An argument 8 years too late

As much as Cal Thomas thinks that he now has reason to criticize President Obama’s stimulus package, and even further argues that we as a people need to simply do more for ourselves; I would tend to agree with the fellow however, doing more for ourselves takes investment in $$$$.  Where was his argument while GW was still in office, that we don’t need a stimulus package where the vast majority of taxpayers would get 600 to spend and “keep jobs” afloat?  That was at a time when home foreclosures were escalating, gas prices were escalating, job losses were escalating and Mr. Thomas was being a schill for the energy companies ridiculing the idea of green technology.  People at the latter end of the GW administration were indeed doing something for themselves, resorting to alternative transportation, trying to get rid of their gas hog SUV’s, buying hybrids, converting their cars to all electric.  They didn’t have much of a choice.

And also, I notice that Thomas wasn’t saying much (as republished in the Spokesman-Review) to protest the bailout of business interests in Wall Street.  But I am quite certain that he protested anything that would help union jobs.  Well, Mr. Thomas can be anti-union all he wants, but it isn’t the unions in particular or the American workforce in general that ran amok and destroyed the economy.  But we are the ones being told now that we must do more for ourselves—when we’ll be damned lucky indeed if we can even hold onto what we have now.  So, why wasn’t he telling the business interests such as the financial system to “do more for themselves?”  That banks, mortgage and credit lending firms that got into a catastrophic situation with toxic loans could do more for themselves by correcting their own failures of how they put together these loans and then bundled them as “securities” to be sold to whomever, where ever.  With a consequence of a global financial collapse.  As a side note, The History Channel has put out various end of days scenarios and given full voice to quite extremist voices among Christian activists.  The kind of people who may claim a literal truth about the bible and then wildly misinterpret it.  The fellow who carries the weights and measures as one of the four horsemen of the apocolypse…  How exactly should anyone interpret such a graphic description?  Weights and measures are the tools of the capitalist society.  When the businessman rides forth, crying out about the oil and the wine, these are goods to be sold as part of a business transaction.  But, because the businessman rides forth as one of the four horsemen of the apocolypse, means that by his very presence humanity suffers.  Well, then I would say that humanity suffers now because of the sort of ideology that would let him loose to run amok.   And American corporatist ideology did indeed let the capitalist member of the 4 horsemen ride amok.

---

A couple of letters of note in the Coeur d’Alene Press this morning (28 January 2009); one from Mike Jorgensen a member of the Idaho State Legislature absolutely appalled at the idea that a Mr. Olmstead who is a public face for Idaho businesses wanting a source of cheap foreign labor would submit a letter to the editor advocating legal guest workers.  But then, Mr. Olmstead was only using GW’s own language about cheap (but legal) labor on the behalf of business interests who had no interest in hiring Americans, would in fact toss Americans off the side of the boat by way of the fact that cheap labor (illegal or legal guest workers) would do the jobs that Americans won’t do.  And surprise, would do much to help the economy! I call it the union busting argument.  But, let’s put it bluntly, not everyone agrees with or would even care to join a union.  And they still have a right to a job, a good paying job, so that they can have a future for themselves and their kids.  Nor can you seperate the laborer from the consumer.  Without work, consumption simply does not exist.  Would guest workers and illegal aliens take over being consumers in this country after they have effectively displaced the American workforce?  No.  So, how do they support our economy?  How would they support the bottom line of the business interest who’s consumer base is the American society?  In my earlier reply to Mr. Olmstead, I argued that if he didn’t think that businesses could afford to hire Americans then they certainly can’t afford to hire the foreign labor that certainly will not contribute back to the host nation that gave it work.

From Hans Neumann, he is on record as being highly anti-abortion.  He also faced an outright rejection of the GOP post GW that put a pro-choice president in power. But while Neumann is drinking the bitter dregs of special interest defeat; he could be considering the broader picture.  Why would Americans (if they are supposed to be against the taking of innocent life) fully prepared to support a guy who’s not only for abortion but also supports stem cell research?  Because they saw the massive destruction of this society as a consequence of the lack of morality from gvt and the marketplace over the last 8 years.  These have not been a good 8 years to try to raise kids, that’s for sure.

