Pundits and news reporters keep saying that there is no really significant difference between the two Democratic candidates, that either of them will make a wonderful, awesome president, and that all we need to do is elect a Democrat to the highest office in the land and all will be well. It matters not the least who that Democrat is, as long as he/she is a Democrat.
And I have a piece of land in Florida for you, ocean view...
There is one single, factual historical difference between Obama and Clinton. It is significant and telling and it is getting far too little attention from anyone. Both of them attended and graduated from prestigious law schools. It's what they did upon graduation that catches my attention.
Clinton joined a high-powered law firm and began litigating on behalf of a corporate clientele. Obama went to South Side Chicago and worked as a community organizer and civil rights attorney on behalf of people who had lost their jobs when steel mills closed.
Which one do you believe will best embody the principle of "government for the people" if elected president? I know which one I believe will do so.
Sunday, March 02, 2008
Saturday, March 01, 2008
Abuse of Power 2
I have posted earlier about John McCain's connection to the "Keating Five" scandal, and more recent similar contacts with regulatory agencies on behalf of campaign contributors. The blog Think Progress has more today,
"He simply wanted them to make a decision" does not let McCain off the hook. Even assuming that it is true, pressuring them to make a decision constitutes pressure even when he does not specify what decision he wants. What part of that is not clear? Paxon's business was being harmed by the delay and McCain was pressuring the FCC to end the delay.
Read the entire post linked above. McCain's influence peddling was not limited to that one campaign contributor. He also wrote letters in behalf of BellSouth, Ameritech, AT&T, Sprint, MCI Worldcom, SBC, and Echostar.
All of this would be bad under any circumstances, but coming from someone who claims to be a champion against the influence of lobbyists it is especially disgusting.
In 1999, McCain wrote two controversial letters to the FCC on behalf of broadcaster and campaign contributor Lowell “Bud” Paxson. He urged the commissioners to make a “rapid decision on Paxson’s quest to acquire a Pittsburgh television station.” McCain had flown on Paxson’s corporate jet on four occasions, and received $28,000 in contributions from Paxson and his law firm.
McCain has insisted that his letter-writing had nothing to do with Paxson. In fact, he claimed that he wasn’t even on Paxson’s side; he simply wanted the FCC to make a decision.
"He simply wanted them to make a decision" does not let McCain off the hook. Even assuming that it is true, pressuring them to make a decision constitutes pressure even when he does not specify what decision he wants. What part of that is not clear? Paxon's business was being harmed by the delay and McCain was pressuring the FCC to end the delay.
Read the entire post linked above. McCain's influence peddling was not limited to that one campaign contributor. He also wrote letters in behalf of BellSouth, Ameritech, AT&T, Sprint, MCI Worldcom, SBC, and Echostar.
All of this would be bad under any circumstances, but coming from someone who claims to be a champion against the influence of lobbyists it is especially disgusting.
Road Hazard
You might need more than four-wheel-drive for this.
You think California home prices are dropping?
And you choose today to forget to bring marshmallows. More
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Trivial Debate
Last debate? I hope so. This was even more lame than its predecessors.
When a “debate” is reduced to one of the participants sarcastically complaining about getting the first question and offering her opponent a pillow…
That was more easily tolerated than the utterly absurd “gotcha” questions asked by Russert. “If Al Queda established a base would you reinvade…” I’m surprised he did not ask “Have you yet stopped beating your wife?”
The thing I found most offensive came from Senator Clinton, who decries the sexism card being played by others. Obviously Senator Obama cannot say “If I am elected I will be the first Black president so I can change the things that get done and who gets to do them.” But she can say that about being the first woman president.
She’s certainly not one to seek a level playing field. And I do rather wish she would be more specific about what it is that she is going to let women do after she is elected. As a man, I find her promise a little bit frightening. My wife is a charter member of the National Organization of Women, so I'm used to that sort of thing to a degree, but coming from the White House...
And… Did she just promise an all-female administration?
Back to Russert's atrocity. I extracted the following from a letter posted at Eric Alterman's Media Matters blog.
So. Obama has to anyone's knowledge never said a kind or complimentary word about Farrakhan. A magazine which was formerly part of Obama's church, but no longer is, gave an award to Farrakhan and part of the award citation says that the recipient "truly epitomized greatness." Somehow that translates in Tim Russert's little brain to an assumption, which must be three times denounced by Obama, that Obama believes that Farrakhan "epitomizes greatness."
No wonder Bush & Co. rely on Russert to disseminate bullfeathers.
When a “debate” is reduced to one of the participants sarcastically complaining about getting the first question and offering her opponent a pillow…
That was more easily tolerated than the utterly absurd “gotcha” questions asked by Russert. “If Al Queda established a base would you reinvade…” I’m surprised he did not ask “Have you yet stopped beating your wife?”
The thing I found most offensive came from Senator Clinton, who decries the sexism card being played by others. Obviously Senator Obama cannot say “If I am elected I will be the first Black president so I can change the things that get done and who gets to do them.” But she can say that about being the first woman president.
