The politics of infants

Watching “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” last week and his hilarious take on the off-season political races occurring in a number of states; one thing struck me about the district races for the state Senate or Governor race of New Jersey where the incumbent was trying to describe his Republican opponent and a darling of the religious new radicals  as essentially corrupt.  Christy had gotten caught up in something, threw his weight around, and got off easy.  That was the campaign ad by the Dem incumbent.  So what happened?  Between Fox News and CNN, the so-called “news anchors” to include Wolf Blitzer actually started complaining about the incumbent calling Christy fat.  Uh, excuse me?  But “throwning one’s weight around,” isn’t name calling.  What it involves, should be easy enough for anyone to understand given that it is an expression as old as 20 or more years.  Using one’s authority in a manner that can be called questionable.  Over a matter where the “dude” isn’t man enough to accept responsibility.  That has nothing to do with whether Christy happened to be chubby or not.  But that was the silly twist and turn that the “news media” put on this episode.  Which then led to the incumbent going on to describe his own baldness…  Hardy har, har, har, har.  With eyes rolling, what should the voter do?  Suggest they go find a few write in candidates for this election day, 3 November 2009 and put them in office instead.  Or vote, “none of the above.”

In other news, saw this today in the Spokesman-Review of Spokane, Washington.  Cal Thomas was back at it suddenly remembering what the 10th Amendment was all about.  At least, now that the Dems are in power and the GOP are among the decided minority.  Suddenly, it is in vogue again to argue the limits of federal power and proclaiming that the founding fathers actually did not want a strong central government.  Which, point 1:  That is a misreading of history, since the first try of a newly independent Republic to severely limit the powers of gvt and to grant all authority to the states turned into a disaster.  Which led to a constitutional Congress to write up the form of gvt that would have certain powers granted to it with a compromise that some powers would be granted to the states and the people by way of the Bill of Rights.  Without that drafted and ultimately approved U.S. Constitution that exists mostly intact today; we would not have a fairly strong and generally stable union of 50 states.  Point 2:  only when you are in a minority status do you then argue the need for a gvt small enough to drown in the bathtub.  When you are in power however, the 10th Amendment suddenly becomes “a liberal point of view.”  You are then no longer interested in remembering the limits to federal power that applies to your political agenda too.  Certainly, over the last 8 years, Thomas wasn’t interested in remembering the limits to federal power when the GOP were generally in control.  Which argues the inconsistency to be found in this new left radicalism of which Thomas is a face.

I went out and voted today, living where I do in Dalton Gardens, Idaho; I would not be in a position to vote in the Coeur d’Alene City council races where it would seem that idiocy has prevailed there too.  They are called “Reagan Republicans.”  They sent around a flier that slams the entire incumbent City Council plus GOP Mayor Sandi Bloem.  Apparently, GOP radicalism has reached the point that if you aren’ 1,000% with the “Reagan Republicans” you aren’t “Republican enough.”  Question:  who was that wise fellow of decades before who told the stridently anti-Communists among the GOP what not to do when pushing this political agenda?  Precisely, to not become the enemy by literally following in his foot steps or to adopt his language, behavior or conduct.  The “Reagan Republicans” attacks on fellow Republicans take on a more Marxian style of language, behavior and conduct that would have their hero rolling in his grave.  If you aren’t 1,000% in our corner you aren’t (Bolshevik) enough?  That worked during and after the Russian revolution and literally cost thousands to possibly millions of lives.  To see shades of Bolshevism living on in so-called GOP ideology is down-right more frightening given where it is occurring now, in a land of freedom.  So excuse me if I don’t find this particularly “right wing.”  Tells you a great deal about those who refuse to learn from history.

From my perspective, it is probably a good thing that I don’t live in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho any longer.  I’d find the “Reagan Republicans” so obnoxious I’d simply have to vote all the incumbents back in; even those incumbents I’d personally find obnoxious.

The teachable moment

My brother came up from Nampa, Idaho for a class reunion. That being done he spent some time prepared to visit with my mother.  More than once, she brought up the Professor Gates case, the Harvard scolar arrested by Officer Crowley at his own home.  The second time, while we were having a parting breakfast with my sister and her friend at JB’s who had also come up for a visit.  Of course, my oldest brother was all for passing judgment on the President of the U.S., Barack H. Obama for even daring to speak out about what he thought had gone wrong with that arrest of Prof. Gates.  And pitying the poor woman who called 9/11 as being labeled a “racist.”  But then, my brother had only the day before labeled the Christian Obama as a “Muslim,” as in “What can you expect anyway from a Muslim President?”  Speaking of bigot…

So, let me be clear here as to what ought to be a “teachable moment.”  A white Republican president gets word that a white GOP pal out of Harvard gets arrested by an African-American arresting officer.  Seems the GOP prof having traveled abroad and only recently returned from his trip to China is unloading his luggage and trying to get into the front door of his home, finds his door jammed, and trying to get inside soon after faces a visit from the officer in question.  Waxing belligerent at the officer and getting arrested for “disorderly conduct,” as soon as the GOP prof finds the charges dropped against him; cries about his “treatment” to no less than the white GOP prez.

