Reid disses Christmas?

I had to see this a couple of times for it to sink in:

A top Republican has accused Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of potentially 'disrespecting' Christmas.

Reid threatened to get tough with his power over the chamber's calendar Tuesday, when he told reporters that "there's still Congress after Christmas," implying to his colleagues that he would keep the Senate in session until the start of the 112th Congress on January 4th in order to provide time to vote on a laundry list of legislative items that the lame duck Congress had planned to tackle.

GOP Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl quickly took offense to the notion that legislators might be expected to work after December 25 and accused Reid of potentially "disrespecting one of the two holiest of holidays for Christians."

"It is impossible to do all of the things that the majority leader laid out without doing -- frankly, without disrespecting the institution and without disrespecting one of the two holiest of holidays for Christians and the families of all of the Senate, not just the senators themselves but all of the staff," Kyl said in response to Reid's claim that he would force the body to work through the holiday recess in order to vote on a number of key Democratic agenda items including Obama's START nuclear arms treaty, the DREAM Act, a bill that would overturn the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, and a highly contentious spending bill that would authorize federal spending for next year.

"At some point you can no longer with a straight face, I think, carry the proposition that we are going to do this whole long list of things before the Christmas recess," Kyl added.

But if Reid's warning is to be believed, "before the Christmas recess" is no longer the Senate deadline.

"So if the Republicans think that they can stall and stall and stall that we take a break, we're through, we're not through," Reid said. "Congress ends on January 4th. So we're going to continue working on this stuff until we get it done, or we have up-and-down votes and find that it can't happen that way." (from Huffington Post)

OK, I'm wanting to point out two things: First, how out of touch must you be to believe you are entitled to a two week plus Christmas holiday (don't most people take a month or two off?) and second, is asking legislators to work close to Christmas for the good of the nation really being disrespectful to Christmas?

Where do these people come from?

Letters to the Editor Part Two

July 11, 2006


Courier-Journal
Editor


One cannot help but learn amazing stuff by following your newspaper. I see in today's edition, page A3, in the article about the Southwest pilot, that the federal alcohol limit on pilots is "0.20."

No wonder they seem such a happy lot.


Very truly yours,

(NOTE TO MY READERS: the real alcohol limit is not 0.20 - it is .002)


August 16, 2006


Courier-Journal
Editor


The news this week that the British government had broken up a terrorist plot to blow up airplanes over the Atlantic Ocean was an example of good police work. The spin by our government officials to make it somehow related to the war in Iraq is bad logic used to fuel questionable propaganda.

The firestorm which the United States has created in Iraq serves terrorism recruitment and does not make us more secure. This war, based upon "ginned up" intelligence and flawed reasoning, has, at a minimum, neutralized any goodwill felt toward our country after the attack of September 11, 2001.

The ensuing "war on terrorism" is completely a misnomer. As applied, our officials have instead been waging a war of terror against us. As a child, a neighbor of mine kept is kids in line by waging his own terror war against them using an unseen boogey man. This has become the method by which our own government is keeping us in line.

Five years ago this administration got caught with its collective pants down. Ignoring warnings of an impending Al-qeda attack, we got sucker punched by a group of radical extremists who want us out of the middle east. Instead of addressing the real issues here, it has instead used its "war on terror" as a political tool against its people. Its time we wake up.


Very truly yours,



October 16, 2006

Courier-Journal
Editor

A recent Anne Northup ad is a microcosm of much that is wrong in politics.

It's first allegation states that Yarmuth favors doubling the employer's social security contribution, then shows a video clip in which he says something like, "If the employer's contribution was doubled, then ....."

When a science teacher tells her class that, "If I were to drive my car over a high cliff, it would reach terminal velocity in 5 seconds" is she actually advocating driving a car over a cliff? No, of course not, and neither is Yarmuth supporting a tax increase in the ad.

The ad's second allegation is equally disturbing. In it, Mr. Yarmuth is seen stating that he doesn't remember proposing a higher tax for gas guzzlers, then, wham! There's the video of him saying it, proving, definitively, that he didn't remember saying it, which is a different matter than denying he said it.

The problem for me is the insinuation that Mr. Yarmuth's a liar, when, in reality, he's seen first expousing a hypothetical situation and second stating that he doesn't remember something which he said. I, for one, come away with the impression that Mr. Yarmuth may not remember everything he's said or written in the past 15 years, not that he's a bald faced liar. In other words, although it may be true that Mr. Yarmuth is the biggest liar to ever roam the face of the earth, the examples cited in the ads offer no support toward that conclusion.

