure.
For a while I had some enthusiasm for Obama, and perhaps an even slightly higher degree of enthusiasm for Edwards, but now I just want all of them to go the hell away. I don’t want any of them in the oval office.
After endless “debates” I just don’t believe a word that any of them say, and I don’t think for one minute that any of them believe anything that they say either. They are just “playing tapes” in response to questions.
Often it seems that they don’t even listen to the actual question. They just pick a tape to play back in response to certain key words that they picked out of what the questioner said.
And the media gives points to whoever has better tapes, not noticing when the politician fails to actually answer a question but swooning over how “tough” or “polished” the politician sounded.
When Edwards charged Clinton with being unresponsive to questions, for instance, she validated the charge by coming back with the non-response that her healthcare plan was better than his. The media loved it; reported than she really floored him with her “response.” They failed to note, of course, that she didn’t answer his charge.
What they also didn’t note is why her health plan “includes everybody” while Edwards’ plan does not. Clinton’s plan requires, requires that those not covered by employer coverage purchase private insurance. From whom must they purchase that insurance? From the companies that have donated millions to her election campaign. She has a plan to help people do that, but she’s not going to reveal that until later. Presumably after she’s elected.
(I’m not sure why she doesn’t just require everyone to be healthy, but…)
Obama is no less a triangulator than Clinton, aggressive in one appearance and meek in the next. He adopts whatever appearance he thinks the audience of the moment wants to see, or whatever attitude the media he’s facing will appreciate and applaud. His campaign is the antithesis of the audacity he advocated in his book.
I still have some appreciation of Edwards, but the media is so devoted to kicking him off of the bus that as part of the political landscape he is all but meaningless. I don’t think his ideas and intentions are hopeless, but I think the media has made his campaign pretty much dead in the water.
We don't even need to go into my thoughts on the Republicans.
This will all eventually pass and we will have another president. Almost certainly not one that will serve this country well, based on the campaign to date, but only a very few presidents have served this country well and we have survived. This country is bigger than one person, however misguided or well-intentioned that person may be.
Old Glory’s survival is more precarious now, but it will endure.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Why I watch videos
Because the the damn fool political debates contain questions like this:
Do you believe there are any times when abortion is killing a baby? Yes or No?
If a million people die in the next 9/11, would you be willing to chill out about torture? Yes or no?
If you asked me either one of those questions and seriously anticipated a Yes or No answer, I would punch you in the nose. I am not a violent person. I abhor violence. But I would be unable to resist punching you in the nose. And smiling while I did it.
Do you believe there are any times when abortion is killing a baby? Yes or No?
If a million people die in the next 9/11, would you be willing to chill out about torture? Yes or no?
If you asked me either one of those questions and seriously anticipated a Yes or No answer, I would punch you in the nose. I am not a violent person. I abhor violence. But I would be unable to resist punching you in the nose. And smiling while I did it.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Owl in a Bucket, Part II
My niece was apparently quite taken with her uncle having had a pet owl as a kid and carrying said owl around in a bucket. A box arrived today, and in that box was, right, an owl in a bucket. She suggested that I might get a smile from it.I got more than a smile; I just about fell out of my chair. Note that the bucket is even labelled with the owl's name. What a treasure. Well, yeah, the owl in the bucket, too, but I was referring to my niece.
Santa Ana Warnings
Weather services, including NOAA, are now issuing warnings for strong Santa Ana winds next week and "extreme fire danger." Confidence levels in that forecast are apparently now pretty high.
Yikes. I think I'm glad we're going to NC.
But it rained yesterday in Atlanta.
Yikes. I think I'm glad we're going to NC.
But it rained yesterday in Atlanta.
Potpourri
Fearmongering Redux
ABC News is running the airline screening bomb story again, and again it's liquids. Only this time they are blowing up cars as well as airplanes. They briefly state in the news item that the story was originally released by the government in August. And they are airing it again now because...?
What strikes me as odd is that this time MSNBC picked up on it and included it on Countdown last night. Strange.
Santa Ana Redux
Forecast confidence is not particularly high, but there is a chance for a "strong Santa Ana event" next week. The Santa Ana part is pretty certain, how strong it will be is not. At best it will stir up soot and ash from the October fires, which is not good if you have severe emphysema. In the fires of 2003 I got much more ill in the Santa Ana events subsequent to the fire than from the fire itself.
Fortunately, we will be in North Carolina next week for Thanksgiving with family and the event will be over before we return. Good timing, but the trip was planned six months ago.
Spare Change
Have you got $20,000 to spare? That's your family's share of the current cost of the War in Iraq.
Torture Debate
The revival of this debate was caused by the confirmation hearings for the new Attorney General. He has now been confirmed and sworn into office. Why are we still having the debate? There is something sick about this.
Names don't always matter
When talking to a rep at the "benefits center" at my wife's company yesterday I got called "Mr. Robinson" again. She paused for a moment and then in a very embarrased tone said. "Oh no, that's not your name, is it?"
We had a good chuckle over it. Just a minor disadvantage of being married to a "liberated woman." There are plenty of advantages.
"Ending Combat" in Iraq
The newest bill in Congress vows to "end combat" in Iraq by the end of the year. The precise wording of the bill rather belies that intent as it, "[r]equires a transition in the mission of US forces in Iraq from primarily combat to: force protection and diplomatic protection; limited support to Iraqi security forces; and targeted counter-terrorism operations...". All of those require shooting, killing and being killed which are, by definition, combat. Typical word games from our elected government.
Football Follies
I will miss this weekend's Chargers game due to travels, and probably the next weekend as well. It might be that will be to my advantage and will save my wife some aggravation. I'm hoping that I have someone recording the games so I can watch them when I get back, assuming that I will want to.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Global Warming: Hoax?
John Coleman is a local, um, person (yeah, we’ll go with “person”) who presents the weather forecast (and presentcast) on the independent tv station KUSI here in San Diego. The fact that he’s not on one of the major network stations might tell you something, and if you’d like to see a clip of him in action, here’s a link.
Coleman is a little bit older than I am, and he certainly has more hair.
