The Shrill Right

I don't know if anybody has noticed that the level of shrillness from the right has risen considerably of late. I'm not referring to the run of the mill expected exaggeration of the Hannities and Limbaughs or silliness of the Gibsons and "O'Reallys" I mean the out and out squalling that's been going on. Words like "phony soldiers," "traitorous speech," "disgusting ads," "strangling" critics, it's gotten pretty deep. Maybe you've noticed a pattern, or cycle (assuming the whole thing doesn't make you too disgusted to remember).

Here's what I've picked up on, when it looks as though there is a challenge to "Republican" dominance or they're in trouble the nutcase rhetoric begins and escalates. As Bill Clinton improved in the polls and had successes in policy the rhetoric amped up, it went from annoying investigations to allegations of murder, drug dealing, and finally impeachment. This isn't to say that Bill didn't offer up some pretty attractive bait, but it sure got hot for awhile. When McCain threatened the BushCo primary, out came the nasty allegations, Max Cleland found out that an amputee vet was fodder for nastiness, John Kerry got "swiftboated," as terrorist alerts accelerated and any criticism of it was either weakness inviting an attack or out and out treasonous aid and comfort to the enemy. By 06 when polling showed Democratic resurgence the gloves came off and the rhetoric went nuts. Hannity and Limbaugh made Michael Moore sound downright conventional (and that my lefty friends is a stretch).

What I'm getting at is that under threat the Republicans get awfully nasty and their surrogates get downright lunatic with hate and fear. Blogs that were pretty centrist drift right and manage to persuade themselves that they are still centered - since the loony right has gone off the deep end. As their policies fail and even the complicit media can't hide the failures they are driven farther and farther from reason. When a moderate Republican blogger takes time to discuss with an anonymous loon the idea that criticism of a military commander or the behavior of troops or their mission is actual treason and then partially agree, the "center" has lost its way.

Treason is a serious charge, it involves either giving to the enemy such things as intelligence (ie troop movements or logistics or technology); or providing food, shelter, or security to them. It in no way involves the exercise of speech to criticize the mission (as demoralizing as that might possibly be) or to criticize the abilities or honorableness of conduct of their superiors, it does not even include calling troops names (as stupidly rude and obnoxious conduct as that is). You have the right to be stupid in public, you have the right to be obnoxious in public, you have the right to make a fool of yourself in public (lacking these rights the Republicans would be in jail). You also have the right to be exactly right and loudly so.

The fringe elements of the Republican Party have taken it off a cliff, that is unfortunate. What is truly unfortunate is when the responsible elements of the Party follow them over. Nobody ever forgets being called a traitor. Not ever. Those who "inadvertently" participated are not forgotten. They are remembered, they are discounted, they have ceased to be fellow citizens by placing that between us. They have established that I am not a citizen of "their" country and quite frankly - I don't wish to be. Their difficulty is that it's not "their" country. The day it is "their" country is the day I take out the weapons and make them prove it. There. The gauntlet is thrown down, you can pick it up or back up and go away.

Myanmar - Burma - Repression - Murder

One could scarcely call the government of Myanmar something other than repressive, but they have taken that label to new heights over the past two days. Soldiers are firing automatic weapons into crowds, invading Buddhist monasteries, and have cut off electronic communications available to civilians. Demonstrations, sparked by a large increase in fuel prices, have been estimated to have numbers up to 100,000. The nation of Myanmar rivals N Korea as a closed and repressed society.

Myanmar's chief patron, China, has blocked UN condemnation, but has offered platitudes about how "all parties in Myanmar exercise restraint and properly handle the current issue so as to ensure the situation there does not escalate and get complicated.” Evidently unarmed civilians and monks need to restrain themselves from getting killed by automatic gunfire. We really ought to spend lots of money on Chinese made goods, just to make sure they can have the influence to make such a statement stick.

Buddhism is a non-violent philosophy/religion and it is once again being faced with forceful violence. Evidently a saffron robe is poor protection from bullets. The military junta running the place does not seem to be overly concerned that bullets won't win the day. They may be running a large risk of backlash within the military ranks, people who have and know how to use, firearms. BushCo is moving to freeze the assets of the identifiable leaders, but over the last 20 years Myanmar has ignored such actions.