And therein lies my problem with the ad. Anyone with at least average intelligence and some rudimentary training in logic would see the flaw in the reasoning, but the ad is not directed at them. Rather, it is directed at those with less than average intelligence and/or reasoning skills. Now, I cannot imagine that the people who authored that ad are insufficiently skilled at their craft to honestly believe that the examples they use support the conclusions that the ad reaches.

Rather, the makers of the ad, and, I must suppose Ms. Northup herself, are guilty of at least hypocrisy in airing the ad, as they are brazenly taking advantage of viewers who lack the ability to see through the ad's intellectual dishonesty. And these are the very people who rely on the government most to treat them fairly and honestly, and, maybe with some respect. How are people supposed to trust a government which is made up of lawmakers who would take unfair advantage of those who need its help the most? I'm afraid the influence of Washington has got its grip on our Ms. Northup.




Very truly yours,






December 12, 2008
Courier-Journal Editor


A close election behind him, our very own Mitch McConnell apparently now remembers the role he so enjoys playing. Its not the warm, touchy-feely one of the campaign ads, rather its the one where he blocks all legislation which is not directed at increasing the wealth of the few who he truly represents.

Case in point is yesterday's blockage of the automobile rescue legislation. Regardless of whether one believes in the wisdom of attempting to keep the big three alive, Mitch looks at the problem and blames-you guessed it-the unions!

How dare workers band together to better their lives and salaries at the expense of Mitch's corporate buddies? Those union members are undoubtably some of the same people who recklessly borrowed money with those sub-prime loans in their attempt to bring down the financial institutions of Wall Street. Why did those greedy people want their own houses when there was still plenty of room under overpasses and in abandoned buildings?

Mr. McConnell wants legislation added to the auto bailout which would further erode the power of the UAW, but where was his moral indignation when the financial houses and mega-banks came to Washington with their hands out? What demands did he make of Wall Street before he voted billions for them?

I expect in another six years the majority of Kentuckians will be once again itching to vote for this bastion of corporate virtue even though he deplores the very principles that helped create the middle class of this nation. I guess the good news is that the soon to be unemployed poor and middle class Republican voters will have a lot more time to campaign for their man next time around.

What we can and cannot afford

Unemployment benefits are about to expire for 33,000 Kentuckians and 67,000 Hoosiers, and its starting to look like the Republicans will let them expire next month.
The Bush tax cuts will also expire next month and the President wants them extended ONLY for individuals earning less than $200,000 and couples earning $250,000 (these people will still pay reduced taxes on amounts less than that, just that amounts greater than that will be taxed at the old rate). To do what the Republicans want, to keep the tax cuts across the board, will cost the U.S. $700 BILLION over the next 10 years verses the President's plan.
Who do the Republicans represent?

Letters to the Editor Part One

I've written several letters to the editor of our local newspaper, the Courier Journal. Most do not get published, but I thought I'd try to put a few here on my blog.


April 4, 2006

Courier-Journal
Editor
501 W. Broadway
Louisville, KY 40202

via fax (502) 582-4610

Dear Sir or Ma'am,

Does anyone edit your paper anymore? Today's Doonesbury cartoon is the same as yesterday's.

Yesterday's Metro section, page B6 states that a man was found dead at 1629 South 13th Street, and his "name was not released," yet the previous page contains an article which says that the coroner was looking for relatives of Willie Compton "who was found dead at 1629 South 13th Street." So maybe his name was released a little bit.

Very truly yours,






June 22, 2006

Courier-Journal
Editor
501 W. Broadway
Louisville, KY 40202

via fax (502) 582-4610

Dear Sir or Ma'am,

Your editorial of June 21 regarding the "conspiracy theorists" and the arena project was most revealing. Although some might question whether building the arena on the waterfront with its inherent drawbacks is really worth the extra millions over the water company site, coupled with the lack of transparency in the selection process, the Courier, instead of taking the lead in investigating what seems to be a legitimate issue, resorts to inferring that anyone who would question the decision is a kook.

Especially precious is the statement that critics should come forward with evidence of a scandal or shut up. I hate to show my age, but I can remember a time when the Courier understood that inquiry was a vital part of its job.

I acknowledge that your paper long ago abdicated any meaningful role in investigative journalism, but it is becoming increasing obvious that you no longer even remember that that role was once part of your job description.
Very truly yours,



July 2, 2006
Courier-Journal
Editor
501 W. Broadway
Louisville, KY 40202

via fax (502) 582-4610

Dear Sir,

Just in time for Independence Day our very own King George shows us his disdain for our criminal justice system by commuting the sentence of a crony, Scooter Libby, as well as his low regard for us, the people, by lying about the reason. That’s true independence!