He predicts the weather pretty well, but not as well as he claims to and certainly no better than his counterparts on all of the other television stations. My wife would rather get her teeth drilled than listen to him.
Coleman has recently taken a stand on the global warming issue, and to say that he has “taken a stand” is rather understating it. He has posts in about a dozen locations on the KUSI website, has posted on ICECAP, and has participated on the Rush Limbaugh comedy show. Oh wait, I don’t think Limbaugh regards it as comedy show. Oh, well.
Here is, in part, what John Coleman has to say about the issue,
It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims.
and,
I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct.
And your mother wears combat boots. So there.
Like John Coleman, I am something of an old fool. Unlike John Coleman, while I never flat out know that I am wrong (if I did I would take corrective steps), I always have lurking in the back of my mind that I might be wrong. Other people, gasp, might be right. So I try to avoid what I call absolutism.
The title of this blog is “On My Mind,” not “What Is Absolute Fact.”
So, I’ve studied about the global warming issue. I have thought about it. I think Al Gore is onto something. I’m not as certain that Al Gore is right as Coleman is that Al Gore is wrong, but I strongly suspect that Al Gore is onto something and that it is really important.
The global warming deniers claim that we cannot alter something so massive as the earth’s atmosphere, but I have seen with my own eyes that the mighty Colorado River no longer reaches the Sea of Cortez. We are using it up in its entirety. I can be sure of what I’ve seen with my own eyes. Mankind can change the Earth.
Are we having a similar effect on its atmosphere? I can’t be sure, but I have very little doubt that it’s possible and there is a great deal of evidence that it’s happening as we debate the issue.
And I have a suspicion lurking in the back of my mind that it’s happing a great deal faster than we know.
Coleman is a little bit older than I am, and he certainly has more hair.
He predicts the weather pretty well, but not as well as he claims to and certainly no better than his counterparts on all of the other television stations. My wife would rather get her teeth drilled than listen to him.
Coleman has recently taken a stand on the global warming issue, and to say that he has “taken a stand” is rather understating it. He has posts in about a dozen locations on the KUSI website, has posted on ICECAP, and has participated on the Rush Limbaugh comedy show. Oh wait, I don’t think Limbaugh regards it as comedy show. Oh, well.
Here is, in part, what John Coleman has to say about the issue,
It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims.
and,
I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct.
And your mother wears combat boots. So there.
Like John Coleman, I am something of an old fool. Unlike John Coleman, while I never flat out know that I am wrong (if I did I would take corrective steps), I always have lurking in the back of my mind that I might be wrong. Other people, gasp, might be right. So I try to avoid what I call absolutism.
The title of this blog is “On My Mind,” not “What Is Absolute Fact.”
So, I’ve studied about the global warming issue. I have thought about it. I think Al Gore is onto something. I’m not as certain that Al Gore is right as Coleman is that Al Gore is wrong, but I strongly suspect that Al Gore is onto something and that it is really important.
The global warming deniers claim that we cannot alter something so massive as the earth’s atmosphere, but I have seen with my own eyes that the mighty Colorado River no longer reaches the Sea of Cortez. We are using it up in its entirety. I can be sure of what I’ve seen with my own eyes. Mankind can change the Earth.
Are we having a similar effect on its atmosphere? I can’t be sure, but I have very little doubt that it’s possible and there is a great deal of evidence that it’s happening as we debate the issue.
And I have a suspicion lurking in the back of my mind that it’s happing a great deal faster than we know.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Small Things Matter
In the infamous “Mission Accomplished” aircraft carrier event, Bush flew aboard the carrier in a jet rather than the usual helicopter and, in response to being asked why, his office explained that this was done because the carrier was too far from the coast for a helicopter to reach. Turns out the carrier was actually within sight of the coast and they had to be careful to avoid revealing the San Diego skyline in the camera shots that day. He flew in the jet, it seems, because he wanted to do it.
Showmanship and the inaccuracy of his message aside, so what if he wanted to come aboard in a jet rather than a helicopter?
What baffled me at the time was, why would his office lie over something so trivial? Or did they not know the answer and just say whatever came to mind that would sound good?
I couldn’t quite decide at the time which was worse; that they would lie so inconsequentially, or that they would simply make up answers that would seem to reflect credit on their man.
This was certainly not any kind of major crisis of leadership, but these were people who were representing the person holding the highest elected office in this nation. Their careless hubris embarrassed him (well, would have done if he had any capacity to be embarrassed) and reflected discredit, however small, upon the nation.
Which brings us to Hillary Clinton and her staff, and a tip that was not left at a restaurant. It has now been established that the tip was, in fact, not left. I could care less about that and the waitress herself has pointed out that the country has far more important things to discuss than whether or not she received a tip. Very true, and this post is not about Clinton leaving a tip.
Clinton’s staff contacted the reporter and not only claimed that a tip was left, they specified an amount that was disproportionate to the dinner tab, and they were apparently rather snottily critical of the reporter in the process. And their claim was false.
To paraphrase my question about the “Mission Accomplished” event,
What baffles me is, why would her staff lie over something so trivial? Or did they just say whatever came to mind that would make her sound good?
Sort of makes her promises of bringing change to government sound hollow, doesn’t it? Do we really need four more years of this kind of nonsense?
Showmanship and the inaccuracy of his message aside, so what if he wanted to come aboard in a jet rather than a helicopter?
What baffled me at the time was, why would his office lie over something so trivial? Or did they not know the answer and just say whatever came to mind that would sound good?
I couldn’t quite decide at the time which was worse; that they would lie so inconsequentially, or that they would simply make up answers that would seem to reflect credit on their man.
This was certainly not any kind of major crisis of leadership, but these were people who were representing the person holding the highest elected office in this nation. Their careless hubris embarrassed him (well, would have done if he had any capacity to be embarrassed) and reflected discredit, however small, upon the nation.
Which brings us to Hillary Clinton and her staff, and a tip that was not left at a restaurant. It has now been established that the tip was, in fact, not left. I could care less about that and the waitress herself has pointed out that the country has far more important things to discuss than whether or not she received a tip. Very true, and this post is not about Clinton leaving a tip.