---

So Thomas thinks it is imperative that this nation not see a taxpayer investment that produces jobs—no matter how ill concieved:  Errol Louis, “Lou Dobbs Tonight.”  But where was his quibbling about that investment of tax dollars that benefited say Haliburton and etc. in the so-called rebuilding of Iraq post invasion?  No?  The tax dollars that funded a war and even now our return for the dollar spent is highly questionable indeed.  No?  We could invest in freedom throughout the world:  GW; but that on the lack of a financial investment of any sort from anywhere, including from our own gvt, we should simply step up to the plate and re-create a vibrant and prosperous society.  Well I have news for Thomas, it took the gvt to screw everyone over, it will now take gvt to re-invest in America.

The stimulus package could be cleaned up of all its pork, but it is a start in the re-investment of this nation.

44th President, Barack H. Obama

I woke up early on the 20^th of January 2009 and going out to get the papers, I had soon turned on the CBS news special report around 8 am or so because I had no desire to miss watching President elect Obama being sworn into his new office.  It almost went off without a hitch, except for Chief Justice John Roberts flubbing the oath that Obama was supposed to repeat for his official swearing in.  Yeah, I heard that.   He was to be excused perhaps for nervousness?  Never having done it before?  I heard that too.  Lot’s of forgiveness for a dude who had been appointed by former (at last) President George W. Bush.  What Katie Couric was to later point out, GW’s term in office ended at 12:00 pm.  Obama is officially president, even if that oath did get flubbed.  As the news media would report (including the Spokesman-Review) there is no constitutional crisis in the taking of a flubbed oath.  And it is up to Obama if he wishes to take it again before witnesses.

Millions of people traveled to Washington, D.C. to witness an outgoing president leaving the White House forever.  To witness the man they replaced him with, Barack Hussein Obama, assuming the presidency.  Most of the nation, that could not make the journey, gathered for inauguration parties, to watch live TV in the public square, in the comfort of their homes—Obama’s swearing in ceremony.  They cheered as President Obama became the new president of the United States.  I saw GW leave the White House.  I saw him and his party head out on Air Force Special Mission 28,000 to go to the state of Texas.  And I watched the parade.  I heard about Senator Kennedy taken ill and Senator Byrd overcome with emotion upon the discovery that Kennedy had suffered a seizure during the inaugural luncheon.  But then we all know about Kennedy’s life threatening brain tumor.  Kennedy loaded into an ambulance and the mood of the luncheon turing somewhat grim.  But there was some good news, that Kennedy was alert and talking in his hospital bed.

The presidential party led the parade.  At two points, President Obama and his first lady Michelle stepped out of “the beast” to walk the route and wave to the spectators.  Then they went onto the White House and around to the viewing stand to watch the rest of the parade.  Of personal note, among the parade entrants was a small band of drummers from a school for troubled boys that CBS News had featured about a week earlier.  And representing Idaho, the Coeur d’Alene Indian tribe.  A very nice parade all in all.

Having to go to work then, and getting home after 10 pm.  I got a meal ready to cook after I watched “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” and KREM 2 News.  The Daily Show really welcomed the incoming president with loads of what could be called on the surface, loads of ridicule.  It was also hillarious how they did it.  Officially, its called “a roast.”  Even though I did vote for the man, Obama, I could appreciate the comedy routines that The Daily Show crew came up with.

In the aftermath, I am sure that there will be plenty of people who will write to the local papers such as the Spokesman-Review and the Coeur d’Alene Press expressing fear of the president whom the majority of us put into office.  Today, the Spokesman-Review published three such letters.  In Gary Crooks “Smart Bombs,” he reiterated that Obama was very good for gun sales.  Panicked buyers were out to acquire as many toys as possible before Obama had outlawed them all.

And Leonard Pitts, jr was shaking his head in a (republished to the Spokesman-Review) editorial over the people who had come to watch Obama being sworn into office, jeering the outgoing president G.W.  He wouldn’t have heard me all the way from Kootenai County, but, I too said, “Goodbye Bush.”  After 8 particularly horrible years which Pitts did report and opine on, goodbye Bush.  Now it is the need to walk a new path, to forge  a future this nation can be proud of.  As Pitts did opine and on this I agree, the miracle of democracy, in which people can go out, being dissatisfied with what they have now, they can reinvent themselves.  Good luck to all of us, our new president, and the Gods bless America.