How would the news media react if the Prez said that the arresting officer “behaved stupidly?”  How would the fellow police officers react if the white prez said of the African-American officer that he (or she) “behaved stupidly?”  How might Fox News react?  While I did not go to such in-depth statements with my brother as we left JB’s this morning; I did say to him that if a white man had said exactly what Obama had, that the reaction would be different.  I have no doubts that the reaction would be different.  Just different enough that it ought to tell this country in general, the news media more specifically and finally the thin blue line that is quick to declare where their allegiance may truly lie when any one of their fellow officers might get caught in a wrongful situation.  So yes, it would not surprise me that Crowley’s backup would defend her fellow officer under the circumstances.  Just as it would not surprise me that in a great many questionable situations that Leonard Pitts, jr. has affirmed, very rarely do police officers caught in a serious situation  pay the price.  But the African-American reaching for his wallet and shot numerous times by trigger happy police officers; well, Prof Gates would be as aware of that history without a doubt as Pitts himself.  And Gates over-reacting to a visit from the police, would be highly understandable too.  But then, my brother wouldn’t know all that would he?  He reads “The Drudge Report.”  Until you are on the receiving end of “police behaving stupidly,” you really wouldn’t know what it is like.

Ask Shonto Pete out of Washington state.  A cop behaving stupidly sat at the bar after he was off-duty and got drunk.  That wouldn’t be so bad but he came into the bar armed with his service weapon.  And then used it on Mr. Pete with an after the fact claim that Pete was trying to “steal his truck.”  Not proven.  Or Otto Zehm who finally died as a consequence of police behaving stupidly.  A 9/11 call presuming that Mr. Zehm, a mentally challenged janitor was “behaving suspiciously” around an ATM.  From, “behaving suspiciously” trying to get himself a snack and a drink at the local convenience store and getting thoroughly beaten up in the process and ultimately dying because of it.  Some better than two years later, only now is at least one arresting officer actually facing a federal indictment.

It isn’t wrong to question the ethics and practices of bad apples who carry a badge.  But it would seem that if you are a bi-racial Democratic president with the name of Obama, thou shalt not!!!  Or meet the wrath of the talking heads who want to fan the flames of hatred because the same president made an honest statement about a very questionable situation.  Why shouldn’t he?  Why shouldn’t anyone?  We have blogs where many people can come on board and discuss at length the cops who behave stupidly, even former cops can weigh in.  We can discuss cops behaving stupidly, we can videotape cops behaving stupidly, but the President of the U.S. must be forbidden expressing that sentiment.  Why?  Must be because of his dad’s race.  Which begs the question of just how much this country may have advanced; make that grown up; since the slave owning days.  We advanced enough to put an African-American in the White House, but we seem not to have advanced enough to not hold him in contempt for even opening his mouth and saying something.

Would I say that all parties over-reacted?  Of course.  Would I label the woman who made the 911 call “racist?”  No.  Would I argue that Obama in trying to bring two “warring parties” to the White House and having them talk things over brought closure to this issue?  I’d love to but for those “Muslim hating” crackpots who are highly uncomfortable with the idea that anyone but a White Man ought to occupy the White House.  Or that the White Man ought to be anyone but a Republican.

Seems to me that the news media ought to feel some sense of shame here.  They only did report the many instances in which “cops behaving stupidly” killed the innocent while in pursuit of the bad guy.  If a white president said of the situation above that the arresting officer had “behaved stupidly” in even pushing this sorry situation even further, escalating the incident so that he (or she) could make an arrest, even though the individual stood on his own property and showed all proper ID; would a white president get the kind of strident attacks that Obama had received?  Would a white president even find it necessary to “apologize” for his remarks?  Would the news media raise a racket because of what the white president did?  I am not in a position to answer such questions, but perhaps my readers will.

Health care as Waterloo? Give me a break!