I am not an advocate of taking leaflets to a gunfight, nor am I overly impressed with the technique of resistance involved in taking a bullet, admirable as Buddhism may be, self-destruction to no end gain seems wasteful. While I might be willing to die for an idea, that concept also includes helping someone on the other side get there first. I have noticed that there's not much reportage regarding the fact that "non-violent revolutions" have managed to get significant support from heavily armed contingents before they became successful (that or they involved revolution from a government politically incapable of brutal repression - ie Ghandi/Britain).

It is important to understand that one day Burma had one government and the next day it was Myanmar and these murderous thugs. These things happen, not because they just do, but because they can happen. When something is possible, it tends to happen; when power and force are concentrated in a single group; that group is able to make decisions for all - and back it up. Those who scoff at the Second Amendment disregard that the outcome is mutual destruction, something elites are not willing to be a part of. If Myanmar's economic elite perceived such destruction you can rest assured the murders of the last few days would not have occurred.

At this point things are still pretty fluid, but at some point people are going to be unwilling to die without some hope that things will go their way.

Rudy 9-11 Guiliani

My membership in the NRA is based on a couple things that don't involve politics: firearms education, competitive shooting, and the 2nd Amendment, I'm actually pretty tired of their rightwing caterwauling. I suppose some of that is due to the idea that a left Democrat couldn't understand the 2nd or manage to own firearms, too bad, they alienate people like me. But I'm hopeful that even with that baggage they can figure out Mr. Nine One One.


Every once in awhile the WaPo will run something like this AP story that is pretty straight, highlighting the ex-mayor's stands on strict gun control and suing firearms manufacturers, some of the most radical espoused by a major elected official and his NRA "conversion." You have to consider that a former federal prosecutor was willing to contravene the Bill of Rights and use the civil law process as a harassment technique against law abiding businesses. In Rudy's world of NY if you were rich, connected, or criminally influential you or your bodyguard employee could own and carry a handgun, minus those qualifications you were out of luck, just another serf. But Rudy had an awakening (cough).

"You have to look at all of these issues in light of the different concerns that now exist, which is terrorism, the terrorists' war on us," the Republican presidential contender told The Associated Press in an interview. He also mentioned immigration and border security.

OK Rudy, now what was the legal impetus? Apparently he heard about the Federal Appeals Court ruling tossing DC's 30 year old ban on handguns ruling that the Constitution gives (gasp) individuals the right to possess firearms. The Second Amendment isn't very long, consisting of a single sentence with a subordinate clause and a declarative clause, you'd have thought he might have bothered to read it, or even some of the relevant literature of the period? But, being a lawyer the meaning of words and supporting documentation doesn't seem to have had bearing on his legal actions, the court ruling:

"It is a very, very strong description of how important personal liberties are in this country and how we have to respect them," he said of the ruling, adding it "sort of maybe even did more to crystalize my thinking on the whole gun issue in light of Sept. 11."

Oh there it is, 9/11, and you thought maybe I was just being snotty. But wait...there's more...new and improved Rudy...less content, greater spin.

"I think, after Sept. 11 _ I mean I probably would have had the same impression before, I'm not sure _ but after Sept. 11, all that seemed much more powerful to me."

Oh hogwash, in 2002 and 2004 he was quoted strongly backing gun control, a continuation of the Brady Bunch pitch that the Second Amendment applies to States' ability to arm themselves with the National Guard. Now that he's caught nine-eleven-itis during a Primary that's not the case. But really, this is the Republican savior:

"I think political professionals would tell you that if my opponents get the nomination, a day after the convention, no matter what they say, the Republican Party operation closes down in 20 states, and then we concentrate on the remaining states," Giuliani said. "I think they would tell you that if I get the nomination, there'll be a Republican Party operation in virtually every state, and then as the campaign goes on, we'll assess where we are."