Interesting letters

Dan Schreiber wants to blame it all on the news media for why this nation is facing economic hard times.  What he can not feel free to do it seems, is to recognize that economic hard times can more fully be blamed on GW’s domestic policies of the last 8 years.  A fellow so very interested in catering to business interests as special interests, that his economic policies ended up gutting those very same businesses.  Because of the fact that GW’s economic policies first hurt the American worker/consumer before it ended up hurting those business interests.  I highly doubt that the news media is going to discuss an improved economic picture until one actually exists.

Next is Larry Kettle who doesn’t seem to understand the main point of his own letter, if what he reported in his letter to the editor in the Coeur d’Alene Press being true, “cold water traps carbon dioxide,” as to expanding icecaps in certain regions of the earth inclusive of Greenland and Antartica; then there is indeed an abundance of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to indeed trap.   And one of the principle green house gases is in fact carbon dioxide.  What Mr. Kettle also doesn’t seem to understand is that ocean currents, micro climates, and general air currents can affect locally the amount of ice that any geographical region has, melting it away in some areas, such as at the Artic circle, and simply put it somewhere else, such as in the Himalayas, Greenland and Anartica.

So, has Mr. Kettle checked the reporting of “red tides” of lethal algea that kill marine life and can sicken as well kill humans?  “Red tide” algea is only possible with increased  warmth in water temperatures and has increased in frequency because of increased warmth in water temps.  The History Channel happens to be one source of such information.

Back to Schrieber, Jon Stewart is a comedian who runs a “fake news” program.  In order to have gag lines and something to base hilarious comedic skits on, he does run what can be described as out of context scripts.  In the last 8 years, GW as seen at his worst.  On the other hand, the news media, especially CNN did not care to show GW at his worst.  They went on to transfer their affection for GW to Senator McCain.  The less they reported on his pratfalls, the more they gave a pass to his gaffes, the less they had to say about his constant 180°s in campaign speeches as well as conduct; and the more they had to say about Obama’s alleged offenses no matter how picyune or non-existent, they figured they could again put a favored son into office as they had with GW.  Sorry Schrieber, but the media bias did not favor GW’s Democratic successor and CNN, esp. Wolf Blitzer rubs his hands gleefully at the idea of sensationalizing even miniscule wrong doings, even those easily taken care of by Obama’s appointees.  Obama can do no wrong in news media eyes?  I beg to differ.  But then, what can you say about a dude who acts like he gets more news from the sports pages, direct mail and e-mail than actually paying much attention to news sources?

Quite frankly, I have yet to see the news media being able to provide truly objective reporting to the Obama administration that still has 3 days to go before it enters office; when it hasn’t been objective about the man when he first tossed his hat in the ring as a presidential contender.

Then Laura Tolin discusses the fact that there are more important matters to spend our tax dollars on than converter boxes for up to now, analog broadcast signals.  Apparently, even though the gist of what Ms. Tolin discusses is an important issue, to include health care; what strikes me as ignorance on her part, is the fact that gvt is taking away commercial analog signals and reserving them for oh, military use as one example; and even further, catered to the entertainment industry to create very expensive new toys, HDTV in order to view digital TV.  Gvt intervention that helps create a new market for the entertainment industry, well then gvt can also lend a hand to people who do have antennas, who can’t afford a 2,000 dollar HDTV, with converter boxes for their still functioning analog TVs.

And finally a note about Kathleen Parker.  A member of the news media after all who couldn’t bring herself to find much wrong about GW.  She is facing the fact that because of GW, “trickle down” economics has ended up sinking a lot of boats, including those unemployed holding MBA degrees.  That is the degree of distress now facing this nation, when those with white collar jobs can’t hold on to such lucrative positions any longer.