Clinton’s staff contacted the reporter and not only claimed that a tip was left, they specified an amount that was disproportionate to the dinner tab, and they were apparently rather snottily critical of the reporter in the process. And their claim was false.
To paraphrase my question about the “Mission Accomplished” event,
What baffles me is, why would her staff lie over something so trivial? Or did they just say whatever came to mind that would make her sound good?
Sort of makes her promises of bringing change to government sound hollow, doesn’t it? Do we really need four more years of this kind of nonsense?
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Veteran's Day
Hats off to anyone reading who has ever worn the uniform of the Armed Forces of The United States of America. Thank you for helping to keep this country of ours free.
The full quote is that "In the NFL, on any given Sunday, any one team can beat any other team", which is, I think, actually debatable. The Chargers host the Indianapolis Colts today. The Colts are favored by a whopping three points, which means the odds makers didn't watch the Chargers against the Vikings last week.
The Chargers are playing at home, however, in a nationally televised game, and they are royally pissed about how they embarrased themselves last week. I'm going to go out on a limb and predict a Chargers win.
That's because I have faith, because I believe. That's because I'm stupid.
But really, you don't quit on your team just because they play a bad game. Well, okay, several bad games. The Chargers are still my team and I will still be watching the game and wanting for them to win.
And believing that they will win.
Or they will accept a gift. Who's birthday was it?
Now all we need is a head coach, offensive coordinator, quarterback, some wide receivers who can actually run patterns, and a defense that will play four quarters instead of merely two. Think of what would happen.
"On any given Sunday..."
The full quote is that "In the NFL, on any given Sunday, any one team can beat any other team", which is, I think, actually debatable. The Chargers host the Indianapolis Colts today. The Colts are favored by a whopping three points, which means the odds makers didn't watch the Chargers against the Vikings last week.
The Chargers are playing at home, however, in a nationally televised game, and they are royally pissed about how they embarrased themselves last week. I'm going to go out on a limb and predict a Chargers win.
That's because I have faith, because I believe. That's because I'm stupid.
But really, you don't quit on your team just because they play a bad game. Well, okay, several bad games. The Chargers are still my team and I will still be watching the game and wanting for them to win.
And believing that they will win.
"...and on Monday"
Or they will accept a gift. Who's birthday was it?
Now all we need is a head coach, offensive coordinator, quarterback, some wide receivers who can actually run patterns, and a defense that will play four quarters instead of merely two. Think of what would happen.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Fuzzy Thinking
Here’s an example of where we liberals keep getting into trouble. (And, yes, I am not some wishy-washy “progressive.” I am completely unashamed of being a liberal.)
From Foreclosure Turmoil, at The Nation a couple of days ago,
But the real victims of this subprime mortgage crisis are the millions of borrowers who followed the rules, whose only crime was taking out mortgages these lenders told them they could afford.
So people who did not decide for themselves what they could or could not afford, who allowed that decision to be made for them by companies who had a vested interest in making the loan to them, are victims? That’s like saying that a little piggy that walks up to a big bad wolf and invites the wolf to eat it is a victim.
Nothing, it seems, is ever the fault of the person who is harmed.
There is a scenic canyon near Tucson where I used to live. On the rim of this canyon are knee-high barriers and signs warning people to stay away from the edge, but every year some person (usually drunk) climbs over the barrier and falls to serious injury or death. Every time that happens there are lawsuits against the county for not having placed a chain link fence that would prevent approach to the edge of the canyon and which would also, of course, prevent anyone from enjoying a breathtakingly lovely view.
Because the fault lies not with the person who ignored the sign, climbed over the barriers and fell, but with the county for making it impossible for someone to do that.
Conservative thinking is that people should take care of themselves, that doing so is not the responsibility of government. Carried to the extreme, that would mean that we let the homeless freeze and or/starve to death, which I have not heard advocated by anyone.
Liberals think that it is the responsibility of government to take care of those who can not take care of themselves. Carried to the extreme that leads to government taking care even of those who can and/or should be able to take care of themselves. That’s not necessarily an easy line to draw.
I do not think, however, that we should on a wholesale basis absolve people of the consequences of allowing others to make financial decisions for them. Adults in this country really should be required to act like adults.
From Foreclosure Turmoil, at The Nation a couple of days ago,
But the real victims of this subprime mortgage crisis are the millions of borrowers who followed the rules, whose only crime was taking out mortgages these lenders told them they could afford.
So people who did not decide for themselves what they could or could not afford, who allowed that decision to be made for them by companies who had a vested interest in making the loan to them, are victims? That’s like saying that a little piggy that walks up to a big bad wolf and invites the wolf to eat it is a victim.
Nothing, it seems, is ever the fault of the person who is harmed.
There is a scenic canyon near Tucson where I used to live. On the rim of this canyon are knee-high barriers and signs warning people to stay away from the edge, but every year some person (usually drunk) climbs over the barrier and falls to serious injury or death. Every time that happens there are lawsuits against the county for not having placed a chain link fence that would prevent approach to the edge of the canyon and which would also, of course, prevent anyone from enjoying a breathtakingly lovely view.
Because the fault lies not with the person who ignored the sign, climbed over the barriers and fell, but with the county for making it impossible for someone to do that.
Conservative thinking is that people should take care of themselves, that doing so is not the responsibility of government. Carried to the extreme, that would mean that we let the homeless freeze and or/starve to death, which I have not heard advocated by anyone.
Liberals think that it is the responsibility of government to take care of those who can not take care of themselves. Carried to the extreme that leads to government taking care even of those who can and/or should be able to take care of themselves. That’s not necessarily an easy line to draw.
I do not think, however, that we should on a wholesale basis absolve people of the consequences of allowing others to make financial decisions for them. Adults in this country really should be required to act like adults.
Friday, November 09, 2007
Gasoline Pricing
A Brilliant at Breakfast post today mentioned that gasoline prices aren't yet over $3.00 most places. The operative phrase is "most places," as here in fun-packed downtown metropolitan San Diego they are running in the vicinity of $3.30 for regular.