There are good reasons to have some serious questions about health care reform as touted by the Obama administration. Such as its costs. Such ha-huge costs of reforming the system from the ground up. Some trillions of dollars is proposed to reduce waste, provide insurance and etc. I’d balk.  But, I sure wouldn’t play politics with people’s lives just because I (a Republican) just hate the fact that I am a minority in Congress, the Dems hold the majority and the president himself is a Dem.  I sure wouldn’t exploit the misery of patients who face the very real threat of bankruptcy just because of the escalating costs of health care alone in this nation.

Not unless I were a values challenged Republican member of Congress by the name of DeMint(?) who wants to use “health care reform” as an opportunity to get back at the damn Dem in the White House, the one who wishes to push “socialism” on the rest of us and of course “break him.”

Is that all the GOP can think to do these days?  Look for opportunities to “break” the people’s choice for president?  Then let me remind the dude of why exactly he is now among the minority.

Apparently it wasn’t “socialism” when big pharma and the major league insurance industry got the bulk of taxpayer funded “Medicare reform” while the GW administration was still in office.  Apparently, GOP in Congress didn’t really blink much of an eye when the GW administration lied to their collective faces about the ultimate cost of “Medicare reform.”  Nor did they waver in their conviction that big gvt can do great things (as long as it benefits big business after all) at the complexities of “Medicare reform” that wouldn’t have done that much to help any senior citizen who wasn’t wealthy enough to buy into it.  Well now, if it was going to cost billions to “reform” Medicare to the benefits of private enterprise; then it should come as no surprise that reforming an entire health care system would probably cost twice, maybe even 3 times as much.  But of course, the health insurance industry and big pharma aren’t the ones who necessarily get the benefits of such taxpayer funding this time.  Not if Obama wants to reorientate health care as “patient friendly.”  *shudder* That’s “socialism” that the gvt might actually be responsive to the people who demand something from it.  Can’t have that, can we now.

I can have serious questions about health care being brought under any form of gvt control.  But, as with public education; I don’t regard health care as a “consumer based” part of the “free market.”  The very fact that the GOP decided that health care could become a “for profit” type of business meant that a lot of things could happen that went wrong with the whole industry.  For example:  Insurance rates that go higher and higher.  Coverage that goes less and less.  Insurers who refuse to abide by their side of the business transaction when the prospective patient signs on the dotted line.  That is, actually pay out the necessary money when the patient gets sick or injured.  Only recently, did a fellow repeat his headaches of having to deal with insurance companies more into profits than actually doing what they were paid to do, actually provide insurance for the fellow who paid them good money for that very coverage.  Some companies were better than others.  It is because of this that health care reform could even be put on the table.

How about doctors that misdiagnose patients?  Or who won’t see you unless you have insurance money in hand?  Who can’t be bothered with providing “World Class Treatment” in a great many hospitals (where patients are known to die in the thousands each year from any number of complications)—with reference to a recent “patients united” ad?  That too would be cause to put health care reform on the table.

If I happen to have serious questions about Obama’s current plan, it is because he isn’t addressing what is crippling the system from the get-go and that is the attitude that there is a difference between being a patient and being a consumer.  No hospital is in the business of making a profit.  The money that they make from any patient able to pay the bill must go into staff, building upkeep, records, medical supplies, insurance, etc.  The idea that they must make a profit at the expense of the patient should be met with outrage.  Health care is not a business transaction.  It is not my buying a doctor’s prescription in which a $200 bottle of pills ultimately finds a large percentage of it in his, the pharmacist, the pharm company, the store that sells it, pockets.  It is not like a TV set, after all.  Once the pill bottle is emptied and must be refilled, that I am expected to again pay $200 for a refill.  $200 to keep my personal health semi-afloat.  What if I don’t have that $200 to spend?

Then do remember this; there was a time when no pharm company advertised prescription medication.  Anything that did get televised was aspirin vs that other brand.  Mouthwash vs that other brand.  Nasal decongestants vs that other brand.  Stuff that could be bought off the shelf for temporary relief.  At that time as well, health care was far more affordable than it is now.  But then, patients weren’t buying “brand names” such as Cialis or ads for Viagra with money handed over for their prescription medication.  So, give me a break.

Too many letters, too little thinking

In both the Spokesman-Review and the Coeur d’Alene Press were letters that were either hilarious, irrational, silly or literally beyond the pale. So to try to make sense of it, a little need to discuss them here.