She’s certainly not one to seek a level playing field. And I do rather wish she would be more specific about what it is that she is going to let women do after she is elected. As a man, I find her promise a little bit frightening. My wife is a charter member of the National Organization of Women, so I'm used to that sort of thing to a degree, but coming from the White House...
And… Did she just promise an all-female administration?
Back to Russert's atrocity. I extracted the following from a letter posted at Eric Alterman's Media Matters blog.
But plenty of time for a three-rail shot about Obama, his pastor, and Farrakhan, whose name I swear I have not heard twice in the past decade. (Marty Peretz hears it through the fillings in his teeth, but that's another matter.) That stuff was truly rank. What in the name of god does the relationship of Obama's pastor to Louis Farrakhan have to do with being president of the United States? (...) The only reason to bring up Farrakhan was to play the Scary Negro card. At this point the lines between hackery and shillery form a perfect right angle and stretch on to infinity. And, by the way, it would help MSNBC's campaign to become the Scourge Of Public Bigots if it didn't keep putting Pat Buchanan on my TV screen every 11 seconds.
And all of this was coming from an alleged tough-guy who admitted to Bill Moyers that he got suckered on Iraq because NOBODY CALLED HIM. A guy who anyway said under oath that, if a government official calls him, he presumes the conversation is off the record. A guy of whom the vice-president's aide said under oath that his show was the administration's best platform for launching bullsh*t into the media stratosphere.
(...)
Tim took his cue from Richard Cohen in the Washington Post column:Barack Obama is a member of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. Its minister, and Obama's spiritual adviser, is the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. In 1982, the church launched Trumpet Newsmagazine; Wright's daughters serve as publisher and executive editor. Every year, the magazine makes awards in various categories. Last year, it gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said "truly epitomized greatness." That man is Louis Farrakhan.
Except, Tim got the facts wrong on top of it. Wright didn't say Farrakhan epitomized greatness, that was a part of the Trumpet Magazine award to Farrakhan. Wright is the CEO of the magazine, but his daughter Jeri is the publisher. While those ties might be relevant, it's very different from Jeremiah Wright saying that. And, in fact, the magazine split off from the congregation in September of 2005.
So. Obama has to anyone's knowledge never said a kind or complimentary word about Farrakhan. A magazine which was formerly part of Obama's church, but no longer is, gave an award to Farrakhan and part of the award citation says that the recipient "truly epitomized greatness." Somehow that translates in Tim Russert's little brain to an assumption, which must be three times denounced by Obama, that Obama believes that Farrakhan "epitomizes greatness."
No wonder Bush & Co. rely on Russert to disseminate bullfeathers.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Fear of Failure
The greatest fear is not that we will be inadequate.
The greatest fear is that within us lies greatness,
and that we will not live up to it.
The greatest fear is that within us lies greatness,
and that we will not live up to it.
Health Care Plans
Well, last night I listened to one more endless lengthy long, drawn out argument discussion on the relative merits of the health care plans being touted by the two Democratic candidates for president. I’m not sure why these two feel the need to argue so passionately over plans which differ in such minor ways and which offer so little benefit to the people of this country. These plans consist of putting two slightly different shades of lipstick on a very ugly pig.
Deductibles. Copays. “Reasonable and customary.” Pre-existing.
If you don’t know what any of these terms mean it’s because you live in a country where health care is provided, rather than one where health insurance is the norm. The two terms get used interchangeably these days, but they are by no means the same thing and, in fact, they are in many ways in opposition.
Health care is the prevention and treatment of illness and injury.
Health insurance is where you pay money while you are not sick to not get health care when you are sick. Because you had to first pay the deductible, and you were without funds at the moment. Because the copay was more than you could afford right now. Because the specialist you needed to see charged more than the “reasonable and customary rate” as determined by the insurance company.
Health insurance is where you enter into a contract with a corporation that you will pay a monthly premium and they will then pay for the health care that you need. You keep your end of the contract and they frequently do not. Instead of demanding that they treat you as the customer that you are when that happens, you beg and plead with them to grant you some sort of largesse.
No country in the world spends more on the treatment of illness and injury and gets less for their money, and the reason is health insurance.
My father used to say, “Don’t piss in my ear and tell me it’s raining.”
Well right now we have Obama pissing in our one ear and Clinton in our other ear and they are chanting in unison, “Whoo hoo, it’s raining and I have a better umbrella.”
Both candidates say their plans offer universal health care and both candidates are lying because both plans address universal health insurance and not universal health care. Under both plans it will remain true that in this country you will not get health care unless you can pay for it, either in cash or by means of an insurance policy. An insurance policy, please note, which you were able to pay for so either way money rules.
Both plans offer subsidies to help pay for the cost of health insurance, but that money comes from the pockets of the taxpayers so I fail to see how that is helping the taxpayers. Both plans claim to have measures to reduce the cost of insurance, but the specifics are unclear and enforcement of market controls by government has always been suspect at best.
Neither plan makes the slightest attempt to reduce the actual cost of providing health care and, in fact, both plans increase that cost by increasing the degree of regulation with a resulting increase in administrative overhead at the medical provider level.
Both plans provide enormous reward to the insurance industry: more insurance plans sold, more health care denied, more profit.