After hearing the evidence against him, a jury of his peers convicted Mr. Libby and a judge sentenced him pursuant to the legal guidelines. If I’m not mistaken, it was only last week that our president told us he was not going to interfere with the appellate process. I guess he meant as long as it went his way.

In his explanation, our President said that the sentence was excessive, so he commuted it: a glowing example of this administration’s favorite tactic, the old tried-and-true ‘false choice.’ One might wonder, what would be an appropriate sentence in the eyes of the Decider? A week? A month? Maybe a year? If that’s the case, why not let Libby serve the appropriate amount of time, then commute the remainder? Instead, we, the people, are given these as the only two possible options in order to make this contemptuous behavior seem reasonable. I mean, these were felony convictions, and one day to serve is ‘excessive?’ Does he really think we’re all morons or has his hubris become so great that he doesn’t even care what this looks like?

The next time I hear His Smirkiness speak of his high regard for our rule of law I’m going to throw up.
Very truly yours,

I've got a few others I'll post at a later time, that's probably enough for now.
Thanks for visiting.

Goodbye, Brian Williams

It was rainy yesterday and I was home early and tuned in to NBC Nightly News. After his greeting, Brian Williams said something to the effect that, "everyone is fascinated with the British Royal Family..." and went into NBC's opening story, the royal engagement.
I'm not saying that the segment isn't news, but the top news story of the day? Brian, there may not be a whole lot of us left who aren't fascinated with the royal family, but I'm not. I'm also not enchanted with the mainstream's curious devotion to celebrity (see prior post, "Who's it all about, anyway" from 8-30-10). I turned the channel to CBS news which was actually reporting news.
I turned back to NBC in a few minutes and they were still on the "story."
I tried to imagine Chet Huntley or David Brinkley opening with such tripe, but couldn't. I tried it with Tom Brokow, and although not quite the same stretch, still couldn't.
When Brian came back on, he had that right eyebrow famously cocked into its most sincere or most ironic position (I can no longer tell the difference).
NBC nightly news, like all network news, is transforming into the Today Show, little by little, abandoning any resemblance to real news. When they hired Jenna Bush I thought I'd throw up, but the effort was rewarded with one of the first interviews with George W. Bush on his book tour, so there.
Not that Matt Lauer was going to really ask real questions of W, or try to pin him down on any of his non sequiturs, but there was W nonetheless, in all of his empty-headed glory, you know, deciding stuff.
Some years ago, my sister, Karen and I thought of writing a couple of dozen books, titled something like "The ABC's of _______," (lets say, "infidelity" for one), then, when Biker Bob is caught running around on his lovely movie star wife, we could run to our local tv station for a video hookup with the Today Show host/hostess and be the expert panelists.
We are convinced you don't have to know squat about anything, but if your name is attached to a book, you're book-able. While on the panel, I could opine that maybe starlet didn't treat Biker Bob well, then Karen could say what a scoundrel he is. We could publish books on any subject, what the hell does it matter?
When you gotta fill in hours of air time, most anything goes.
NBC (real) news is headed there in a hurry. Cast aside your journalistic integrity, forget the hard work of exposing some real story, just cock that eyebrow and give us that humorous one-liner.
I used to try and catch the news at 6:30, now its pretty much a waste of time, I'd much rather watch the PBS Newshour, despite its changing formats.
Whats next for NBC news, a "page 6" girl between commercial breaks? A laugh track?
Brian, as I watch our nation descending into an abyss of total ignorance (25% of Americans believe Obama is a muslim) I would hope that you would see your job as helping to educate. But with decreasing staff and money for real news stories, just keep picking that low-hanging fruit.
Oh, well, anyone else less than spellbound over a royal wedding?
Its over, Brian. Sorry, I really tried to make this thing work, but we've just grown too far apart.

Why are those government workers ripping us off?

First, it was the poor ripping off the banks by taking out mortgages they couldn't afford, then failing to pay back the money and interest on their homes. Failing to recognize the "sanctity of the contract." After being foreclosed upon, they should willingly pay back all money and attorney fees accrued in putting them out of their home. After all, what does it cost to live out of a refrigerator box and what are they doing with all of that money they are saving?
A good Republican would pay it back. Just like the owners of that multi-billion complex, Stuyvesant Housing in New York City. Oh wait, they didn't.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/25/nyregion/25stuy.html

But now, I keep hearing about how Federal workers are paid TWICE what their private counterparts are paid! This past weekend I heard my hero, Rand Paul say it and his hero, Sen. Jim Demint (as in "demented") repeat it.
Apparently, it will now become the new mantra for those who know that the government is totally out of control.
I think the source of this new revelation is an article from that scholarly bastion, USA Today in an August, 2010 article.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2010-08-10-1Afedpay10_ST_N.htm