There are a lot people who don't like guns and don't like other people owning guns or guns they don't like and those people mangle the English language and historical facts get to the end they wish. I can't fault their desires, I fault their methods. They believe that a little lying around a part of the Bill of Rights they don't like has no other consequences. They fail to understand that the BOR is not negotiable, it is not subject to their petty interference without consequences. If the Second Amendment presents the threat they say it does, then Amend the Constitution to reflect that. I think that's a real bad idea, I think it would have outcomes worse than the ills gun banners wish to address, but that is the only course available to them that does not put the entire Bill of Rights at risk.

I take converts where I can find them and where I can help create them, but the operative word is converts, not to owning firearms, but to respecting the Constitution. I'd take Rudy, if there were any chance that this stuff is any more than momentary political convenience. What a political hack. Mr NineEleven, Republican, any politically convenient stand; re-read his "save the party" quote and do the math and you'll get his policy stands. Do the Republicans deserve this bunch they've got running? Yes...

Update

You know that goofy cell call during the NRA speech, well AP has the story on that, turns out it was 9-11 caused as well :

"And quite honestly, since Sept. 11, most of the time when we get on a plane, we talk to each other and just reaffirm the fact that we love each other," he said."

Giveme a break, and the sun came up in the east, because everything was different after 9-11.

The Center Holds - NYT - Brooks

Here's the thesis, the netroots is over-rated, so over-rated that politicians attend their big conference - The Yearly Kos - and then, don't know what it was when asked (Edwards). Seriously, David Brooks advances the idea that Hillary is inevitable because she ignores the netroots and the big money lefties. While it is true that she holds a sizable lead over the next two candidates, that lead amounts to a little over a third of Democratic voters.

But on to Brooks NYT stuff , "In the first place, the netroots candidates are losing. In the various polls on the Daily Kos Web site, John Edwards, Barack Obama and even Al Gore crush Hillary Clinton, who limps in with 2 percent to 10 percent of the vote."

But Hillary knows what she's doing, " And while Clinton may not go out of her way to offend the MoveOn types, on her TV rounds on Sunday she made it obvious that she’s not singing their tune. On “This Week With George Stephanopoulos,” Clinton could have vowed to vacate Iraq. Instead, she delivered hawkish mini-speeches that few Republicans would object to. She listed a series of threats and interests in the region and made it clear that she’d be willing to keep U.S. troops there to handle them. "

This kind of talk is going to make over half of America rather testy. Not the lefties, they rightfully detest Hillary, but the chunk that makes up the rest of the 60% who think the country is on the wrong track.

Now not only is the netroots over-rated it also isn't liked within the corridors of power, the people who actually understand things, "The fact is, many Democratic politicians privately detest the netroots’ self-righteousness and bullying. They also know their party has a historic opportunity to pick up disaffected Republicans and moderates, so long as they don’t blow it by drifting into cuckoo land. They also know that a Democratic president is going to face challenges from Iran and elsewhere that are going to require hard-line, hawkish responses."

The absolute Brooksian truth is that what we need is Bush-with-tits, she'll save us from our cuckoo land selves. the cuckoos who said Iraq was the wrong thing to do, the cuckoos who detest George II and his imperial presidency. If you're wondering how a NYT op-ed columnist could get from someplace to here, you need to understand how he got to NYT. He started on NYT op-ed in 9/03 and got there from...The Weekly Standard at its start up in '95, he got there from the WSJ leaving as op-ed editor. Now you have to stop and think about that one, the neanderthal WSJ op-ed page to Weekly Standard to NYT? 9/03? Judith Miller was really hitting her stride as BushCo propagandist about that time and NYT was lapping it up and dishing it out.

Brooks is realist enough to know that what's left of the Republican field at the end of the Primary season can't win, so is it possible he's cheerleading his favorite alternative to Bush? It must get downright schizophrenic over at NYT when it comes time to print. If they're America's paper of record, it must be by default. At least there's McClatchy and they bothered to cover George II at the UN...

William Douglas,

Speaking before the United Nations General Assembly, the president called for renewed efforts to enforce the U.N.'s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a striking point of emphasis for a leader who's widely accused of violating human rights in waging war against terrorism.
Bush didn't mention the U.S. prisons in Afghanistan or at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, the U.S. practice of holding detainees for years without legal charges or access to lawyers, or the CIA's "rendition" kidnappings of suspects abroad, all issues of concern to human rights activists around the world.