Make that one lapse

I’ll agree that Obama’s vetting team dropped the ball on Governor Bill Richardson when it came to his nomination for Commerce Secretary.  But as I understand from CNN, the Obama team knew there was a probe, what they did not know, until Richardson personally told them, was that it personally affected his office of Governor. At that point, Richardson also withdrew his name from consideration. Which is where I would say that was entirely decent of the man.  I have no idea what “news reports” David Broder was referring to, since CNN did not refer to this matter until after the fact.  Should the Obama team have vetted Richardson better, damn straight they should have.  At the least it proves an embarrassment.  But because Richardson willingly withdrew his name, it does say a lot about his willingness to see the new administration on better ethical grounds than the last one.  Where GW, we know for a fact was willing to cling to and even reward failure because of the ideological alliances they held with him.  At the least, Broder could have discussed that aspect, he couldn’t be bothered.  And thus we know what slant Broder will be taking with the new administration; any minor mistake will be overreacted to and harshly judged.  But Richardson withdrew his name before Obama has even been sworn into office.  So, until inauguration day, the incoming Obama administration lacks one nominee, who will have to be replaced.  That too Broder might have remarked upon and did not.  Instead…

According to CNN, Obama basically stayed out of the Senate fight over not seating anyone appointed to Obama’s vacated Senate seat that was appointed by Gov. Blago.  He did however have stern words to Gov. Blago that he ought to vacate his own office over corruption charges.  I don’t recall CNN reporting anything like what Broder claimed, that Senate Majority leader Harry Reid was backed by Obama over the refusal to seat anyone appointed by Blago.  While I can understand not wanting someone “tainted” by Blago; Blago at the time of appointing Ronald Burris was not yet facing impeachment, federal prosecutors had not yet brought federal charges to bring him before a federal court of law.  So regardless of his well-publicized taint, he was still within his power to appoint anyone he wished and for the appointee to have his signed paperwork submitted to the Senate.  So it ends up being the highly egotistical—and amusingly so—Ronald Burris.  CNN did not go into the details of Burris running for various offices and being rejected by the voters, I’ll assume that would be true.  But that the offices Burris did hold, presumably he was above reproach.  Is Burris to be tainted because it may take months to remove Blago from office and in that time, the Senate will have to tend to the affairs of passing laws with only 98 members?  And afterwards, there would have to be the selection of the Governor to replace Blago should he be removed from office, a careful scrutiny of that individual (if that is possible in Illinois politics) who replaces him would then be in order.  How long would that take?  Can the Senate do without some appointee to Obama’s old seat for a year or better?  Coleman’s lawsuit challenging Al Franken’s winning the election in Minnesota will keep that seat vacant for months, or unless Coleman finally concedes under pressure that he was actually defeated by a comedian.  So, I can consider beyond Rep. Rush playing the race card, that Harry Reid did have much to reconsider.  He may have to bite the bullet and place Burris in that Illinois Senate seat because of some major issues coming down the pike that immediately affect the American people.  That too was something that Broder might have discussed, the enormous pressure that Congress is facing to get something done.  And the American people might be entertained by petty vendettas in the politcal world, but that it won’t keep a roof over their heads.  While Blago is still governor, he has the authority to appoint whomever he wishes.  If as Broder suggests that Burris hadn’t even held political office for the last 20 years, why not him?  As he would have been relatively free of the pay for play scandal afflicting the Gov.’s office.  Which Broder couldn’t be bothered considering that as well.  Yeah, we all know the political maneuverings that was to follow and Burris’ own grandstanding before the cameras to get what he wanted.  But this embarrassment is for the Democratic party as a whole and not something to be hung solely on Obama’s neck like an albatross.  Too bad, that Broder wasn’t prepared to look at the broader picture before spewing.  Some dean of journalists.

---

On the other hand, Jonah Goldberg looks at the crapola of Illinois politics and rubs his hands gleefully.  We already know where Goldberg stands at anytime, his partisan rancor is well out in front of any serious reporting or opinion making at least based on the facts.  I read his column through, I’ll assume that as far as Illinois politics is concerned; there is nothing that is now salvagable about any of it and the voters could scrap the whole thing and start over from scratch.  But that is for Illinois to resolve, what has that to do with the President elect?  Then as a reminder to Goldberg, no state in the union is above reproach.  I’ll reference former Senator Larry Craig who got caught in a sex sting operation.  He pleaded guilty, after he got caught and exposed to the national news media, he claimed he would resign.  Then he went back on his word on both counts.  He proved to be a mighty major embarrassment to the state of Idaho and the GOP who supported him.  (Sexual misfeasance is only a no no if you are a Democratic president, such as Bill Clinton.) But no one tried to hang Craig on Bush.  How about that.  Because Craig was the Senate’s problem and the problem of the GOP in general and a problem for the State of Idaho.  And Craig’s legal woes were of his own making.  So let us put it bluntly, even if Idaho is known for putting some of the zaniest people in office at the federal level, Idahoans unlike the punditry (Goldberg and Broder) recognize personal responsibility.  You wallow in the mud, we are going to say to your face that you stink.  We won’t say, that your neighbor who didn’t wallow in the mud with you stinks as well.  But leave it to Broder and Goldberg to say the opposite:  You stink just because of the state you represent, the people you have associations with, not necessarily because of your own actions.  To that I reply, why do you suppose the GOP got trounced by 2008 and a Dem African-American got elected to the presidency?  Simply because the GOP weren’t prepared to stand on principle at all when it came to GW.  For Goldberg too, he could be looking at the bigger picture too instead of allowing his “sore loser” stance to act as a set of blinders.