First, even though the headline reads, "Federal Workers Earning Double their Private Counterparts" that applies only if you believe that mopping floors is the counterpart of designing nuclear warheads. Or that working part time in sales at The Gap is the equivalent of unravelling the human DNA for the NIH.
In other words, the study looked at OVERALL wages between the public and private sectors. I can remember when menial workers were employed by government, but all of that stuff has been outsourced to private contractors. So now the government must be punished for doing what had been asked of them-cutting the cost of providing services.
So, in a breathtaking example of Republican dishonesty, we are now going to have to withstand this new onslaught of charges that Federal Judges are earning more than that guy at the carwash!
And don't expect the lamestream media to point out this new hypocrisy to you-their job is to report whats told, anything else is taking sides.
Get ready for this new myth to grow legs and appear in all conservative talking points. It must be true because I heard it on Fox News.

Mitch McConnell-Honored Statesman or Political Hack?

Sometimes it's hard to not swell up and burst with pride over the state of politics here in Kentucky. The very fact that we've replaced one nut job, Sen. Bunning, with another nut job, Sen. elect Rand Paul has got to keep us in the national focus.

And now, over the past week, we have learned that our other esteemed senator, Mitch McConnell, is hard at work in his attempt to emulate his idol, Sen. John Sherman Cooper. Personally, I am anxious to learn how the senator's lapdog, John David Dyche, is going to help out his hero from fallout from the disclosures.

Earlier in the week, at a time when home foreclosures are at a 50 year high, unemployment is stuck at about 10%, and unemployed workers are running out of unemployment benefits and employed people are afraid for their jobs, we learned that statesmen Mitch McConnell believes that the most important objective to the Republican party is limiting Pres. Obama to a single term.

Now we learn from the new book by "the decider" that Mitch McConnell approached him in September of 2006 with the suggestion that the president lower troop levels in Iraq in order to increase Republican chances of victory in the fall elections. Not to save Iraqi and American lives, or to reduce the massive, uncontrolled spending created by his President and party , but to win an election.

To Mitch McConnell, the king of hypocrites, what's good for the Republican Party is not always whats good for America. And before Mr. Dyche writes his next fawning article on Sen. McConnell, I would suggest that the body of Sen. Cooper be exhumed in order that his body can be tightly secured in the casket to reduce the spinning which must be taking place inside.

The smug, multi-chinned "statesman" from Kentucky is no more interested in the safety of American troops than he is interested curing the economic malaise which his party has inflicted on our country.

And for whatever one thinks of our president, I believe it is safe to say that he has genuinely tried to help us out of the hole dug by the previous administration. Further, even if you think he is totally misguided, he did attempt to win over Republican votes in order to form some kind of consensus between Republicans and Democrats. With reference to the healthcare bill, it is obvious that the Republicans in the Senate just played him for a fool, because it was never their plan to agree to anything. But they were able to get him to water down every important aspect of his original bill before they all voted against it.

But at any rate, as we are headed towards eliminating the middle class and to becoming a nation of huge inequality between the rich and the poor, at least we know what is important to Kentucky's own statesmen, Sen. McConnell. And its not you or me.

Rand Paul-When Did His Hair Get Curly?

I've been watching lots of political ads in the mornings and wanted to thank our U.S. Supreme Court for opening the coffers of anonymous donors so we can be better educated about our political hopefuls. The information contained in the ads is pretty eye-opening.
There are a lot of candidates that just aren't like us. I suspect some are Kenyan muslims but the ads don't necessarily specify, they just raise the question.
I don't know why Baron Hill is still representing people of Indiana because they fired him once.
I was wanting to do a couple of ad examples, but couldn't figure out how to post a sound bite and give a link to it, so you'll have to use your imagination for the deep voice to narrate the ad.
"Baron Hill. Wasn't Christ our Lord crucified on a barren hill at Calvary? Why hasn't Baron Hill spoken up against against the crucifixion? What is he hiding?"
how about:
"Rand Paul. He wrote to his college newspaper under the name 'Randall Paul.' Some of his old college chums call him 'Randy.' Have you looked up the definition of 'Randy?' What is his real name and why won't he use it? What is he hiding?"
Since I have previously admitted my fascination with the Baby Paul (our own Little Lord Fauntleroy) I wanted to comment on something he said that has attracted no media attention.
He was speaking of the uselessness of mining safety rules and said that they are generally not needed because miners wouldn't take a job in a dangerous mine because its against their own self interest.
Seriously, he said that.
I would at least suggest that: (1) a miner may not know that a particular mine is dangerous without some previous inspection, presumably done by someone other that the mine company, and (2) people sometimes take dangerous jobs because of desperation-they must support their families and there's not an abundance of jobs in eastern Kentucky.
Paul's statement exhibits an enormous amount of naivety about the real world which seriously disturbs me. Its sort of like the Republicans blaming the poor people for not leaving New Orleans prior to Katrina. I heard some say, "Why didn't they just leave when they heard of the storm approaching?"
That's what I was thinking, too. Just have their driver pull the Mercedes around front.... no, wait, better use the Land Rover in case there's water on the road........
Randall Paul (could his real name be Paul Randall?) lives in a dream world filled with strong, individualistic types who were given a leg up by affluent parents but don't even realize it. A world full of unicorns and satyrs and low taxes and nothing to stop the rich from getting richer.
It was said of George W., and through the magic of Google I found this:

Time magazine's Susan Fraker, who wrote this in the May 30, 1983, issue about Superior Oil head honcho Howard Keck: "People who know him say that he can be vindictive and that he often acts capriciously. And like many very rich people, he is not accustomed to anyone disagreeing with him. The trouble with Howard, an acquaintance says, is that 'he was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple.'"

Two weeks until the election. Get out and vote, and make your friends vote. Part of the Republican strategy is to keep the poisonous ads gushing so people think 'why even bother' so turnout is low with Tea Party enthusiasm high. And even if we're not too excited about our choices, think of it as your civic duty.

Body Count verses the Free Market

Conservatives love the free market, except when they don’t.

One of the best examples of the operation of the free market is the illegal drug trade, which is obviously controlled by the rules of supply and demand. A perfect free market system.

Last week, the media spent a lot of coverage on a drug bust in Mexico. A real, honest to God, dope kingpin was arrested. Officials were falling all over themselves talking about how this arrest would disrupt the distribution network of the smugglers.

One observer suggested that this arrest would be a sign that the “serious consequences of prosecution...” will somehow deter others from entering the trade. Who are these people kidding?

These Mexican drug cartels are the people who will brazenly kill 20 kids at a party. They’re not worried about prosecution. As long as there is a profit available, someone will step in to take over the business. This is the very nature of the free market.

Any disruption in the flow of drugs north, or the flow of guns and money south is temporary. A hiccup in a business which will be back to normal within hours.

On equal footing of this conservative fantasy is the war on terror. It is something like a free market system in that there appears to be a sort of supply and demand of zeal and sacrifice. The leaders supply the necessary religious dogma to a group of insurgents who buy into it hoping to achieve martyr status in their fight for what they believe to be a just cause.

The way this war is reported always reminds me of the all-important body count in the Vietnam War. There, officials determined that if we could just show that the troops were killing an inordinate amount of insurgents, success would lie just around the corner. Maybe they'll run out of bad guys.

But with either drug smugglers or terrorists, there appears to be a waiting list of people to take over when room becomes available at the top. In the case of our war on drugs, we have spent billions of dollars in the actual waging of it, not counting more billions in prosecuting and imprisoning offenders, all without any discernible effect. And this is without counting the damage to our judicial system in terms of both its integrity and perception.

In the case of our war on terror, we have incurred casualties in the thousands and inflicted like amounts on the enemy. And we have compromised our values, alienated allies and sent countless drones into villages, killing both innocent and not so innocent persons in an effort to build up the body count. These people, whether drug kingpins or terrorists, are fighting with a zeal which cannot be neutralized by military force.

Does anybody really believe that at some point they will recognize the futility of their cause, give up and see things our way? Is that the way the market operates? I would argue that there seems to be an inexhaustible supply of drug lords and terrorists just waiting for promotion to the vacancy created by our military.

Whether fighting for a monetary profit or 40 virgins in the afterlife, we need to adjust our thinking to accommodate the fact that there is always a market for dope and fervor. When our country uses its considerable force toward some end, someone needs to be thinking whether our actions are helping to achieve our stated goals.

Running up a body count should never be one of them.

who's it all about, anyway?

I was drinking my coffee yesterday morning, watching the news and on a local station, a local news reporter from that station was participating in the Ironman competition. The anchors went on and on about his participation in the event and how he would be tweeting from time to time.

Switching over to NBC, Brian Williams was talking about his network’s coverage of hurricane Katrina five years ago. They were running clips from the early days of the disaster and making comments how none of the news organizations had any idea of how devastating the storm would be. The amount of footage reporting on their reporting was amazing.