You can’t help laughing at the particular irony of two letters running in two different papers where the main theme is taking scripture out of context in order to “prove” something.  Deborah Solomon is right that you shouldn’t take scripture out of context and ignore those verses in the bible that don’t fit with your world view.  (The same argument that ought to apply to any number of anti-abortion screeds.)  However, in the Press letters is one Jason Hopkins who routinely takes scripture out of context to “prove” that not only is the bible the first word on science, but that it also predicts current scientific laws.  I actually highly doubt that it does anything of the sort.  After all, it wasn’t all that long ago in decades when those of anti-evolutionary views (anti-science to the rest of us) misread the book of Job to “prove” that dinosaurs existed in Old Testament text, as did wooly mammoths.  Uh, excuse me?  But there is no proof that wooly mammoths ever existed in the Middle East since their last known place of appearance is in the Arctic, currently covered by deep glacial ice.  And the Arctic wasn’t exactly known to exist during the time of Job.  On the other hand, it wouldn’t be too surprising if a dinosaur bone popped up in the middle east, as it had in Asia and also in the Americas.  And perhaps on the basis of finding such bones, then the myth of the Leviathan would have been born.  But, only in one scripture out of one book is the Leviathan ever mentioned.  And that is where God chides Job over his presumptions of thinking he can shake a fist at The Lord because of the ills that currently afflict him.  It has nothing to do with either proving or disproving Darwin’s theories.  And meanwhile, “all things are possible with God,” is utterly ignored.  So, Mr. Hopkins takes partial scriptural quotes to “prove” thermodynamics and other current scientific theory.  Making the argument that God’s law is the basis for current scientific theory.  But if I were to turn to each scripture he mentions and read in context, I highly doubt that the scriptures would have “proven” what he claims.

Let’s put it bluntly, that what we now regard as the laws of thermodynamics and others known to exist in the current scientific understanding of things inclusive of the physical universe; scientists did not turn to scripture.  No, they turned to testing, physical observation and etc.  Galileo only physically observed the stars in order to conclude that our solar system in heliocentric—the Earth travels around the sun.  God’s scripture did not tell him that.  Newton watched an apple drop from the tree.  He came up with the theory of gravity.  The bible never addressed gravity.

So, here is a challenge for the readership:  What does each scripture really say put in context with preceding and following scripture?  Isaiah 34:4 and? Hebrew 1:12 and? Job 26:10 and? 28:5 and? 38:24 and? (Remembering that the book of Job was in reality his shaking his fist at God because of what God allowed the devil to do in inflicting injury on Job in order to test his faith.  Now how did that become a serious scientific document?)  Eccliastics 1:6 and?  Jerimiah 33:22 and? Amos 9:6 the water cycle discovered 3 centuries ago.  Which is interesting since that scripture was written some thousands of years prior to that particular discovery; and?  Hebrew 1:11 and?  Hebrew 11:3 and? Coll:17 ???  Now there’s a real pattern here, wouldn’t you say?  A letter writer who jumps from one diverse scripture to another to “prove” what scriptures taken in context wouldn’t be proving at all.  The bible is all about moral authority and guidance toward a more civilized society.  That has absolutely nothing to do with scientific discovery.

When it comes to Gabe Iacobi and his long lament over the new cap and trade legislation:  taxes, taxes, taxes.  But is every small business a polluting industry?  Precisely, one that must fall under new clean air standards?  No.  But it doesn’t stop Mr. Iacobi from engaging in the hysterical broad brush of how much cap and trade legislation would “burden” even non polluting small businesses.  And then engages in the typical hyperbole of how much “going green” would ultimately cost energy consumers.  Uh, has anyone taken note of the twisty flourescent bulbs that have entered the stores in the last few years?  You can literally replace an ordinary light bulb with one that saves energy…  And then can do any other the following:  reproduces natural sunlight, reproduces natural daylight, replicates ordinary house lights.  If you aren’t consuming as much energy (that comes primarily from polluting industries) how would your energy costs go up?  Only if the energy (and polluting) company (such as Avista) insists on raising the costs of operation because it isn’t getting the energy consumption profits from the ratepayers that it wants.  And that is after advertising how to cut the costs of energy (and therefore carbon) use.  Obviously, the studies (inclusive of that from the radical Heritage Foundation) that Mr. Iacobi sites, are going to have their political axes to grind.  The Heritage Foundation in particular will oppose clean air standards promoted by the Dem majority Congress and the Dem president Barack H. Obama.  So?  Bet the next generation however is able to breath a little easier.

Next on the list; Donna Lopez threw a particularly nasty fit at Fiona Gressler for daring to question why the Kootenai County area of Idaho even held a “TEA Party.”  Ms. Lopez’ initial response was that Ms. Gressler didn’t have a right to her opinion.  Now however, Ms. Lopez “apologizes” for presuming that (among other things) she had a right to her opinion!  Let’s put it bluntly, as belittling, demeaning and etc. as before while engaging in yet another nasty attack.  Only now, Ms. Lopez has made herself utterly ridiculous for having done so.  As for Vermont Trotter, I highly doubt that Sarah Palin (soon to be former Guv of Alaska) would ever compare herself to Michael Jackson—an entertainer.  But that didn’t stop Mr. Trotter from doing so.