Rep Jane Harman Says BushCo Lied About FISA

Rep Jane Harman has stated that the White House provided known bogus intelligence to scare Congress into its pre-recess approval of wire-tap expansions. I guess that provides me with two opportunities to rant.

This administration's penchant for playing politics with fear is scarcely news worthy, novel, or otherwise other than ordinary run of business for them. That they are not held in lower esteem for it is noteworthy, that any grown up falls for it - repeatedly - is sad, that Congress is so stupid as to take this bunch at their word is appalling. But, Congress did - again.

Now here is where the real crunch comes, we all know that GWB's oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States is meaningless, now we find that in Congress it only holds true if somebody doesn't tell you a scary story. Seriously, we'll just willy-nilly abrogate Constitutional guarantees if the White House tell us to, the heck with asking to see the facts, the data, nah, just tell us it's so and it's done. Is there some particular reason to have a Congress? GeorgeII can just say what is so, the Courts say oh yes, and when we get sick of it we can treat him to another George's fate, except he's on this side of the ocean, in which case a Louis would be more appropriate.

You have to start to wonder if the idea of principle is entirely foreign to most of that body, if the concept of a basic rule of law called the Constitution has any meaning at all. I've commented that Washingtonians have a primary regarding Rep Baird, I've just decided that a whole whacking bunch of states have meaningful Democratic Primaries. I'll admit to having a bunch of grey areas with Oregon's Democratic delegation, but overall I've been OK with that, it is politics. But I've had this. I'll be damned if I'll bend a knee to GeorgeII - I'd bend him over my knee...but this unending fear smitten behavior in our Congress is enough. Let's see who voted Aye on this and take them to task.

The bill earned the support of 16 Democrats in the Senate and 41 Democrats in the House. Yeas:
Bayh, Evan; Carper, Tom; Casey, Bob; Conrad, Kent; Feinstein, Diane; Inouye, Daniel; Klobuchar, Amy; Landieu, Mary; Lincoln, Blanche; McCaskill, Claire; Mikulski, Barbara; Nelson, Ben; Nelson, Bill; Pryor, Mark; Salazar, Ken; Webb, James - Senators all, our deliberative body.

Altmire, Jason; Barrow, John; Bean, Melissa; Boren David; Boswell, Leonard; Boyd, F; Carney, Christopher; Chandler, Albert; Cooper, Jim; Costa, Jim; Cramer, Robert; Cuellar, Henry; Davis, Artur; Davis, Lincoln; Donnelly, Joe; Ellsworth, Brad; Etheridge, Bob; Gordon, Bart; Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie; Higgins, Brian; Hills, Baron; Lampson, Nick; Lipinski, Daniel; Marshall, James; Matheson, Jim; McIntyre, Mike; Malancon, Charlie; Mitchell, Harry; Peterson, Collin; Pomeroy, Earl; Rodriguez, Ciro; Salazar, John; Shuler, Heath; Snyder, Vic; Space, Zachary; Tanner, John, Taylor, Gene; Walz, Timothy; Wilson, Charles - The People's House.

You will note that there is not the name of a single one of Oregon's Congressional Democrats. Not one. And that is 5 Democrats out of 7 total members. You will note, please, that Walden (R - OR 02) and Smith (R-OR) vote BushCo Yea. A couple Republicans actually voted nay, I can't be bothered to list them; the other Party can.

A Hall of Shame for Democrats, and a couple names it's really too bad to see there, oh well, they need to go. Bye, Bye, don't let the door hit you on the way out...

Forida Democrats Stick To Date

Florida Democratic Party has stated that it intends to stick with its early Primary date of January 29 in the face of Democratic National Committee rules which call for stripping violators of their delegates. The DNC is firmly attached to the position that willy-nilly primary scheduling is a recipe for disaster and chaos, Florida is wedded to the idea that their early primary guarantees them the influence they deserve prior to the large February 5th. AP quotes Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, "The 4 million Florida Democrats will be enfranchised. We will make sure Florida Democrats have a voice and that voice will be heard." She further added that they "fully expect that delegation to be seated."