Every party has its problems, with the Burris case in particular, the problem for the Dems has been exposed early.

Sorry Frida Ghitis

President elect Obama has 11 days to go before he can officially take office on the 20^th of January 2009.  Yes, in that time, Obama has made some economic speeches, he has named the majority of his cabinet appointees.  One Gov. Richardson who withdrew his name because of an investigation into corruption charges involving a campaign donor.  But, the biggest blow to fall on the GW administration was to watch the state of Israel invade Gaza after deciding that enough was enough when it came to Hamas raining rockets on its towns, cities and people.  Perhaps Frida Ghitis doesn’t recall the many nations “peace deal” that GW proceeded to put together and milked for every photo op that he could get his hands on.  That was what, a year ago?  So what happened that it all fell apart starting in late December?  After all, this was supposed to be a sustainable peace.

Leave it to Ms Ghitis (republished column in the Spokesman-Review) to rush past GW and his waning days as president and start hammering on a man not yet sworn into office for “leadership” that he doesn’t yet have the authority to exercise.  Over a matter that for the last 8 years, leadership was never really exercised in the first place.  I am sure that I could understand Ms. Ghitis willingness to do that, the vast majority of the world has since given up on GW as it is.  But, for the next 11 days, Sec. of State Condi Rice is still on the job, and the Middle East mess is still GW’s to have to deal with until he hands everything over (but not the Blair house, incidentally) to his successor.  There is going to be a lot on Obama’s plate on the day of his inauguration.

And in 11 days, the Israeli/Hamas conflict will probably not be resolved.  But how quickly will a new Sec. of State take Condi Rice’s place?  That depends on Congress.  Which means there will be a vacuum developing in which world opinion today represented by Frida Ghitis will demand answers, until a Sec. of State does take office, there can’t be answers.  The appointee is Clinton.  While Senator Clinton has earned her Congressional seat in her own right, Bill is a problem that must be resolved if she is to aspire to a cabinet level position.  And Bill was an argument that the GOP would have used effectively against her had she instead been the Dem nominee for president.  Would the GOP in the Senate put aside visceral hatred of Bill and simply aid in confirming Senator Clinton as the new Sec. of State?  Or would they prefer partisan politics instead, while opinion writers such as Ghitis continue to hammer away for answers and leadership that Obama must have an effective Sec. of State to deliver.

While I can understand such anxiety, the world is an utter mess and that is what GW has as a legacy and is handing over as a legacy to his successor.  President elect Obama has 11 days to go before he can begin picking up the broom, dust pan and begin cleaning up the mound of debris from the last 8 years.  Patience, people, patience.

Letter to the editor

U.S. abets Mideast strife

Christopher Benedict was unfairly criticized by letter-writers Abel, Treece and Starr (Dec. 30).  They stand aggression on its head, insisting that Israel is merely defending its borders and citizens.  Undeniably, Israel has been the aggressor since the 1930s-40s.  Yet, like Gaza today, Palestinians still resist the expansionist settler-state.

Look to the Pentagon for answers.  Israel Defense Forces wouldn’t be blowing Gazans to smithereens without Pentagon approval.  Israel: the big nuclear-armed cop on the Middle East block.  But for billions of dollars supplied by our U.S. Treasury and U.S. religious organizations annually, the Israeli government would make peace with its neighbors.

Jewish friends sometimes refrain from any criticism of the state of Israel, but I wonder how faithfulness to one’s religious beliefs includes unquestioned loyalty to Israeli military and political leadership.  While Gazans are dying in disproportionate numbers now, isn’t it morally responsible, lawful and timely for Congress to slash all taxpayer-supported funding for the IDF immediately?