Randall Jones of the Spokesman-Review:  People knew before they put Obama into office that he would “tax” health care.  Indeed, it was part of his health care proposals while he was running for the White House.  Yes, they did elect him, didn’t they?  He shares his fears of “energy taxes” with Mr. Iacobi.  However, the National Sales Tax wasn’t something mentioned by Obama or the Democrats; but it was the brain child of the “conservatives” Mr. Jones loves to make common cause with.  But it’s “wrong now” if it is adopted by the Dems.  In his great hurry to trash the opposition, Mr. Jones isn’t doing a lot of thinking.

W.C. Miller doesn’t like it that the current administration is trying to “spend us out of debt.”  Well, true enough.  However, why wasn’t he berating the last administration for spending us into debt?  He wants to berate the current administration for ignoring bankruptcy laws and etc. (while trying to get major corporations back on their feet) but fails to berate the last one for ignoring something more major, such as constitutional law.

When it comes to public school policies, in what way has “any” administration “dummied down” math?  Any administration can propose educational standards such as when GW proposed No Child Left Behind and then used that “standard” as an attempt to destroy the public school system; but, what goes on in the public schools as a consequence of the latest political fad where children become nothing more than experiments instead of students, that is the problem of that school district and must be resolved there.

And while he does have some “good points” about high school students, his letter simply rambles from one topic to another rather than being concise.  But here is the laugh riot that comes at the end of his letter, “The government exists only to preserve life and personal and property rights, execute judgment and punish wrongdoing.”  ↔ Got a question for this guy, when was the last time he heard, government is the problem and not the solution?  Reagan.  Essentially, gvt:  loves it, hates it.

At least Russell Brown managed to mention a military coup in his letter about the now ousted Honduran Prez Zelaya.  The guy who wanted the Honduran Congress to rewrite the constitution so that he could serve more than one term.  The answer, he could be forced out of the country by way of a military coup.  I wouldn’t have any idea whether he was “power mad,” a “puppet” of Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez, or even if he was a member of an alliance of international “Communists and Socialists.”  But I do know that Mr. Brown could look a little closer to home and the last administration for a power mad president who went well beyond constitutional constraints and who’s blind followers wouldn’t have minded seeing a rewrite of the Constitution to enable him to serve yet another term.  GW Bush.

While condemning Obama as other prior writers had done; you get the impression that neither does Brown put a lot of thought into his letter.  Would this country be all that accepting if a president asked for a rewrite of the U.S. Constitution so that he could serve more than two terms with the idea that it would be put to a vote by the American people… Only, Congress calls on the U.S. Military to stage a coup against that member of its gvt?  I highly doubt it.  Mr. Brown isn’t exactly holding forth on the sad situation in the Honduras as all that supportive of a democracy.  While arguing contrarily that it is!!!

Maybe Mr. Brown would like to see the same thing happen in this nation where the man he hates the most attained the highest office in a free and fair election with a majority support of the people.  And that is why he’d regard a military coup as “pro democracy” and “anti-communist.”  Who can say?  However, history being any guide, no military coup has ever been pro-democratic in nature.

8 years before whining about deficit

Cal Thomas’ latest republished column to the Spokesman-Review. He is actually encouraging people to become tax cheats out of protest of massive deficits. Now that is one laugh a minute column if I ever saw one.  Before the people consent to pay their taxes, gvt needs to get its house in order.  Oh, wow! What I find most passing strange is that Mr. Thomas never whined about deficits, nor encouraged cheating on one’s tax form 1040, or holding tea parties in protest of massive gvt bailouts.  But then, the massive gvt bailouts were going to such companies as Haliburton that used the taxpaid out billions it received for the purposes of an Iraq war reconstruction as a slush fund to abuse however it chose.  The country of Iraq got untold millions of dollars in taxpayer funded bailouts, money received post invasion, that is not accounted for today.  But then, Thomas wasn’t about to whine during the 8 years of deficit spending of a need for a gvt to get its act together before the people should send in their tax forms because he is no doubt comfortably well to do to the point where he benefited from that bailout called tax cuts that primarily assisted those who could well afford to pay a higher tax rate.  Given the outlay of a redistribution of wealth over the last 8 years, benefiting the rich and powerful and Iraq, going from there to Congressional pork barrel spending; gvt had been out of control for a long time.  But, no one in the last 8 years suggested tea parties for deficit spending under GW Bush.  Nor insisted on becoming tax cheats until gvt got its house in order.  And Thomas could only come up with one Democrat who critiqued GW’s deficit spending, a Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D. NY) as some kind of hypocrite for failing to do the same thing about deficit spending under a Dem administration.  But if Thomas is so concerned about deficit spending today, why wasn’t he concerned about it when it spiraled out of control over the last 8 years?  Tea parties and the encouragement of tax cheating become partisan feel good activities.  But they are worse than useless when it comes to the perilous times this nation is facing today.