Our local news had an item on gas prices a day or so ago and said that
"it could be a lot worse." I don't remember all of the details, but in summer when gas was at a similar price, oil costs were much lower. If the oil companies were taking as much profit now as they were then, the price of regular gas would be over $4.00 per gallon. Back then the refiners were keeping more than $1.00 per gallon profit, now they are only keeping $0.38 per gallon. The difference is that demand for gas is lower in winter.
So they dropped their profit margin from 30% of sales to only 11.5% of sales. The grocery industry, for comparison, typically operates on a margin of 1%-2% of sales.
But oil companies were not gouging during the summer.
Speaking of summer. If the weather is going to be this gray, dreary, ugly, and cold for day after day after day, it could at least freaking rain.
Our local news had an item on gas prices a day or so ago and said that
"it could be a lot worse." I don't remember all of the details, but in summer when gas was at a similar price, oil costs were much lower. If the oil companies were taking as much profit now as they were then, the price of regular gas would be over $4.00 per gallon. Back then the refiners were keeping more than $1.00 per gallon profit, now they are only keeping $0.38 per gallon. The difference is that demand for gas is lower in winter.
So they dropped their profit margin from 30% of sales to only 11.5% of sales. The grocery industry, for comparison, typically operates on a margin of 1%-2% of sales.
But oil companies were not gouging during the summer.
Speaking of summer. If the weather is going to be this gray, dreary, ugly, and cold for day after day after day, it could at least freaking rain.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Repudiating Evil
Last night in an interview with Keith Olbermann on Countdown Rachel Madow made the, to me, rather odd comment that “the purpose of impeachment is to save the office.” Ms. Madow is a charming person and an outstandingly clear speaker. I’m on the same point of view as she is pretty much most of the time.
I had to ponder that for a while, though, to figure out what “saving the office” might mean. I imagine that what she meant but didn’t have time to say was that impeachment is the proper response to a person tarnishing the office and that such action would restore the honor and dignity of that office.
Fair enough, but to me a higher purpose of impeachment is to repudiate the action upon which the impeachment is based; to announce to the world and to our own population that “this country does not countenance that behavior by our government.”
I believe it to be supremely important the we as a nation tell the world that George W. Bush does not represent who we are. And, to our everlasting shame and detriment, we are not going to do that. We can no longer vote him out of office and, thanks to a supine Congress, we will not impeach him as our founding fathers designed for us to do when a president disgraced his office.
Nancy Pelosi swore an oath to uphold and defend the constitution and then she announced to the world, and more importantly to the president, that her oath was meaningless when she said that one clause of the constitution she would not uphold; that “impeachment is off the table.”
That statement, a violation of her oath of office, was a political calculation to secure her rise to power. Rather than raising her to greater power, it should have been just cause to remove her from the office she held at the time. But such is the degree of corruption that our government has descended to that it achieved its calculated effect.
It also turned an abusive president loose to engage in even more blatantly open dishonesty, abuse of “executive privilege” and secrecy, and thuggish foreign policy, secure in the knowledge that he could not, would not be called to account.
And so George W. Bush will complete his term and retire to his sybaritic life of retirement, building a library as a monument to his own self image. And a country will be forever tarnished and shamed by his term in office, having failed to stop his crimes.
Congress didn’t have the will, and we were just too busy shopping.
I had to ponder that for a while, though, to figure out what “saving the office” might mean. I imagine that what she meant but didn’t have time to say was that impeachment is the proper response to a person tarnishing the office and that such action would restore the honor and dignity of that office.
Fair enough, but to me a higher purpose of impeachment is to repudiate the action upon which the impeachment is based; to announce to the world and to our own population that “this country does not countenance that behavior by our government.”
I believe it to be supremely important the we as a nation tell the world that George W. Bush does not represent who we are. And, to our everlasting shame and detriment, we are not going to do that. We can no longer vote him out of office and, thanks to a supine Congress, we will not impeach him as our founding fathers designed for us to do when a president disgraced his office.
Nancy Pelosi swore an oath to uphold and defend the constitution and then she announced to the world, and more importantly to the president, that her oath was meaningless when she said that one clause of the constitution she would not uphold; that “impeachment is off the table.”
That statement, a violation of her oath of office, was a political calculation to secure her rise to power. Rather than raising her to greater power, it should have been just cause to remove her from the office she held at the time. But such is the degree of corruption that our government has descended to that it achieved its calculated effect.
It also turned an abusive president loose to engage in even more blatantly open dishonesty, abuse of “executive privilege” and secrecy, and thuggish foreign policy, secure in the knowledge that he could not, would not be called to account.
And so George W. Bush will complete his term and retire to his sybaritic life of retirement, building a library as a monument to his own self image. And a country will be forever tarnished and shamed by his term in office, having failed to stop his crimes.
Congress didn’t have the will, and we were just too busy shopping.
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
The worker is worthy...
If you’ve read this blog very long you know that I am pro-union, and quite strongly but not blindly so. I don’t support union activity that is abusive to either business or the customers they serve, but that is a rare instance and I support unions in the absence of evidence that such abuse is taking place. When in doubt, I’m going to lean toward the union.
I’ve been reading articles about the Writers Guild for quite a few days now and some of them are expressing hope that the “public will support our cause” while others quite frankly say that they don’t think the public will support them and don’t really care. The consensus among writers seems to be that those of us who are not writers are a bit too stupid to fully understand their cause. The articles which explain the cause universally do so in a rather condescending manner.
All of which doesn’t really draw me to their cause very much.
The issue seems to be with “residuals” which is a deal whereby once you’ve written a script and been paid by the studio for writing it because you were drawing a salary, you then get paid again every time the show is seen by an audience, even if that audience is one person in the privacy of their home.
Something like the “royalties” that a book writer gets when a book is sold.
Except that a book writer doesn’t get paid for writing the book to begin with. And a book takes an enormously longer amount of time and energy to write than does a script for a half-hour show. And a book author doesn’t get paid every time someone reads the book, only when they buy it. And the author doesn’t get paid when someone buys a used book, only when someone buys a new book.
One writer’s article contained the following, in response to a commenter’s question,
"When an engineer develops a product for a company should the engineer receive compensation each time the company figures out a new market for the product or a new application for the product ?"
This is a fair question, but it employs a truly dunderheaded example. An engineer does receive additional compensation when a company finds a new application for the product he created. This is called "owning a patent."