Both plans are, at best, incremental changes to a failing system.
When Hyman G. Rickover was proposing to power submarines with nuclear reactors he ran into serious opposition from conventional thinkers. He called them “oxcart planners” because he said that if they had prevailed throughout history we would still be fighting land battles with armor-plated oxcarts instead of tanks. He didn’t just change the way the submarine service was powered, though, he changed its fundamental nature.
Diesel-electric submarines were not true submarines at all, but merely ships that could submerge for limited periods. A program known as GUPPY in the 60's and 70's extended underwater periods for small percentages at a huge expense, but they were still merely ships that could submerge for limited periods. Not until Rickover rammed the nuclear power plant down the throats of the "armored oxcart" crowd did we have a true submarine - a ship that was in its element submerged.
Incremental change yields, at best, small improvement at large cost. For fundamental difference one needs to implement fundamental change.
The way health care is managed in this country needs a Hyman Rickover. We need to rid ourselves of “oxcart planners” and engage in fundamental change. We need to eliminate health insurance from health care planning in America, and start taking care of our citizens instead of rewarding our corporations.
Deductibles. Copays. “Reasonable and customary.” Pre-existing.
If you don’t know what any of these terms mean it’s because you live in a country where health care is provided, rather than one where health insurance is the norm. The two terms get used interchangeably these days, but they are by no means the same thing and, in fact, they are in many ways in opposition.
Health care is the prevention and treatment of illness and injury.
Health insurance is where you pay money while you are not sick to not get health care when you are sick. Because you had to first pay the deductible, and you were without funds at the moment. Because the copay was more than you could afford right now. Because the specialist you needed to see charged more than the “reasonable and customary rate” as determined by the insurance company.
Health insurance is where you enter into a contract with a corporation that you will pay a monthly premium and they will then pay for the health care that you need. You keep your end of the contract and they frequently do not. Instead of demanding that they treat you as the customer that you are when that happens, you beg and plead with them to grant you some sort of largesse.
No country in the world spends more on the treatment of illness and injury and gets less for their money, and the reason is health insurance.
My father used to say, “Don’t piss in my ear and tell me it’s raining.”
Well right now we have Obama pissing in our one ear and Clinton in our other ear and they are chanting in unison, “Whoo hoo, it’s raining and I have a better umbrella.”
Both candidates say their plans offer universal health care and both candidates are lying because both plans address universal health insurance and not universal health care. Under both plans it will remain true that in this country you will not get health care unless you can pay for it, either in cash or by means of an insurance policy. An insurance policy, please note, which you were able to pay for so either way money rules.
Both plans offer subsidies to help pay for the cost of health insurance, but that money comes from the pockets of the taxpayers so I fail to see how that is helping the taxpayers. Both plans claim to have measures to reduce the cost of insurance, but the specifics are unclear and enforcement of market controls by government has always been suspect at best.
Neither plan makes the slightest attempt to reduce the actual cost of providing health care and, in fact, both plans increase that cost by increasing the degree of regulation with a resulting increase in administrative overhead at the medical provider level.
Both plans provide enormous reward to the insurance industry: more insurance plans sold, more health care denied, more profit.
Both plans are, at best, incremental changes to a failing system.
When Hyman G. Rickover was proposing to power submarines with nuclear reactors he ran into serious opposition from conventional thinkers. He called them “oxcart planners” because he said that if they had prevailed throughout history we would still be fighting land battles with armor-plated oxcarts instead of tanks. He didn’t just change the way the submarine service was powered, though, he changed its fundamental nature.
Diesel-electric submarines were not true submarines at all, but merely ships that could submerge for limited periods. A program known as GUPPY in the 60's and 70's extended underwater periods for small percentages at a huge expense, but they were still merely ships that could submerge for limited periods. Not until Rickover rammed the nuclear power plant down the throats of the "armored oxcart" crowd did we have a true submarine - a ship that was in its element submerged.
Incremental change yields, at best, small improvement at large cost. For fundamental difference one needs to implement fundamental change.
The way health care is managed in this country needs a Hyman Rickover. We need to rid ourselves of “oxcart planners” and engage in fundamental change. We need to eliminate health insurance from health care planning in America, and start taking care of our citizens instead of rewarding our corporations.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Broken Election System
Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones was on MSNBC yesterday in support of Hillary Clinton, defending the distribution of a picture of Barak Obama wearing African dress. She did not directly admit that Clinton's campaign, which she referred to repeatedly as "we," released the picture, but said that the Clinton Campaign was quite okay with him being seen "wearing his native clothing" and "the clothing of his country, that's his birth nation."
No, he was born in the United States, otherwise he could not be running for president. His "native clothing" is probably, I don't know, blue jeans.
This woman illustrates just how broken our election system is, as she has actually been elected to office. With the intelligence of a carrot, and a mind the width of a 4H pencil mark, she actually won an election somewhere.
No, he was born in the United States, otherwise he could not be running for president. His "native clothing" is probably, I don't know, blue jeans.
This woman illustrates just how broken our election system is, as she has actually been elected to office. With the intelligence of a carrot, and a mind the width of a 4H pencil mark, she actually won an election somewhere.