When Tim Russert of NBC died, you’d have thought he was the president. Or at least the pope. The amount of coverage on his death was mind-boggling. They did specials on him-and, oh, who do you think would be selected to replace him?

This brings me to the question: is news about the news, or is it about the people that bring you the news?

The news used to be about the news, nowadays, not so much. In our celebrity culture, those people behind the desks now want their 15 minutes of fame.

Glenn Greenwald, a blogger for Salon, wrote about a garden party at the home of Joe Biden this summer. A number of White House reporters were invited and participated in some of the water follies that were going on. This one reporter twittered every few minutes and was so obviously pleased to be a part of the event that one has to question how objective his reporting had been in the past and would be in the future. His tweets sounded like some giddy pre-teen.

Mr. Greenwald also has written about the curious story of Michael Hastings, the Rolling Stone reporter who wrote of the insubordination of the staff of Gen. McChrystal in an article that brought down the general and Laura Logan of CBS who thought such an expose’ was, well, unamerican. To me it is so curious that Ms. Logan’s reasoning is that if you print the secrets that you are told, you won’t be told any more secrets. But the obvious question is, “If you’re not going to print it, what difference does it make if you’re told more secrets anyway?” Do you not print just so you can remain in that exclusive club? A portion of Mr. Greenwald’s article is as follows:


" Yesterday, Hastings was interviewed on CNN's Reliable Sources about the criticisms he has received from media figures over his article, and that was followed by a segment with CBS' Lara Logan, who lambasted him. I really recommend watching these two segments (video below), as they illustrate the two poles of journalism: those who view their role as exposing the relevant secrets of the powerful (Hastings) and those who view their role as protecting those secrets and serving the interests of those officials (Logan). Amazingly, Logan sounds like the most devoted member of McChyrstal's P.R. staff or even his family: so furious is she that Hastings would publish an article that reflected negatively on this Fine, Great Man (whom she supposedly covers) -- so devoted is she to the interests of this military official -- that, at one point, she drops the neutral journalist mask and shows her Bill Kristol face, and actually spat: "Michael Hastings has never served his country the way McChrystal has."
" These two segments should be put into a museum, or a journalism class, to illustrate what journalism is supposed to be (Hastings' views) and what it has actually degenerated into (Logan's). That's why the passage in Politico which ended up being deleted -- on how regular beat reporters would never have published these McChrystal quotes out of fear of losing favor with their subjects they cover and due to an oozing identification with the powerful -- was so revealing. Logan has done good and courageous reporting over the years, but she clearly sees herself as part of the government and military, rather than an adversarial watchdog over it, and that's what makes her views so illustrative... "


Locally, now retired Judge John Potter was once obviously disgusted with the attention that attorneys and the media were focusing on his efforts to uncover a secret deal between plaintiffs and defense attorneys in the Westbecker case. His comment went something like this: “when you are looking under a rock, the attention should be on what’s under the rock, not who picked it up.”

I think it was last year, the New York Times did an exposé about the high-ranking military officers that had been used by the networks in the run-up to the Iraq war and afterwards for expert commentary, and their undisclosed ties to various military contractors. Many of the generals were on the board of directors of companies or otherwise financially tied to firms which were supplying military equipment or intelligence for the war. It was really shocking to see the many conflicts of interest that were allowed, and not reported, by the major news organizations. General Barry MaCaffrey who did commentary for NBC had several paragraphs devoted to his conflicts of interest.

I was anxious to see how the networks would respond. They didn’t. I don’t think any of the major networks either acknowledged the article, or tried to respond to it on the air. The only defense I saw was a blog entry by Brian Williams, which basically said, “I know Gen. McCaffrey, and he’s a fine man.”

When the Times article won a Pulitzer Prize, I was really interested in seeing how the networks would respond. Answer: they didn’t – they completely ignored the news of that prize.

I often wonder what would happen if there was another story like Watergate unfolding today. Are there any reporters who would dare go against the system in order to inform the public of a scandal? Is the idea of a free press reporting on the excesses of government a completely lost idea? For the only business which has its own constitutional amendment, aren’t they letting it go to waste?

What is being taught in journalism today?

The Politics of Fear

Pres. Obama made two statements over the weekend, one of which made me proud, the other, not so much. When he voiced his support of the right of Muslims to build a mosque near Ground Zero, despite the fact that the majority of Americans do not favor it, I thought it was a good thing. Freedom of religion is a cornerstone of our liberties.

However, I also read that Pres. Obama stated that the Republicans wanted to kill Social Security. And although I believe that he is essentially correct in this, I had hoped that the politics of fear would be left to the domain of the Republicans. Historically, they are so much better at it.