The state part looked at options such as holding a caucus or mail in vote but FDC Chairwoman Karen said, "But at the end of the day, we came down on the side of having a fair and open election, along with making sure that we had a lot of representation in this state." Steve Geller State Senate Democratic Leader lays the blame at the feet of the early states charging them with pushing the DNC to enforce the rules and "punish" candidates who campaign in states that jumped the order. "I don't see how it's not a violation of the voting rights act," Geller said, because Florida voters will now only be able to hear candidates speak at private functions, which have an entry fee. For the record, the candidates voluntarily signed a pledge not to campaign in those states. Michigan has January 15 scheduled, also outside of the DNC rules, which are Iowa - Jan 14, Nevada - Jan 19, New Hampshire - Jan 22, South Carolina - Jan 29.

There really probably is a better way to conduct a primary election than the current model, the problem is that it is not to simply have every self-important state leapfrogging the others. There is no state in the Union that cannot claim some important issues or having been rendered moot by earlier votes. Something that seems to miss these folks is that with as crowded a ticket as there is this time, it is quite possible that the later states will have a disproportionate influence. Oregon at May 5th can only hope so...

Land of the Free, Home of the Brave?

A few years back over 70% of Americans indulged Shock and Awe, they sat quietly as Habeas Corpus was eliminated, watched with little interest as fundamental freedoms from search and seizure were abrogated, and allowed our government to torture in secret prisons. Why? Terrorism. Or, rather, fear of terrorism, which (using a few grey cells) is its desired end. The fear of terrorism spread by our own politicians and willing media makes them complicit in the act - by definition, co-terrorists. So, here you have sworn defenders of the Constitution making common cause with criminal gangsters of the fanatic persuasion.

What is missing in the equation seems to be the understanding that the fanatics cannot change the American way of life - they cannot take away our freedom, they cannot take our women out of work and public life, they cannot change our religions or lack of, they might be able to kill or maim a handful of us, but the ability to make those changes lies with the American people. Do not allow the demagogues of whatever point of view to place that responsibility elsewhere, it lies directly with the citizens of America. So that you understand me, we allowed BushCo to behave as it has, it is certainly true that they have been the driving force, but we allowed it.

I am hugely disappointed in this nation and I am appalled by the continued tolerance of this behavior. We need to target for replacement each Congressperson who has promoted or tolerated this cowardly behavior. Of the crop of Presidential candidates an automatic disqualification for a vote would be the same and any of the remaining who are not currently calling in the strongest terms for a return to a Constitutional and freedom based government should get short shrift. American media that has participated needs to be boycotted, from entire networks and publications to individual programming and writers. This is scarcely a deprivation of their freedom of speech, it is simply an exercise in your freedom in what you consume. Do you get your business news from the WSJ? Their editorial agenda is anti-Constitution - there are other sources, let the whack job cowards support their rag. If you're a Republican, either be a force for change or get out - either way, quit being a part of fear mongering. For pete's sake, take action.

A Busy Friday

Powder River Sportsmans Club Range, Virtue Flats, Baker County, Oregon

I've spent the day racing around trying to accomplish a week's business dealings in one day - a casualty of 4 days at 10 hrs building - and now I've got bullets to load. Lots of .45 Colts and I'm out of time, The Vigilantes of Virtue Flats are in action Saturday morning, so you all can get your Chuck fix another day. Thanks for stopping by.

Betraeus,BushCo, and Olberman

I'm going to yank a few lines from Keith Olberman's Special Comment for Thursday September 20th to give you a feel for it if you didn't see it. As is typical with his Special Comments, if you didn't see it, you missed something:

Mr. Bush, you had no right to order General Petraeus to become your front man.

And he obviously should have refused that order and resigned rather than ruin his military career.

The upshot is and contrary it is, to the MoveOn advertisement he betrayed himself more than he did us.

I thought there was a certain childish aspect to playing on the General's name, but the endless BushCo whining has promoted a billion dollars worth of advertising for a $65K NYT ad. When he's wearing that uniform he doesn't get to play at politics, something he'd already demonstrated prior to the latest disgrace. But Kieth has some more for me to tease you with:

But Mr. Bush, you have hidden behind the General’s skirts, and today you have hidden behind the skirts of ‘the planted last question’ at a news conference, to indicate once again that your presidency has been about the tilted playing field, about no rules for your party in terms of character assassination and changing the fabric of our nation, and no right for your opponents or critics to as much as respond.