I can fully understand New York raising taxes on the successful.  Washington State slashing public funding to state universities and other public education.  Unemployment means that there isn’t enough tax revenue coming in to help the states keep their budgets in balance.  And the borrowing and spending spree that the gvt is currently on, to not only help keep the states above water but also to turn the employment situation around; probably isn’t enough to keep the states going by itself.  Which is why states are looking for more ways to garner more income.  But, it now stands to affect fewer people with any kind of money in their pockets.  the 8.5% unemployed, won’t have that money to provide to the states.  Foreclosed properties generate no tax revenue.  So if Rush Limbaugh threatens to leave the state of New York rather than accepting a tax hike on his annual millions of dollars in income, so be it.  He could actually afford thos taxes.  But he prefers to be a tax cheat.  Well now, has it occurred to Limbaugh that he could use his money, invest in a business and hire on X number of employees?  By doing so, he would actually get tax credits and even a small business loan.  Yeah, some of that out of control spending that has Thomas frothing so much, would be Limbaugh’s for the taking.  Oh, but he can’t do that, can he?  He’d prefer getting his millions into his hot greedy hands by being a blowhard.  Rather than becoming the success that also puts people back to work.  As for Donald Trump being a “success,” seems he has his own money management woes.  Which Thomas, incidentally couldn’t be bothered with recalling.

It just may be that Thomas couldn’t be bothered with inciting tax rebellions over the last 8 years because the last administration was all about feeding the greed.  Now when it comes time to dig this nation out of the financial mess it is in as a consequence and a result of feeding the greed, Thomas doesn’t believe in pitching in and sacrificing.

In other news, CBS Evening News with Katie Couric revealed an interesting item concerning those financial institutions that got TARP money.  No doubt to include Capital One that has demanded more and more money out of my wallet in the hundreds of dollars more, even though they were already recipients of thousands of dollars in payments over the last 2 years.  Where bank cards had originally not called for an annual fee to include Aspen Card Services, suddenly certain card distributing companies began demanding a hundred dollar or better annual fee, to include Aspen card services.  I had no idea that Aspen might have gotten TARP because it was never in the news.  But having seen this late in the day revelation, looks like Aspen might just have, at that.  And as for ATM fees, suddenly those same banks to include Bank of America want to squeeze even harder those customers who do not happen to hold accounts at that particular bank.  Really?

Those banks and other financial institutions engaged in bad business practices=fraud.  And I shall certainly include Capital One among the financial institutions that engaged in fraud.  Now that they got all that money from the U.S. Taxpayers, now they are going to insist on making the taxpayers pay again for the bailouts those financial institutions received.  Seems to me that tea party goers and Thomas’ proposed tax cheats misdirect their wrath.  They should hold their tea parties in full sight of bank tellers and leave shreds of form 1040s on the floor.  Or populate the front lawns of bank executives who still seem to believe that the age of greed hasn’t yet come to an end.  After all, these same financial institutions demanded taxpayer’ assistance in the first place to keep from failing.  Then again, why didn’t they stick to the sort of practices both cautious and moderate that would have kept their institutions relatively healthy?  Too bad that Thomas wasn’t prepared to task the financial institutions for double dipping.

It’s Good Friday, do you know where your bible is?

The Coeur d’Alene Press can be considered good for something, publishing the most extreme stances and the most virulent hate mail to be found anywhere in the news media world.