Politicians liked saying that, “9/11 changed everything.” I think it changed the way that fear could be used against Americans for political advantage. If you weren’t for George W. Bush, you were against him. If you weren’t for his policies, you were for the terrorists. If you weren’t for torture – I mean enhanced interrogation -you were, at least, misguided.

If you weren’t in favor of illegal wiretapping, you were a terrorist sympathizer. The perversion of our government was a damned amazing thing to watch.

Since that time, the politics of fear has slowly expanded. Now, we must fear a government takeover of our health care system. We must also fear immigrants coming across our southern border, beheading people, taking our jobs, and straining our social services. We must also fear that the immigrants are coming here to have babies, which then become US citizens. Baby terrorists.

And for good measure, we need to fear that the Democrats will raise our taxes.

And after eight years of totally ignoring it, we must fear deficit spending.

And now, with the tea partiers chiming in, let’s also fear government regulation. Of everything.

As much as their hypocrisy frightens me, in a sick way I admire the ability of the Republican Party to twist things to their advantage. Economically, they had people voting against their own interests. In what used to be a free society, they had people giving up all kinds of rights, both in their freedom from governmental intrusion, but also in the face of a mounting tide of corporate intervention in politics. Unlimited political donations will corrupt our political system in ways unimaginable.

So what should we be afraid of? We should fear massive, chronic unemployment. We should fear the erosion of our middle class. We should fear the increasing disparity between the rich and the poor. But we should not fear these things like children cowering from the threat of some Hollywood monster.

Instead, we should use the knowledge of what is going on to adjust our policies and our perceptions.

Death panels, death taxes, huge government takeovers and bailouts. This is the sound of dog whistle politics.

As a motorcyclist, I believe the little fear is not necessarily a bad thing. However, when fear is injected to produce paralysis we have a real problem. I think this is what the Republicans are banking on for November’s elections.

After eight years of Bush policies, I was encouraged that a black democrat could defeat a Republican campaign based almost totally on fear politics. After a year and a half of Republican obstructionism in congress, I am disheartened to see the increasing use of everything negative in the political arena. It is my hope that the majority of voters will try and remember what it was like when the Republicans last ran the show.

when ignorance is strength

A friend of mine has reminded me that, by definition, one half of the population is intellectually below average.

I think that how we treat those who have less reasoning capability is very telling about who, as a nation, we are. Whether we try to educate and lift them up or whether we try to just take advantage of them says more about us than it does about them.

A couple of days ago I was watching a segment on the NPR news hour and they had a couple of senators discussing the Gulf oil spill. I was preparing dinner and was pretty distracted, but I am confident that I heard the Republican senator saying that we need less regulation of the oil companies in the Gulf.

His reasoning went like this: before this spill, the odds of a catastrophic oil spill had been calculated as something like one in thousands. There are about 4000 wells in the Gulf, so since we’ve had that one spill, it just makes sense that there won’t be any more. This logic was not challenged by either the moderator or the Democratic senator.

What he was saying, of course, makes no sense. I think that I remember from the study of logic that the existence of one thing makes it more likely that there is another thing similar or identical to the first. In other words, once it can be shown that there is more than one, the odds are then that there are more than two.

(As an aside, I once saw a television reporter at the opening of a new baseball field. Her actual statement was, “this is one of only two ballparks in the whole country completely financed with private money, and that makes it unique.” Of course, if there are two, it is by definition, not unique. But more on TV news in other posts.)

With reference to the senator who said that one catastrophe makes a second catastrophe less likely, I have to wonder whether he really believes what he is saying.

I mean, logically, he either believes it or he doesn’t. This leaves me with the following observation: if he truly believes that crap, he is an idiot and unfit to serve. However, if he doesn’t, he is a hypocrite who is playing on the ignorance of that one half of the population.

The rise of the Republican Party has, at least in part, been fueled by this careful, cynical manipulation of the other half. It’s this continual assault on logic and reason that has helped keep it as a major player in politics.

I don’t remember who it was, but a Republican politician has stated that the issues of guns, gays and God are sufficient fuel to assure many reelections. If you can keep the masses concentrated on things you could care less about, you can create a lot of mischief in D.C. when people aren’t looking.

Kentucky’s own Mitch McConnell is a master of hypocrisy. There is no better illustration of this than when he speaks of the dangers of trial lawyers as a threat to our democratic system. Mr. McConnell is, of course, a trial lawyer by training.

So one must ask, are the Republicans really afraid of trial lawyers? Well, of course they’re not. They have their own trial lawyers. When Republicans cynically deride trial lawyers, what they really fear are juries, potentially a great equalizer between huge corporations and otherwise small, insignificant people.