Abuse of Power
The story about McCain and the lobbyist is, so far, not quite dying down. It should not. The part about sex should, but not the part about the influence of lobbying. There is one fact that stands out in this story. It appears to be a fact, since it has been confirmed by several sources and admitted by McCain himself.
John McCain wrote three letters to the FCC on behalf of the clients of this lobbyist, clients who were also contributing cash to him. One of those letters even contained a threat to "restructure" the agency.
He did this many years after barely escaping with his political career from the "Keating Five" scandal, a scandal which involved politicians contacting a federal regulating agency on behalf of a person who was making cash contributions to those politicians.
If nothing else, McCain should be disqualified from serving as president because he is simply too stupid to learn from his mistakes.
But he does not admit to having made a mistake. He regards these more recent contacts merely as normal "Beltway Business." He insists that he has done nothing wrong, and that he was merely doing a favor for a friend. Even without the exchange of cash, such contact "on behalf of a friend" by a politician is grossly improper at best.
Without the exchange of cash it appears that he simply enjoys throwing his weight around. He has power and enjoys letting people know it and making them dance to his tune. Add the element of the exchange of cash, the campaign contributions, and it appears that he is doing favors for money; otherwise known as taking bribes.
So the best that can be said of McCain is that he abuses power.
John McCain wrote three letters to the FCC on behalf of the clients of this lobbyist, clients who were also contributing cash to him. One of those letters even contained a threat to "restructure" the agency.
He did this many years after barely escaping with his political career from the "Keating Five" scandal, a scandal which involved politicians contacting a federal regulating agency on behalf of a person who was making cash contributions to those politicians.
If nothing else, McCain should be disqualified from serving as president because he is simply too stupid to learn from his mistakes.
But he does not admit to having made a mistake. He regards these more recent contacts merely as normal "Beltway Business." He insists that he has done nothing wrong, and that he was merely doing a favor for a friend. Even without the exchange of cash, such contact "on behalf of a friend" by a politician is grossly improper at best.
Without the exchange of cash it appears that he simply enjoys throwing his weight around. He has power and enjoys letting people know it and making them dance to his tune. Add the element of the exchange of cash, the campaign contributions, and it appears that he is doing favors for money; otherwise known as taking bribes.
So the best that can be said of McCain is that he abuses power.
Monday, February 25, 2008
No, I mean we're having San Diego weather. This is our version of winter.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Find Waldo
The paragraph below is from an editorial in today’s New York Times and is about the blessings of free trade, and about how stupid the Democratic candidates are being when they criticize the present administration’s policies. It which has no byline, which means we don’t know who wrote it. Yeah, if I wrote this I wouldn’t want to let anyone know it was me.
Let’s count the times this paragraph fails the sanity test. Find Waldo.
Waldo #1: Quoting a review that is five years old seems a bit less than realistic. How many of you folks who are looking for work in 2008 give a flying crap about what Congress thought in 2003? Yeah, I thought so.
Waldo #2: It quotes an Office of Congress which, at that time, was controlled by business interests George Bush the Republican Party.
No one would ever think for a moment that such an august body would,
oh I don’t know, lie?
Waldo #3: …disruptive effects on employment were small. These long unemployment lines do not disrupt employment, you fool. They disrupt government; but employment, while reduced, is hardly disrupted at all. Labor unions disrupt employment (with strikes, you know), which is why government is against them.
Waldo #4: Trade opens foreign markets for American producers… It certainly does, but it also allows those foreign markets to subsidize its products and manipulate currency exchange rates to keep the American producers priced out of the international market.
Waldo #5: …gives consumers more choices… Yes, indeed, it certainly does increase the degree to which our nation becomes a consumer economy, with results that are now becoming painfully apparent.
Waldo #6: …competition spurs productivity growth at home. This is enough to gag a maggot. If the “opening foreign markets” part of this fairy tale were true in any part, there would be no “competitive spur.” Productivity growth is a whole different issue which I will address in a future post, but this Waldo consists of telling the manufacturer “I’m going to help you by making your life harder.”
Six Waldos in a mere two sentences. Never argue with idiots...
In a review in 2003, the Congressional Budget Office concluded that Nafta had slightly increased growth in the United States and that any disruptive effects on employment were small. Trade opens foreign markets for American producers and gives consumers more choices, while competition spurs productivity growth at home.
Let’s count the times this paragraph fails the sanity test. Find Waldo.
Waldo #1: Quoting a review that is five years old seems a bit less than realistic. How many of you folks who are looking for work in 2008 give a flying crap about what Congress thought in 2003? Yeah, I thought so.
Waldo #2: It quotes an Office of Congress which, at that time, was controlled by business interests George Bush the Republican Party.
No one would ever think for a moment that such an august body would,
oh I don’t know, lie?
Waldo #3: …disruptive effects on employment were small. These long unemployment lines do not disrupt employment, you fool. They disrupt government; but employment, while reduced, is hardly disrupted at all. Labor unions disrupt employment (with strikes, you know), which is why government is against them.