Take for example an anti-abortion letter from Evelyn Montreuil, she first starts of with the Judas Iscariot betrayal of Jesus Christ.  Only this is a bait and switch letter.  The segueway now is that Good Friday, the day of Christ’s death on the cross can somehow be equated with those poor defenseless “unborn children” whom those nasty politicians simply won’t protect…

When you think about it, there is something laughably ironic about this letter juxtaposed with that of Patrick Bonner.  He foams at the mouth over the idea that this could well be a “commie nation” just because President Obama literally fired GM’s CEO.  I’ll bet Mr. Bonner just like Ms. Montreuil wouldn’t have regarded it as “commie” for Congress and the president to regulate and dictate to the individual.  Hands off the business interest.  To legislate the collectivism of fetal interests as opposed to say the collectivism of unions who come into some degree of bashing from both Bonner and Antone Ornellas.  Seems Mr. Bonner wouldn’t have minded the Auto Workers Union President getting fired.  But wouldn’t that be just as “commie” as firing the CEO of GM?  While Mr. Ornellas is absolutely correct that airline employees being federal employees were forbidden by law to strike, did so, and were told by Ronald Reagan that they had 48 hours to get back to work or lose their jobs.  Neither he nor Bonner seem to understand that it isn’t the unions that set auto standards.  It isn’t the unions who create auto design obsolescence—the car that immediately starts breaking down the moment you drive it off the lot.  The unions don’t have high priced private jets.  The unions don’t get bonuses and stocks worth millions per year.  The unions don’t get paid 100 times what other employees might make.  No, but CEOs do.

And the high priced lobbyists don’t represent “the unions” when it comes to demanding that Congress should not legislate stricter emissions controls or greater fuel efficiency.  That exposés  of cars bursting into flames when collided with on say “60 Minutes,” it isn’t the unions who start wringing their hands over the lack of auto reliability and safety and the public demands that Congress should “do something about it. “  No, the auto industry isn’t made up of unions, the work force, but rather guys like Wagoner.  One could only wish that unions were the sole problem that the Big 3 Auto Companies happen to have.

Ornellas took pains to note that the airlines at the time that Reagan fired the striking employees hadn’t received bail out money.  What Bonner forgot to recall in his particularly extremist vitriol, was that GM had.  14 billion in bailouts got handed to the Big 3 Auto Companies.  Exactly what did Wagoner do with his share?  The question not asked by the news media nor dudes like Bonner.  You get 14 billion in taxpayers’ moolah, I would certainly think that you should be held accountable for it.  Reminds me of years ago when a so called “conservative columnist” started crying that a woman on the dole put some of her welfare money in the bank and got into trouble because of it.  The law apparently suggested that she could only have so much money in a bank account, her putting some of her welfare check into a savings account each month meant that she was accruing more money than she had a “legal right to.”  You get public financing (welfare or bailouts) you can be sure that the feds will have something to say to you about how you use the money.  Or you can be in big trouble.  Apparently, Bonner seems to think that handing mega wads of taxpayers’ moolah to corporations like GM should come with no accountability what so ever.  Now that’s what I call liberalism.

Back to Montreuil; had she looked a bit closer to her own bible, Christ had some dire things to say about pregnant women and nursing mothers.  Only barren women would be happy.  Because apparently they never had a child to lose in the terrible times to come.  Would Montreuil have used Iscariot’s betrayal of Christ in her anti-abortion letter if she in fact saw Christ as a “baby killer?”  A man who prophesied the deaths of children both born and unborn?  To put it bluntly, her letter was utterly grotesque.  And that was why it was published.

Charles Krauthammer flips out

You always have to figure that a president is doing something right when the opposition goes off the deep end.  And Charles Krauthammer republished in the Spokesman-Review, went off the deep end in absolutely pure hysteria.  Only now do we hear about a president spending way too much money, as long as the money is being invested in the U.S.  On the other hand, and this is what I caught as a point of greatest interest, was that he was literally whining about a lack of a program for the banks.

Excuse me, but the banks got themselves into a big mess by engaging in risky ventures.   And they did a lot to hurt their own customers while they were about it.  The news media such as Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report were prepared to at one time describe the sort of risks banks were starting to engage in some 2 decades back, following the collapse of the S&Ls.  That in fact the banks were following the same course of action that finished off the S&Ls that resulted in billions of dollars in taxpayers’ bailouts.  Such prescient reporting that would ultimately prove true in the last year.  Of course it would take time before risky ventures would begin taking their toll.  But once it happened, it might also be nearly impossible to fix.  Yet, Krauthammer who would have dismissed such early warnings as so much “liberal press,” now wonders on the level of hysteria why the banks aren’t getting a program to fix them, yet.  Well, that would mean regulation, wouldn’t it?  And regulation would be bad.

When it comes to hysterical reactions, those who suffer them lack a clear and concise argument.  Indeed, they have no idea how quickly their thrashing around becomes an upsetting of the apple cart of their own ideology.  The people don’t matter.  We shouldn’t spend way too much on them to give them back jobs and paychecks.  Only the banks should, that managed to do a lot to destroy both.  Those who ran the banks, to include WaMu (Washington Mutual) did have choices to make.  Profits could have been obtained had those banks charted a safe course.  But, apparently greed was more desired than keeping one’s balance sheet in good order.  Thus the collapse of WaMu and the closure of up to 16 banks now.  Wouldn’t conservatism preach against greed?  Isn’t greed the biggest threat to capitalism?  It sure looks like it from here.