See what I mean about the condescension?
I can think of no industry that gives its engineers the patents on products they create while working on a salary. Engineers do not receive additional compensation, because they do not hold the patent. The engineer receives his salary and nothing else. The “dunderhead” here is not the person who posed the example, but the arrogant writer who rebutted it.
One writer’s article complained that there were very few jobs for writers and as a result they were unemployed a lot. Um, there are even fewer jobs for astronauts, so people who don’t get those openings are forced to get jobs doing something else. I just was stunned by that argument. Because you are able to write scripts you are therefore unable to do anything else?
As a computer programmer, when I created a product while working for hire to another company, the company I was working for owned the copyright on the material that I created. That is a standard of practice that has been tested in courts in every state and has held up. I was happy with it. I would set a price, I did the work, they paid me, and I moved on to the next job.
It did mean, of course, that I had to keep working. I guess it would be nice if I could do one or two jobs and then keep getting paid for them for the rest of my life without having to work again. That seems to be what the writers want, and I’m not sympathetic to it. It’s the “win the lottery” syndrome.
As a “Great American Dream” that one sucks.
Actual numbers are hard to come by, but it appears that “upper tier” writers make an average salary of $200,000 per year, while “lower tier” writers have to get by on a mere $100,000. The writer of the article claimed that those numbers should be double that because “industry can afford it.” Notice that the writer is not considering what the writers are worth, merely how much they can coerce out of “the industry.”
From that same article, once their job ends the existing residual structure kicks in, and the lower tier writers are living at a “subsistence” level, which implies that the upper tier writers are probably not hurting. I also wonder what the writer considers subsistence to be, given that he believes those salaries to be inadequate.
How many of you non-writers get an permanent ongoing salary, subsistence or otherwise, when you get fired from your job? Yeah, I didn’t think so.
I’m just not feeling any sympathy for the union, here. Their articles are adding to the distance, because they come across as superior, arrogant snobs who want to be rewarded disproportionately to their task. I started my investigation with a tendency to be on their side, and wound up simply disliking them and not supporting their “cause” which strikes me simply as nothing other than greed.
Everywhere else, in the "real world," people either eschew an intial salary against a share of future income, or they accept a salary in return for their work and their employer who took the risk enjoys the future income. The writers want to "have their cake and eat it too." They want to draw a handsome salary for the work they do, and still enjoy the future income. They want future gain without taking the present risk.
The worker is worthy of his hire. Not largess.
I’ve been reading articles about the Writers Guild for quite a few days now and some of them are expressing hope that the “public will support our cause” while others quite frankly say that they don’t think the public will support them and don’t really care. The consensus among writers seems to be that those of us who are not writers are a bit too stupid to fully understand their cause. The articles which explain the cause universally do so in a rather condescending manner.
All of which doesn’t really draw me to their cause very much.
The issue seems to be with “residuals” which is a deal whereby once you’ve written a script and been paid by the studio for writing it because you were drawing a salary, you then get paid again every time the show is seen by an audience, even if that audience is one person in the privacy of their home.
Something like the “royalties” that a book writer gets when a book is sold.
Except that a book writer doesn’t get paid for writing the book to begin with. And a book takes an enormously longer amount of time and energy to write than does a script for a half-hour show. And a book author doesn’t get paid every time someone reads the book, only when they buy it. And the author doesn’t get paid when someone buys a used book, only when someone buys a new book.
One writer’s article contained the following, in response to a commenter’s question,
"When an engineer develops a product for a company should the engineer receive compensation each time the company figures out a new market for the product or a new application for the product ?"
This is a fair question, but it employs a truly dunderheaded example. An engineer does receive additional compensation when a company finds a new application for the product he created. This is called "owning a patent."
See what I mean about the condescension?
I can think of no industry that gives its engineers the patents on products they create while working on a salary. Engineers do not receive additional compensation, because they do not hold the patent. The engineer receives his salary and nothing else. The “dunderhead” here is not the person who posed the example, but the arrogant writer who rebutted it.
One writer’s article complained that there were very few jobs for writers and as a result they were unemployed a lot. Um, there are even fewer jobs for astronauts, so people who don’t get those openings are forced to get jobs doing something else. I just was stunned by that argument. Because you are able to write scripts you are therefore unable to do anything else?
As a computer programmer, when I created a product while working for hire to another company, the company I was working for owned the copyright on the material that I created. That is a standard of practice that has been tested in courts in every state and has held up. I was happy with it. I would set a price, I did the work, they paid me, and I moved on to the next job.
It did mean, of course, that I had to keep working. I guess it would be nice if I could do one or two jobs and then keep getting paid for them for the rest of my life without having to work again. That seems to be what the writers want, and I’m not sympathetic to it. It’s the “win the lottery” syndrome.
As a “Great American Dream” that one sucks.
Actual numbers are hard to come by, but it appears that “upper tier” writers make an average salary of $200,000 per year, while “lower tier” writers have to get by on a mere $100,000. The writer of the article claimed that those numbers should be double that because “industry can afford it.” Notice that the writer is not considering what the writers are worth, merely how much they can coerce out of “the industry.”
From that same article, once their job ends the existing residual structure kicks in, and the lower tier writers are living at a “subsistence” level, which implies that the upper tier writers are probably not hurting. I also wonder what the writer considers subsistence to be, given that he believes those salaries to be inadequate.
How many of you non-writers get an permanent ongoing salary, subsistence or otherwise, when you get fired from your job? Yeah, I didn’t think so.
I’m just not feeling any sympathy for the union, here. Their articles are adding to the distance, because they come across as superior, arrogant snobs who want to be rewarded disproportionately to their task. I started my investigation with a tendency to be on their side, and wound up simply disliking them and not supporting their “cause” which strikes me simply as nothing other than greed.
Everywhere else, in the "real world," people either eschew an intial salary against a share of future income, or they accept a salary in return for their work and their employer who took the risk enjoys the future income. The writers want to "have their cake and eat it too." They want to draw a handsome salary for the work they do, and still enjoy the future income. They want future gain without taking the present risk.
The worker is worthy of his hire. Not largess.