Waldo #4: Trade opens foreign markets for American producers… It certainly does, but it also allows those foreign markets to subsidize its products and manipulate currency exchange rates to keep the American producers priced out of the international market.
Waldo #5: …gives consumers more choices… Yes, indeed, it certainly does increase the degree to which our nation becomes a consumer economy, with results that are now becoming painfully apparent.
Waldo #6: …competition spurs productivity growth at home. This is enough to gag a maggot. If the “opening foreign markets” part of this fairy tale were true in any part, there would be no “competitive spur.” Productivity growth is a whole different issue which I will address in a future post, but this Waldo consists of telling the manufacturer “I’m going to help you by making your life harder.”
Six Waldos in a mere two sentences. Never argue with idiots...
Saturday, February 23, 2008
A Sunday Thought
Sunday's thought for the day. I know, it's Saturday, but I'm saving myself time tomorrow. Not that I'm doing anything special tomorrow, but...
Never argue with idiots.
They will drag you down to their level,
and beat you with experience.
Never argue with idiots.
They will drag you down to their level,
and beat you with experience.
Food Blogging
When my wife called home to ask what we were having for dinner and I told her “old clothes” she was singularly unimpressed. She has changed her mind, and now wants to know when I’m going to make it again.
The name of this dish is Spanish for “old clothes” and comes from the appearance of the meat after it has been shredded. I got the recipe from the San Diego Union-Tribune, and have modified it only slightly. I hope you have a crock pot.
For my Progressive friend in Chicago, this one has no ginger.
Ropa Vieja
1 can (8 oz) tomato sauce
½ cup water
3 bay leaves
1 tbsp red wine vinegar
2 tsp minced garlic
½ tsp ground Cumin
½ tsp leaf Oregano
¼ tsp salt
¼ tsp black pepper
1 medium onion
2 lbs skirt steak or flank steak
1 large red Bell pepper
1 large green Bell pepper
1 can (14.5 oz) diced tomatoes
Put the first nine ingredients in the crock pot and stir to combine. Peel the onion, quarter it, and then slice it thin and add it to the pot. Add the beef to the pot: no need to brown it or anything, just plunk it in there.
Rinse the peppers, core them, quarter them lengthwise, slice them into pieces about the size of a nickel and dump them on top of the beef.
Put the canned tomatoes in a bowl, add another teaspoon of garlic (I know, that makes three teaspoons of garlic, but trust me), and about a teaspoon of olive oil. Stir to blend and dump that on top of the peppers in the pot.
Put the cover on the pot and set it on low and go to work. Let that puppy simmer on low for 8-10 hours.
To serve, first go fishing for the meat and put it in large serving bowl (by itself) and use a couple of forks to pull it into shreds. Spoon the rest of the contents of the pot into the bowl and mix it up nicely.
Beautiful. Serve with rice.
The name of this dish is Spanish for “old clothes” and comes from the appearance of the meat after it has been shredded. I got the recipe from the San Diego Union-Tribune, and have modified it only slightly. I hope you have a crock pot.
For my Progressive friend in Chicago, this one has no ginger.
Ropa Vieja
1 can (8 oz) tomato sauce
½ cup water
3 bay leaves
1 tbsp red wine vinegar
2 tsp minced garlic
½ tsp ground Cumin
½ tsp leaf Oregano
¼ tsp salt
¼ tsp black pepper
1 medium onion
2 lbs skirt steak or flank steak
1 large red Bell pepper
1 large green Bell pepper
1 can (14.5 oz) diced tomatoes
Put the first nine ingredients in the crock pot and stir to combine. Peel the onion, quarter it, and then slice it thin and add it to the pot. Add the beef to the pot: no need to brown it or anything, just plunk it in there.
Rinse the peppers, core them, quarter them lengthwise, slice them into pieces about the size of a nickel and dump them on top of the beef.
Put the canned tomatoes in a bowl, add another teaspoon of garlic (I know, that makes three teaspoons of garlic, but trust me), and about a teaspoon of olive oil. Stir to blend and dump that on top of the peppers in the pot.
Put the cover on the pot and set it on low and go to work. Let that puppy simmer on low for 8-10 hours.
To serve, first go fishing for the meat and put it in large serving bowl (by itself) and use a couple of forks to pull it into shreds. Spoon the rest of the contents of the pot into the bowl and mix it up nicely.
Beautiful. Serve with rice.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Clinton's Moment
It will not come as a big surprise to most of my readers to know that I was on the debate team in high school. I actually captained it my senior year (blush). I was also a starting linebacker on the football team. That was a pretty unusual combination in those days and nobody knew quite what to make of it, least of all me.
Anyway, the debate “resolution” was picked by a set of judges and whether you were assigned to argue in support of that resolution or against it was not your choice, so not infrequently you found yourself defending positions that you did not really support personally. That did not mean that you did not defend them with all of your resources, since you did have a personal desire to win the debate. I always liked it better when I got assigned the “side” of a debate resolution that agreed with my personal convictions, but I enjoyed the debate regardless.