Lou Dobbs, around a year ago, got called a socialist for doing a lot of preaching against this, the sort of thing being described above.  Accused of protectionism for railing about businesses outsourcing good American jobs overseas.  Get with the times, Dobbs, right?  Globalization is for real.  But when the banks to include Citigroup started getting into well publicized trouble over a year ago, the were seeking global investors too to infuse them with cash.  So, ultimately, what might have been localized to one nation and perhaps more easily fixable at one point.  Became instead a nightmarish scenario that started taking the world banking system down into the abyss.  How do you fix the world financial system?  Well, I guess you would do as President Barack H. Obama is trying to do now, and spend money and do some re-regulating of old financial practices.  As is Great Britain trying to save the Bank of England.  China trying to save its own financial system.  Too bad Krauthammer isn’t taking a good look at the facts.

Hey Lou Dobbs

Lou Dobbs spent better than two years describing in earnest tones the war on the middle class. Well, fear. What that war comprised of, increased medical costs, increased educational costs, outsourced jobs, insourced foreign labor. Well, fear. As home foreclosures began to skyrocket, he kept his viewers well apprised of the situation.  Well, fear.  Cost of fuel escalating.  Fear indeed.  All those dangerous imports from China, well, fear.  I am going to gather that Mr. Dobbs had a good reason to be afraid  as far as this nation and its future can be considered.  Job losses since his show has aired, no longer jobs lost in order for business interests to seek out foreign labor, but rather, jobs lost period.   Between the escalating credit crunch and the cost of fuel plus all other factors that had indeed been reported on in the last year; that now afflicts all nations globally, fear is what Americans will pay attention to and vote accordingly.  So imagine to Dobbs utter horror that America could put an African-American into the highest office of all.  A man who ends up preaching catastrophe if we don’t do something.

President Barack H. Obama, I can’t assume that he is a near religious viewer of Mr. Dobbs; but like Mr. Dobbs he paid attention to that war on the middle class and campaigned on the promise of doing something about it.  Now that he is president, Mr. Dobbs wastes no time—doing a complete 180°.  There must be a real problem with that politics of fear, esp. being used by a Democrat against the GOP, to get a stimulus package passed that well, Dobbs provides a “line item veto” to.  In short, Dobbs now ridicules Obama for exploiting the fear that quite frankly got the GOP booted out of office and into a minority status on 4 November 2008.  The fear that Dobbs exploited not only before Congress, but also in various town hall meetings and also daily on his show.  His target was then the GW administration, and the failure of that administration to “do something” about the fragility of this country’s economy.  Now, we have Obama who threatens fear in order to do something for the catastrophic failure of this nation’s economy and Dobbs invites on his show all the people he can find to dispute it.

I watched Obama do a town hall meeting in Indiana this morning and thought he had done a decent job informing people what he hoped the not yet signed into law stimulus package would do to begin creating new jobs and strengthening the economy.  He wasn’t only providing dire predictions if the package did not pass.  He was informing people, esp. in a state hard hit by major job losses what major moolah from the gvt could possibly give them.  A chance at a hand up, is what it amounted to.  ↔My take on the matter is this, if you fish for the poor dude, you provide him with a meal for a day.  But if you proceed to teach him to fish but with hold the fishing pole, hook, line, and sinker; he will still be coming to you for that hand out of fish. ↔

Here is a real funny, he is one of CNN’s legal contributors, and Jeffrey Toobin informed the viewing audience about the GOP as “arsonists” who set the house ablaze then block the firetrucks as they arrive.  That’s basically what it amounts to with respect to the stimulus package.  Does the package still have pork despite the massive trimmings that went on in the Senate?  I’ll make that assumption.  But only Dobbs would discuss the particulars of what he thought were pork or even earmarks, not the rest of the CNN crew.  How about that.

So, what is pork?  Cleaning up the Washington Mall?  Revamp the homeland security office?  I might make that argument.  Esp. when I consider that Dirk Kempthorne did some spendy reconstruction re his time spent in the Interior Dept.   Some spendy reconstruction involving an office.  Or what he allowed while governor in the State of Idaho to build some heavy security barriers around his mansion post the 9/11/2001 terrorist attacks.  Then again, gvt buildings and public areas like the Washington Mall might be considered viable infrastructure to other eyes.  Pork in the eyes of the beholder?  I can only wonder what Mr. Dobbs really wants.

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.