Mr. McConnell and his Republican friends pass all types of laws to deregulate rules for corporations and weaken protections for individuals and it keeps corporate donations flowing to the Republican Party.

However, when an individual, or individuals, are injured by a corporation’s actions a jury may award compensation to the injured party or parties. This is a huge problem for the Republican mindset, because it can elevate the status of an individual to that of a corporation (or rich person). This is why Republicans continually try to set caps on damages that juries can award.

In short, Republicans are fearful of both our legal system and those little people who are called for jury duty. When you have control over the three branches of government and continually game the system in favor of the rich and powerful, its got to be scary to have 12 ignorant, unwashed little people with so much power.

Hypocrisy, cynicism and ignorance becomes important tools to keep the powerful in power without regard to the costs it imposes on the country. This is what happens when it becomes more important to get and stay in power than it is to do the right thing.

Rand Paul- Part Two

I must admit I'm becoming intrigued by the way this Rand Paul thinks. I watched a clip of a "debate" which took place earlier in the week between Mr. Paul and his opponent, Jack Conway.
Now, I've got to admit I've always suspected that the federal government wastes a lot of money, but as it turns out, for every dollar which goes to Washington, those politicians waste $1.50 of it.
Seriously, that's a lot of waste, and Rand Paul explains it by saying that money going to Washington gets "swished around in the bureaucracy, half of it gets left in Washington, half of it is wasted, and half of it goes to political cronyism."

I think I have the quote right, and hopefully Mr. Paul's handlers will issue a "clarification" for us soon. The entire video is about 45 minutes, and the brilliant statement appears at about 39:30.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/rand-paul-americas-poor-should-be-glad-theyre-americans-video.php?ref=fpb

Rand Paul-Part One

This is my second blog entry on my second blog site. The previous site was difficult to access for some which made a good excuse to discontinue for a time.
Hopefully, a better site will keep me motivated, but we'll see.

I wanted to comment on an article which appeared on the op-ed page in the Courier-Journal yesterday which was a repost of a Greg Sargent Washington Post story about the misunderstanding of Rand Paul's "underground electronic fence" between the U.S. and Mexico.
After some critics suggested that the idea was, well, kind of kooky, Rand Paul's spokesman, Jesse Benton "clarified" Paul's position by saying that the electronic fence wasn't meant to be underground. "That's a stupid word that was put in by whoever is writing for our website and we need to remove it."
That's the end of story, according to Mr. Sargent and the Courier.
Except, of course, that its not.
In an early interview by Mr. Paul as reported by Sam Stein of the Huffington Post on June 25, 2010, Stein wrote:

In a speech before a small gathering of supporters back in May 2009, Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul elaborated on his proposal to build an underground electronic fence along the U.S.-Mexico border, framing it as a cost effective and even respectful way of stopping the flow of illegal immigrants.

In a speech in downtown Paducah, Kentucky, Paul pegged the cost of his quixotic idea at somewhere between $10 and 15 million dollars (a relative pittance when compared to other border-fence proposals, and likely far too rosy a projection). The benefits of an underground fence, he argued, were that it would not have the symbolism of a Berlin Wall-like structure and it would be considered less offensive to Hispanic voters who are already fleeing the country.

"Where I disagree, maybe with some people on the immigration issue, I don't like the symbolism of a 15 foot fence going the whole border. It's extraordinarily expensive, and it reminds me of the Berlin Wall which was built to keep people in and from fleeing to the west," Paul said. "I think you could actually put an electronic fence under the whole for border for $10 or $15 million, which sounds like a lot to us but that's peanuts. And you could probably have helicopter stations in maybe five different locations, and I think you could have any breach of the border could be stopped at any point and we send them back."

Now, to me, "under the border" would mean underground. But that's just me.

In an interview with something called RT, Paul is asked point blank about the "underground electric fence" and he replies, "I think that would be one way..." and goes on with other high tech solutions to the problem. He doesn't say, "Oh, that underground stuff was put in by whoever is writing for my website." Rather, his lack of objection, to me, seems to acknowledge the underground fence as his idea.

Here's the link, the question appears right at 8:30 into the interview.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aILHHAJhqpM&feature=player_embedded

All I'm saying is this: Whether or not its a crazy idea, the evidence is that its Rand Paul's idea, not something placed into his website by "whoever."

The media used to be all over this stuff, but has in the past several years become stenographers to the politicians. No investigation, no nothing. "you talk, we type." Glen Greenwald at Salon.com writes frequently about this phenomenon and I wish the media would do a better job of actually investigating the facts behind the statements.

But for Greg Sargent, case closed.