Once in a while my opponent would really nail me with an argument. Those moments were always a kick for me. Yes, I’d lost my point, but I still felt a fierce joy that I had just witnessed something really cool. In a way it was a bigger kick than making a winning argument myself. I expected winning arguments from myself. They were in my notes and I had planned them, led up to them and knew they were coming. When they came from my opponent they were like revelations. I could never help smiling at him/her.
Last night there were moments when it seemed to me that Senator Clinton was carrying out an assignment. She was told to hit Senator Obama on the plagiarism thing, but it looked to me like that was just sort of her “assigned side” of that issue. (The audience wasn’t too thrilled with that one either.)
At one point she went after him on the “empty words” thing and he turned it around to say that in effect she was not insulting him with that accusation, but rather was saying that all the millions of people supporting him were too stupid to see beyond the empty rhetoric. It was a really good comeback, and I saw something in Clinton’s face at that moment that I could relate to.
She loved it. Did you notice? She lit up and laughed out loud. She had watched herself get hoist on her own petard by her debate opponent and she was delighted for him. Many are oohing and aahing about her closing statement, but for me this was her best moment. She was respectful of the art of debate for its own sake, and I have never seen her in a more human moment.
Anyway, the debate “resolution” was picked by a set of judges and whether you were assigned to argue in support of that resolution or against it was not your choice, so not infrequently you found yourself defending positions that you did not really support personally. That did not mean that you did not defend them with all of your resources, since you did have a personal desire to win the debate. I always liked it better when I got assigned the “side” of a debate resolution that agreed with my personal convictions, but I enjoyed the debate regardless.
Once in a while my opponent would really nail me with an argument. Those moments were always a kick for me. Yes, I’d lost my point, but I still felt a fierce joy that I had just witnessed something really cool. In a way it was a bigger kick than making a winning argument myself. I expected winning arguments from myself. They were in my notes and I had planned them, led up to them and knew they were coming. When they came from my opponent they were like revelations. I could never help smiling at him/her.
Last night there were moments when it seemed to me that Senator Clinton was carrying out an assignment. She was told to hit Senator Obama on the plagiarism thing, but it looked to me like that was just sort of her “assigned side” of that issue. (The audience wasn’t too thrilled with that one either.)
At one point she went after him on the “empty words” thing and he turned it around to say that in effect she was not insulting him with that accusation, but rather was saying that all the millions of people supporting him were too stupid to see beyond the empty rhetoric. It was a really good comeback, and I saw something in Clinton’s face at that moment that I could relate to.
She loved it. Did you notice? She lit up and laughed out loud. She had watched herself get hoist on her own petard by her debate opponent and she was delighted for him. Many are oohing and aahing about her closing statement, but for me this was her best moment. She was respectful of the art of debate for its own sake, and I have never seen her in a more human moment.
A Pox On All Their Houses
On one issue all of the Washington circle of elite seem to have come to agreement; there needs to be a plan to "rescue" people who have taken out loans that are now larger than the value of the homes that they own. Details differ, but Bush, McCain, Obama and Clinton all agree. The plans all have one thing in common: they all involve using TPM.
TaxPayer's Money
TPM is my money. I didn't make a stupid gamble with my money. I didn't succumb to greed with my money. I didn't engage in dishonesty with my money. I don't want my money to be used to rescue those who did. I don't want the government to take money away from me and give it to people who have lied and cheated and acted with greed and stupidity. I don't want government forcing me to lose so that liars and thieves and idiots gain.
Those who encourage such a bailout play the game by placing a poor elderly widow in front of the camera who refinanced to pay her dying husband's medical bills and was so legally blind that she could not read the contract. Fine, rescue her.
But she is one small part of a vast and hugely dishonest market. Do not claim that she is typical and use her as an excuse to "rescue" charlatans and by so doing steal from me.
TaxPayer's Money
TPM is my money. I didn't make a stupid gamble with my money. I didn't succumb to greed with my money. I didn't engage in dishonesty with my money. I don't want my money to be used to rescue those who did. I don't want the government to take money away from me and give it to people who have lied and cheated and acted with greed and stupidity. I don't want government forcing me to lose so that liars and thieves and idiots gain.
Those who encourage such a bailout play the game by placing a poor elderly widow in front of the camera who refinanced to pay her dying husband's medical bills and was so legally blind that she could not read the contract. Fine, rescue her.
But she is one small part of a vast and hugely dishonest market. Do not claim that she is typical and use her as an excuse to "rescue" charlatans and by so doing steal from me.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Use of Power
I can’t tell you how many recovering alcoholics I’ve heard say that each time they drank they did so with the belief that “This time I’m not going to get drunk.” That’s always rather bemused me, because I never had that thought in my drinking days. I always knew that I was going to get drunk; why else would I drink? My thought was that, while I was indeed going to get drunk, I was not going to do anything stupid. I sort of missed the point that getting drunk is, itself, pretty stupid; especially when one does it on a regular (i.e. daily) basis. Plus, of course, I pretty much always did something stupid in addition to getting drunk.
Politicians are, I think, much the same with the use of power. They always think, “This time I’m not going to use my power stupidly.” They fail to realize that using power at all is stupid. It doesn’t matter how one uses it or what one does with it, the use of it at all is just plain dumb and self-destructive. Power is one of those things that one needs to have and never, ever actively make use of.