Monday, November 05, 2007
Football Follies
I don't usually go in for "I told you so" but...
Vikings 35, Chargers 17, but don’t let that deceive you; the game was nowhere near that close. One of the Chargers’ touchdowns was a missed field goal by the Vikings returned 109 yards, and the Vikings fumbled the ball away twice inside the Chargers 20-yard line. It could quite easily have been a 49-10 score.
All and sundry were crowing about last week’s blowout over Houston. Go back and read what I wrote. I was unimpressed by 21 offensive points against a second-rate team, and I stated that I saw this loss coming. (I did not think it would be quite this humiliating.) Nick Canepa claimed they did not run up the score on Houston because Norv Turner is too much of a gentleman. I claimed it was because the locals didn't have the horsepower to do so. After this week's debacle, what do you think?
Someone should get Philip Rivers a MRI to see if he has a brain tumor or something. I can count on my thumbs the number of passes he threw accurately. Yes, sometimes he was pressured, but even when he had time to step into the throw he was missing receivers that were wide open.
It’s hard to believe how a team with this much talent can play this poorly.
Or is, perhaps, the degree of talent overstated?
One thing of note, Tom Powers reports in an article in the Pioneer Press of Minneapolis, that Philip Rivers may have actually fueled the debacle.
"He started talking trash, and it got us going a little bit," Sharper [Vikings defensive back] said. "I like it when a quarterback talks to us."
Powers goes on to say that he doesn’t think that it was Rivers’ trash talking that caused the rout, but points out that certainly Rivers' performance was, shall we say, less than stellar.
My point is that when you are on the field performing in a second rate manner, it’s probably a good idea to keep your big mouth shut. It’s also a good idea not to start thinking you are Superman just because you whipped up last week on a team with a losing record.
Maybe I'll point out here that Brees was 35-49 (71%) yesterday for New Orleans, for 449 yards and 3 touchdowns, with 0 interceptions.
Vikings 35, Chargers 17, but don’t let that deceive you; the game was nowhere near that close. One of the Chargers’ touchdowns was a missed field goal by the Vikings returned 109 yards, and the Vikings fumbled the ball away twice inside the Chargers 20-yard line. It could quite easily have been a 49-10 score.
All and sundry were crowing about last week’s blowout over Houston. Go back and read what I wrote. I was unimpressed by 21 offensive points against a second-rate team, and I stated that I saw this loss coming. (I did not think it would be quite this humiliating.) Nick Canepa claimed they did not run up the score on Houston because Norv Turner is too much of a gentleman. I claimed it was because the locals didn't have the horsepower to do so. After this week's debacle, what do you think?
Someone should get Philip Rivers a MRI to see if he has a brain tumor or something. I can count on my thumbs the number of passes he threw accurately. Yes, sometimes he was pressured, but even when he had time to step into the throw he was missing receivers that were wide open.
It’s hard to believe how a team with this much talent can play this poorly.
Or is, perhaps, the degree of talent overstated?
One thing of note, Tom Powers reports in an article in the Pioneer Press of Minneapolis, that Philip Rivers may have actually fueled the debacle.
"He started talking trash, and it got us going a little bit," Sharper [Vikings defensive back] said. "I like it when a quarterback talks to us."
Powers goes on to say that he doesn’t think that it was Rivers’ trash talking that caused the rout, but points out that certainly Rivers' performance was, shall we say, less than stellar.
My point is that when you are on the field performing in a second rate manner, it’s probably a good idea to keep your big mouth shut. It’s also a good idea not to start thinking you are Superman just because you whipped up last week on a team with a losing record.
Maybe I'll point out here that Brees was 35-49 (71%) yesterday for New Orleans, for 449 yards and 3 touchdowns, with 0 interceptions.
Sunday, November 04, 2007
Political Parties
The following is a comment to a post at The Belgravia Dispatch about the Mukasey nomination. Bruce Moomaw commented in response to an exchange between two other commenters which a) said that the constitution was formed with the impression that political parties would not exist, followed by a comment that asked b) did such parties not form in any case almost immediately?
Emphasis, where it exists below, has been added by me.
Posted by: Bruce Moomaw, November 3, 2007
Yes indeed [political parties did form] -- about a week after the new government was up and running. It startled and alarmed the hell out of them, but they quickly realized there was little they could do about it -- despite the fact that they had previously written interminably about how the formation of political parties was an extremely dangerous and destructive trend in any democracy.
And, unfortunately, a great many of the "defenses against tyranny" that they wrote into the Constitution were based entirely on the assumption that political parties would not exist -- and became partially or wholly useless when they did. For instance, the Framers assumed that it would be very easy to get 2/3 of the Senate together to impeach and remove an overbearing President from office -- because he would have no party allies in the Senate to block such a move. When George Mason objected to giving the President unlimited pardoning power on the grounds that he might use it to cover up his own crimes by pardoning crooked underlings, Madison replied that the Senate would surely immediately impeach and remove any President who acted in such a suspicious manner. Surprise, James!
In fact, that mistake of theirs came within a hair of destroying the US twice in its first two decades -- once when the Presidential election system jammed up in 1800 because it had been designed on the assumption that parties would not exist (we were within three days of Inauguration Day, and a civil war, when Adams finally decided to compromise and allow Jefferson) to be officially selected); and once because the Framers had actually assumed that the Nonpartisan Congress would be the final arbiter of the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of laws -- they created the Supreme Court literally as a minor afterthought during the last few days of the Convention. Naturally, after the partisanship of Congress threatened disaster on this front, the acceptance of the "Marbury vs. Madison" decision making the Court the final arbiter of constitutionality instead was necessary, as the final emergency software patch to make the US system of government work (sort of) until now.