Modern Israel was created by imperialist schemes, at first British, now the U.S.  What would Israelis dream of without U.S. meddling, advanced weaponry and endless money, living without fear of Palestinian residents and Arab neighbors?

Chuck Armsbury

Colville

Before material like this gets published in say the Spokesman-Review I tend to get “restricted” phone calls on my cell phone.  Presumably the individual(s) calling believe that what they publish will prove annoying enough that I will comment on it.  Generally, that does prove to be the case.  However in Mr. Armsbury’s case, he isn’t so much annoying as just flat out ignorant.  So let us explore a few reasons to say that.The British led Balfour agreement created the modern state of Israel in 1948.  Isreal, until the latter 1940s did not even exist as a state, it was all understood to be the nation of Palestine.  And Palestine, as we all know, was mostly populated by those of Islamic faith.  The fact that Jewish settlers began moving into Palestine no doubt since the latter 19^th century stemming from flight of that people from countries hell bent on persecuting them strictly on their religion and race alone; I will imagine that there was an uneasy peace between Muslims and Jews for a stretch of decades until after World War 2 and the breakup of the British influence in the Middle East, those Jews who survived the Holacaust and wished a state of their own fought for by bullets and voice a right for a state called Israel carved out of Palestine itself.

Before that time, the world had what I call a real anti-semite problem.  Precisely, anti-semitism as it relates to Jews.  Never mind that their Arab cousins are racially Semite too.  Quite frankly, while Christians did have some heartburn over Arabs as the infidels polluting the long abandoned “holy lands” (abandoned long since by the Jewish population) and went into crusades against them; Arabs probably never saw the sort of special hatred reserved for what Christians would ultimately call “Christ killers,” the Jews.  And I highly suspect that Armsbury has that particular background.  Or he would not now make the argument and falsely, that Israel should have no monetary support and be forced to live in peace with its Arab and Palestinian neighbors who never wanted peace in the first place with Israel.

There are plenty of history books on the subject of the creation of one of the youngest nations on Earth today:  The state of Israel.  I would certainly suggest picking them up at any library, book store and even Amazon.com for a thorough lesson in history on the Jewish state.  Whereas, Armsbury obviously did not wish to source his letter before spouting.

After the Balfour agreement, Israel did come under attack at various times by Egypt and Arabic nations.  The first modern terrorist groups to form, being Islamic extremists, did so in reaction to the Jewish state.  They would make use of any weapon, any means most foul to not only decimate the Jewish population but also to uncreate the Jewish state.  Yes, there have been aggressors all right, and they are the people that Armsbury now argues are dying disproportionally in this latest “all out war.”  When I listened to the whiner on the behalf of his fellow Palestinians and Hamas (terrorist organization) on CNN, I am quite sure the fellow would be quite cheered by a letter such as this published in the Spokesman-Review.  That there are Americans around who’d be more than happy to listen to the spin doctoring from extremist Islamic groups then further the lies in letters to the editors, protests and etc.  Have these same people forgotten that Palestinians were cheering 9/11/2001?  Only because this country became a “friend of Israel” was it possible for 3,000 people to be targeted for death by an Al Qaeda that used “Israeli aggression” as a primary cause for murdering people who quite frankly had nothing to do with it.As we enter into the 8^th year of that tragic time how quickly do people forget?  I have no cause to support terrorists who chose violence over and above addressing any greivances they may legitimately have on the political stage.  No doubt the Palestinians did have some legitimate greivances.  They were displaced.  But instead of their fellow Muslims assisting them in getting new homes, new lives and etc. because that might mean actually having to reconcile with that usurping state they had no desire to recognize—Israel; they chose not to ease the suffering of their fellow Muslims and aided in the feeding of their hatred instead.  Under the circumstances, Israel has never been at peace with its Islamic neighbors because they never wanted peace with Israel.

Nor will cutting off money for one party:  Israel, facilitate a peace process with Hamas.  It can’t happen.

My answer to the whiner speaking on the behalf of his fellow Palestinians is this:  When you want peace, then you will have peace.  When you can reconcile with your neighbor, Israel, then and only then will Gazans and etc. have a home they can call their own.  Until you let go the hatred, there can not be a “two state” solution.