In the 1980’s John McCain was great pals with a slime named Charles Keating. Keating was his patron and showered him with campaign funds, rides on his private jet, parties at his mansion… Keating owned a Savings and Loan which, as was the fashion then, was thoroughly corrupt in its management practices. The Fed, which in those days actually did regulate, was closing in on Keating so Keating asked five of his powerful political allies to contact the Fed and tell them to back off, which they did.
One of the “Keating Five” was John McCain and, for reasons I have never understood, he got off with a minor slap on the wrist. But there is no question that he did contact a federal regulatory agency on behalf of a person who had been providing him with cash donations. Whether or not McCain made argument in favor of that person does not matter: any such contact is hugely improper regardless of the nature of that contact.
McCain claimed then that he had learned his lesson and certainly would never do anything like that again. Except, as we learned in the New York Times yesterday he not only did, but did more than once.
Whether or not he had sex with this lobbyist matters to Cindy McCain; it certainly does not matter to me. The contacts he had with a federal regulatory agency on behalf of a person who had been providing him with cash donations at her behest matter to me quite a lot because they speak to his qualification to serve in this nation’s highest office.
This issue is not trivial and should not be put to rest with his brush-off.
Politicians are, I think, much the same with the use of power. They always think, “This time I’m not going to use my power stupidly.” They fail to realize that using power at all is stupid. It doesn’t matter how one uses it or what one does with it, the use of it at all is just plain dumb and self-destructive. Power is one of those things that one needs to have and never, ever actively make use of.
In the 1980’s John McCain was great pals with a slime named Charles Keating. Keating was his patron and showered him with campaign funds, rides on his private jet, parties at his mansion… Keating owned a Savings and Loan which, as was the fashion then, was thoroughly corrupt in its management practices. The Fed, which in those days actually did regulate, was closing in on Keating so Keating asked five of his powerful political allies to contact the Fed and tell them to back off, which they did.
One of the “Keating Five” was John McCain and, for reasons I have never understood, he got off with a minor slap on the wrist. But there is no question that he did contact a federal regulatory agency on behalf of a person who had been providing him with cash donations. Whether or not McCain made argument in favor of that person does not matter: any such contact is hugely improper regardless of the nature of that contact.
McCain claimed then that he had learned his lesson and certainly would never do anything like that again. Except, as we learned in the New York Times yesterday he not only did, but did more than once.
Whether or not he had sex with this lobbyist matters to Cindy McCain; it certainly does not matter to me. The contacts he had with a federal regulatory agency on behalf of a person who had been providing him with cash donations at her behest matter to me quite a lot because they speak to his qualification to serve in this nation’s highest office.
This issue is not trivial and should not be put to rest with his brush-off.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Men With Banjos...
...who know how to use them. This is the Foggy Mountain Breakdown.
And Steve Martin can do more than comedy.
If you are having lag time issues, click on the "YouTube logo and it will take you directly to the clip. Note that YouTube will be down for maintenance on Wednesday starting at 5:00PM Pacific Time.
And Steve Martin can do more than comedy.
If you are having lag time issues, click on the "YouTube logo and it will take you directly to the clip. Note that YouTube will be down for maintenance on Wednesday starting at 5:00PM Pacific Time.
The La Nina condition means drought for San Diego, right? Oh sure.
What if...
It is looking more and more unlikely, but what if Senator Clinton were to win the nomination? Her whole shick is that "I'm tested, I'm vetted, I'm ready, I have the experience. I am the only one with the experience to be this nation's Commander-In-Chief." All that good stuff. She has, by her claim, thirty-five years of experience.
Her opponent will be Senator John McCain who has, oh, somewhere around two hundred years experience.
Suddenly her pitch would have to become something like, "You need to have experience, but not too much experience. She would also have to claim that actually serving in the military is... Oh well.
And what the hell has John McCain ever "managed" or run. To the best of my knowledge he was never even a squadron commander in the Navy, so the most he ever "managed" was a single airplane, and apparently he was something of a hotdogger at doing that.
They are all, of course, full of it.
Her opponent will be Senator John McCain who has, oh, somewhere around two hundred years experience.
Suddenly her pitch would have to become something like, "You need to have experience, but not too much experience. She would also have to claim that actually serving in the military is... Oh well.
Update 1:15 PM
Bruce, in the comment says And speaking of "vetting and tested" - Mr. McCain has them all beat there...And what the hell has John McCain ever "managed" or run. To the best of my knowledge he was never even a squadron commander in the Navy, so the most he ever "managed" was a single airplane, and apparently he was something of a hotdogger at doing that.
They are all, of course, full of it.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Unforgivable Behavior
The torture debate not only continues, it continues to grow more and more heinous every day. The New York Times revealed in an op-ed Sunday that there is a connection between the torture that we have been inflicting and the decision to seek the death penalty for six of the prisoners at Guantánamo Bay. Morris Davis, an Air Force colonel who was the chief prosecutor for the military commissions at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, from 2005 to 2007 writes, in part,
I am stunned and unutterably saddened that my nation, the nation whose uniform I once wore with pride, not only tortures but uses evidence obtained by torture in an effort to put men to death.