But a great deal of our supposed Success Due To The Brilliance of Our Constitution has really just been due to long-time non-legal, informal consensus by the political parties on the limits of their behavior -- and since Bush's entry into the White House, that consensus has been starting to unravel. (I've always suspected that a lot of this was due to the advice of Newt Gingrich -- who, as a political scientist, must know all the weak points in the Constitution that can allow one party to seize semi-dictatorial power -- but I admit that I have no direct evidence of this.) Consider, for instance, the possible ultimate consequences of allowing the Attorney General to be the President's wholly controllable poodle dog (especially when the majority in Congress is also on his side). Or that sinister little clause in Article 3, Section 2 allowing Congress to strip the Supreme Court of its power to review the constitutionality of any law (with a few specialized exceptions) whenever it chooses -- a potential stick of dynamite planted right in the foundations of American democracy, which I believe no one had ever utilized in US history UNTIL the GOP Congress used it to strip detainees of their right to launch civil suits.
Emphasis, where it exists below, has been added by me.
Posted by: Bruce Moomaw, November 3, 2007
Yes indeed [political parties did form] -- about a week after the new government was up and running. It startled and alarmed the hell out of them, but they quickly realized there was little they could do about it -- despite the fact that they had previously written interminably about how the formation of political parties was an extremely dangerous and destructive trend in any democracy.
And, unfortunately, a great many of the "defenses against tyranny" that they wrote into the Constitution were based entirely on the assumption that political parties would not exist -- and became partially or wholly useless when they did. For instance, the Framers assumed that it would be very easy to get 2/3 of the Senate together to impeach and remove an overbearing President from office -- because he would have no party allies in the Senate to block such a move. When George Mason objected to giving the President unlimited pardoning power on the grounds that he might use it to cover up his own crimes by pardoning crooked underlings, Madison replied that the Senate would surely immediately impeach and remove any President who acted in such a suspicious manner. Surprise, James!
In fact, that mistake of theirs came within a hair of destroying the US twice in its first two decades -- once when the Presidential election system jammed up in 1800 because it had been designed on the assumption that parties would not exist (we were within three days of Inauguration Day, and a civil war, when Adams finally decided to compromise and allow Jefferson) to be officially selected); and once because the Framers had actually assumed that the Nonpartisan Congress would be the final arbiter of the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of laws -- they created the Supreme Court literally as a minor afterthought during the last few days of the Convention. Naturally, after the partisanship of Congress threatened disaster on this front, the acceptance of the "Marbury vs. Madison" decision making the Court the final arbiter of constitutionality instead was necessary, as the final emergency software patch to make the US system of government work (sort of) until now.
But a great deal of our supposed Success Due To The Brilliance of Our Constitution has really just been due to long-time non-legal, informal consensus by the political parties on the limits of their behavior -- and since Bush's entry into the White House, that consensus has been starting to unravel. (I've always suspected that a lot of this was due to the advice of Newt Gingrich -- who, as a political scientist, must know all the weak points in the Constitution that can allow one party to seize semi-dictatorial power -- but I admit that I have no direct evidence of this.) Consider, for instance, the possible ultimate consequences of allowing the Attorney General to be the President's wholly controllable poodle dog (especially when the majority in Congress is also on his side). Or that sinister little clause in Article 3, Section 2 allowing Congress to strip the Supreme Court of its power to review the constitutionality of any law (with a few specialized exceptions) whenever it chooses -- a potential stick of dynamite planted right in the foundations of American democracy, which I believe no one had ever utilized in US history UNTIL the GOP Congress used it to strip detainees of their right to launch civil suits.
Saturday, November 03, 2007
Advise and Consent
The presidential election has become much more important. In confirming the latest nominee for Attorney General, the Senate is rendering itself irrelevant and the election amounts now to electing a monarch to rule this country for the next four years.
I was going to wait until Mukasey was actually confirmed before writing about this confirmation, as I had some small hope that it might not happen. But I really knew that it was just wishful thinking.
I’m actually disappointed that the issue which nearly derailed the nomination was his refusal to define waterboarding as illegal. While that issue richly deserved disqualification, to me there were two other issues, even larger, that should have thrown the nomination not only off of the tracks but completely into a ditch.
At some point this Congress simply must stand up to this president’s bullying and browbeating and do it’s damned job, which is oversight. The constitution does not merely allow Congress to act as a check on the Executive, it requires Congress to do so and Congress is failing utterly to fulfill that responsibility. Part of the “advise and consent” clause is the ability not only to say “No” but to say, “Oh, hell no.”
The other issue is a statement made earlier by Mukasey in the confirmation hearings. I cannot find the quote now because the fulmination over his stand on waterboarding has drowned the earlier hearings, but it went something like this in response to being asked if it was okay for the president to violate the law,
“That would depend,” he responded, “on whether or not the act which was outside the law fell within the president’s authority to defend the United States.”
In other words, “Yes.”
What presidential candidate is making any kind of pledge to respect the role of Congress once they are elected to this nation’s highest office? Forget having Congress retake that role on its own initiave; regardless of the party holding the majority, it has clearly demonstrated that it does not have what it will take to do that. Restoring the balance of power that is written into our constitution is going to have to be done by a future president, and no leading candidate of either party is even talking about doing that.
Chris Dodd speaks of restoring the constitution, but he’s got about as much change of becoming president as I do.
There is little hope that we can escape the corrupt form of government into which this country has devolved. What I will do is try with all of the pathetically limited means that are at my disposal. I will protest in posts on my blog, and I will vote against every incumbent in every election regardless of party.
I was going to wait until Mukasey was actually confirmed before writing about this confirmation, as I had some small hope that it might not happen. But I really knew that it was just wishful thinking.
I’m actually disappointed that the issue which nearly derailed the nomination was his refusal to define waterboarding as illegal. While that issue richly deserved disqualification, to me there were two other issues, even larger, that should have thrown the nomination not only off of the tracks but completely into a ditch.
At some point this Congress simply must stand up to this president’s bullying and browbeating and do it’s damned job, which is oversight. The constitution does not merely allow Congress to act as a check on the Executive, it requires Congress to do so and Congress is failing utterly to fulfill that responsibility. Part of the “advise and consent” clause is the ability not only to say “No” but to say, “Oh, hell no.”
The other issue is a statement made earlier by Mukasey in the confirmation hearings. I cannot find the quote now because the fulmination over his stand on waterboarding has drowned the earlier hearings, but it went something like this in response to being asked if it was okay for the president to violate the law,
“That would depend,” he responded, “on whether or not the act which was outside the law fell within the president’s authority to defend the United States.”