To prosecute those who have committed crimes against this nation is fitting and proper. The death penalty is arguable. To use in support of the death penalty evidence obtained by means of torture is unforgivable and unacceptable under any circumstances.
This is not the behavior of a civilized nation. This is the behavior of a nation governed by thugs and criminals. This is the behavior of a nation governed by an Idi Amin, not by a successor to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln.
This. Must. Not. Stand.
We have accepted much from this thug who presently occupies and disgraces our nation’s highest office. We must not accept this. I have written my Representative in Congress and both of the Senators from my state, urging in the strongest possible civil terms that they put a stop to this atrocity, and I beg you to do likewise.
Colonel Davis deserves our utmost respect for his dedication to human decency and for resigning his command so that, freed from the quicksand of military disciplinary restraint, he could speak out against this national disgrace. We owe it to him, to ourselves, and to every man and woman who has given a life in the service of this nation to join him in demanding that this outrage be prevented.
This is the point at which we must demand, “Enough. No more.”
My policy as the chief prosecutor for the military commissions at Guantánamo was that evidence derived through waterboarding was off limits. That should still be our policy. To do otherwise is not only an affront to American justice, it will potentially put prosecutors at risk for using illegally obtained evidence.
Unfortunately, I was overruled on the question, and I resigned my position to call attention to the issue — efforts that were hampered by my being placed under a gag rule and ordered not to testify at a Senate hearing. While some high-level military and civilian officials have rightly expressed indignation on the issue, the current state can be described generally as indifference and inaction.
I am stunned and unutterably saddened that my nation, the nation whose uniform I once wore with pride, not only tortures but uses evidence obtained by torture in an effort to put men to death.
To prosecute those who have committed crimes against this nation is fitting and proper. The death penalty is arguable. To use in support of the death penalty evidence obtained by means of torture is unforgivable and unacceptable under any circumstances.
This is not the behavior of a civilized nation. This is the behavior of a nation governed by thugs and criminals. This is the behavior of a nation governed by an Idi Amin, not by a successor to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln.
This. Must. Not. Stand.
We have accepted much from this thug who presently occupies and disgraces our nation’s highest office. We must not accept this. I have written my Representative in Congress and both of the Senators from my state, urging in the strongest possible civil terms that they put a stop to this atrocity, and I beg you to do likewise.
Colonel Davis deserves our utmost respect for his dedication to human decency and for resigning his command so that, freed from the quicksand of military disciplinary restraint, he could speak out against this national disgrace. We owe it to him, to ourselves, and to every man and woman who has given a life in the service of this nation to join him in demanding that this outrage be prevented.
This is the point at which we must demand, “Enough. No more.”
Light Hits
A post at Daily Kos yesterday, entitled Calm Before the Storm begins with the following,
Good stuff, worth the read.
I am reminded of a guy who used to live in our complex in 1999 named Earl C. He was all freaked out about the impending Y2K crisis; had a countdown clock on the front of his house until the HOA made him remove it. He would harangue the board about how we should hire someone who could grow crops on our land, replacing the lawns, and should fortify the gate at the entrance to our complex, which is built in a canyon.
I wonder what Earl is doing now that "FISA has expired."
And John Cole at Balloon Juice in his Sunday Open Thread closes with,
My understanding is that it's the "I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she's feeling down, launches..." that TalkLeft feels makes Obama's remark sexist.
In the infamous words of a former president, "Give me a break."
I also read a post (can't find it now) that reminded me of George Bush referring to 9/11 as the "worst attack on our soil in America's history."
Um, George, the British once burned your house.
It has now been 2 hours, 54 minutes and 56.85 seconds since FISA ceased to exist and I'm looking out my window now, not exactly sure where the terrorists plan to strike. Even scarier is the fact the defeatocrats set the bill to expire on Nova Scotia time, like a cruel joke before the end comes. Still, I remain firm and resolved to survive the upcoming assaults. No doubt the terrorists are sending flurries of emails to each other even now, organizing to strike the heart of our nation, but come what I may I will be ready.
I've purchased several carts of bottled water, duct tape, and frozen food, along with a large supply of discounted valentine chocolate from the store.
Good stuff, worth the read.
I am reminded of a guy who used to live in our complex in 1999 named Earl C. He was all freaked out about the impending Y2K crisis; had a countdown clock on the front of his house until the HOA made him remove it. He would harangue the board about how we should hire someone who could grow crops on our land, replacing the lawns, and should fortify the gate at the entrance to our complex, which is built in a canyon.
I wonder what Earl is doing now that "FISA has expired."
And John Cole at Balloon Juice in his Sunday Open Thread closes with,
PS- I didn’t use any periods in this post because I don’t want TalkLeft to acccuse me of being sexist
My understanding is that it's the "I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she's feeling down, launches..." that TalkLeft feels makes Obama's remark sexist.
In the infamous words of a former president, "Give me a break."
I also read a post (can't find it now) that reminded me of George Bush referring to 9/11 as the "worst attack on our soil in America's history."
Um, George, the British once burned your house.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)