In other words, “Yes.”
What presidential candidate is making any kind of pledge to respect the role of Congress once they are elected to this nation’s highest office? Forget having Congress retake that role on its own initiave; regardless of the party holding the majority, it has clearly demonstrated that it does not have what it will take to do that. Restoring the balance of power that is written into our constitution is going to have to be done by a future president, and no leading candidate of either party is even talking about doing that.
Chris Dodd speaks of restoring the constitution, but he’s got about as much change of becoming president as I do.
There is little hope that we can escape the corrupt form of government into which this country has devolved. What I will do is try with all of the pathetically limited means that are at my disposal. I will protest in posts on my blog, and I will vote against every incumbent in every election regardless of party.
Friday, November 02, 2007
A Civilized Nation
Civilized: adj: Showing evidence of moral and intellectual advancement; humane, ethical, and reasonable.
This is beginning to freak me out. How many governments in the world have discussions about torturing prisoners, with the leadership insisting that they be permitted to do so?
One. My country is that one.
I could be okay with the discussion if it was a short one and ended with the executive being told that torture was “off the table.” But the argument has been ongoing for more than four years, the executive will not take ‘no’ for an answer, and a significant portion of the country supports him.
Other countries use torture, but they don’t talk about it because they are countries with totalitarian governments over which the citizens have no influence or control.
Fully democratic countries don’t use torture and don’t talk about wanting to do so, because their governments are sufficiently responsive to the people that the leaders know that the civilized population will throw them out of office for even suggesting it.
This country’s leadership plays the fear card.
By making the people whom they supposedly serve sufficiently afraid, the leaders of this county actually reduce the level of civilization that the nation enjoys. The more afraid a population becomes the more the “lizard brain” takes control, and civilization breaks down.
The justification for torture is always, “I’m doing it to keep my country safe.” But there is no proof whatever that it does so, and considerable evidence to the contrary. What torture is really about is a gut-level reaction to terrible fear and a step in the breakdown of civilization.
George Washington, founding founder of our country, on torture:
"Torture is a terrible and monstrous thing, as degrading and morally corrupting to those who practice it as any conceivable human activity…"
Not just the person, it degrades the country as well. I want to weep.
This is beginning to freak me out. How many governments in the world have discussions about torturing prisoners, with the leadership insisting that they be permitted to do so?
One. My country is that one.
I could be okay with the discussion if it was a short one and ended with the executive being told that torture was “off the table.” But the argument has been ongoing for more than four years, the executive will not take ‘no’ for an answer, and a significant portion of the country supports him.
Other countries use torture, but they don’t talk about it because they are countries with totalitarian governments over which the citizens have no influence or control.
Fully democratic countries don’t use torture and don’t talk about wanting to do so, because their governments are sufficiently responsive to the people that the leaders know that the civilized population will throw them out of office for even suggesting it.
This country’s leadership plays the fear card.
By making the people whom they supposedly serve sufficiently afraid, the leaders of this county actually reduce the level of civilization that the nation enjoys. The more afraid a population becomes the more the “lizard brain” takes control, and civilization breaks down.
The justification for torture is always, “I’m doing it to keep my country safe.” But there is no proof whatever that it does so, and considerable evidence to the contrary. What torture is really about is a gut-level reaction to terrible fear and a step in the breakdown of civilization.
George Washington, founding founder of our country, on torture:
"Torture is a terrible and monstrous thing, as degrading and morally corrupting to those who practice it as any conceivable human activity…"
Not just the person, it degrades the country as well. I want to weep.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
California Kid (updated)
Oops, my bad.
My grandniece is turning seven six, and there is a family gathering next weekend to celebrate this momentous event. (Hopefully the air will have improved by then, as it is still not very breathable for those of us with emphysema.) (Note, it has.)
I’m looking forward to it, as Makena and her little sister, Malia, are quite a pair. They are phenomenons in quantum mechanics; something like photons, which if they ever fall below a certain velocity cease to exist. It takes two people to report Malia’s movement, one to say “Here she comes,” and another to say “There she goes.” I laugh a lot when I’m around them.
Makena was given the choice of venue this year. Asked what’s her very favorite restaurant, one might guess McDonalds or Chucky Cheese, right? No indeedy, she chose Rubio’s. For those who don’t know, that is a chain founded by a local entrepreneur which is famous for fish tacos. No, it has no playground. She just loves Rubio’s. People who move away from San Diego bemoan the loss of Rubio’s, so I can understand, but at age seven six…
So next weekend I’m going to Rubio’s for fish tacos and a seven six-year-old’s birthday party with three generations of family.
Eat your heart out.
I got a very nice email from Makena's Mom, not correcting my error but simply confirming the date and place for her 6th birthday party. There were no underlines or italics, either. I also noticed that she spelled my grandneice's name with but one 'n' in it. Crap. Sometimes when I look like
a fool it's because I am one.
My grandniece is turning seven six, and there is a family gathering next weekend to celebrate this momentous event. (Hopefully the air will have improved by then, as it is still not very breathable for those of us with emphysema.) (Note, it has.)
I’m looking forward to it, as Makena and her little sister, Malia, are quite a pair. They are phenomenons in quantum mechanics; something like photons, which if they ever fall below a certain velocity cease to exist. It takes two people to report Malia’s movement, one to say “Here she comes,” and another to say “There she goes.” I laugh a lot when I’m around them.
Makena was given the choice of venue this year. Asked what’s her very favorite restaurant, one might guess McDonalds or Chucky Cheese, right? No indeedy, she chose Rubio’s. For those who don’t know, that is a chain founded by a local entrepreneur which is famous for fish tacos. No, it has no playground. She just loves Rubio’s. People who move away from San Diego bemoan the loss of Rubio’s, so I can understand, but at age seven six…
So next weekend I’m going to Rubio’s for fish tacos and a seven six-year-old’s birthday party with three generations of family.
Eat your heart out.
I got a very nice email from Makena's Mom, not correcting my error but simply confirming the date and place for her 6th birthday party. There were no underlines or italics, either. I also noticed that she spelled my grandneice's name with but one 'n' in it. Crap. Sometimes when I look like
a fool it's because I am one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)