I like to write and I like to stir you up, but this guy's a pro and he should rightfully be well paid to produce this. Go on over and let somebody put words on the screen you wished you'd said...

NYT and A Shield For the Public

The NY Times ran an Editorial today with the above title and the illustrative section is this:

For freedom of the press to be more than a promise and for the public to be kept informed about the doings of its government, especially the doings that the government does not want known, reporters must be able to pursue the news wherever it takes them. One of the most valuable tools they have is the ability to protect the names of confidential sources — people who provide vital information at the risk of their jobs, their careers and sometimes even their lives.

Now I'd like to pick a couple nits here, this is an example of big business hiding behind the BOR that it does not support. The First Amendment is not the be all and end all of the BOR, it is quite an important part, that would be why it has first place, it is however followed by second place, which would be the Second Amendment this paper regularly attacks. That's some truly odd behavior, especially when they're advocating expanding an Amendment.

Then there's the little issue of "Free Press" which is a nice appellation for a business worth more than most of us can comprehend. Well, they did quit hiding behind "Times Select" by taking the subscription price off it, but quite frankly the New York Times is big business, run as one and managed by people about completely divorced from the reality of half this nation's population.

As for the things the government does not want known, how about the things it wants published? We could ask all kinds of pointed questions about Judith Miller and propagandizing. We could as even more questions about who benefited from that propagandizing?

Then we run right square into the use of confidential sources to spread information that has not squat to do with improving the public's level of information, but rather the spread of scandal and 'disinformation.' It would unfair to level these charges without noting the publishing of the stories regarding secret CIA prisons and other actual services provided by the NYT. But when a balance is called for, it begins to look like a narrow thing. The war in Iraq that they now oppose was the beneficiary of their cheerleading, even in the face of actual competitors calling it into question - Knight Ridder (McClatchy) was a competitor, it was time then to take a serious look at their stance; and they did not.

Here's the crunch, they're big enough and wealthy enough to ignore the small fry (KR wasn't that small) and call the ordinary citizens cretins for figuring they'd like to own their right, that's the Second Amendment, the one that allows regular ordinary people to own arms. Ordinary people don't own and run newspapers (blogs don't count), ordinary people's free speech involves talking to neighbors, blogging, writing letters, and small campaign donations, not access to media, not multi-million dollar advertising campaigns, not multi-million dollar lobbying activities. Ordinary folks might actually have their religions, depending on which theocratic version of the BOR finally shakes out and how theocratic this country is driven. You can't count on your house or belongings being secure from unreasonable search and seizure, ask a certain Portland OR attorney. In fact what you can count on is that the current regime won't try to house soldiers in your house.

So there you are, what you can be sure of is the fact that you own arms, you are not helpless in the face of the government when you finally get real tired of their crap. (unless you live in a couple Constitutionally deprived cities) Oh I know all about the futility of facing down an armored division with a handful of hunting rifles, I also know just how dangerous they actually are for a government, and Iraq gives a pretty illustrative example of an unhappy armed populace and the ensuing chaos. Even the plutocrats are having a tough time raping that country.

In the end run, the NYT can stuff their 'entitlement' to special consideration in the face of the law, I don't get it, they can tough it out. I can't stand on anything if the government wants to ask me questions about how I found something out, that big business entity can play by the same rules; you think it's important enough, you tell Sammy to take a hike and do the jail time, or make a fight of it. Oh, the fight part of it would involve arms...

Baker Valley

***Right click & follow link for full size****

Part way up Marble Creek Pass, Baker Valley below, and Eagle Cap Mountains in distance. Looking east, the road is directly below, leave your car at home - 74 K5 Blazer, top off. Smoke haze is from forest fires 50 miles southwest. Elevation at this point about 7500 feet, the valley is 3500 feet, pass above and behind about 9000 feet. That's home down there at right edge of picture. There are no foothills, just the mountains, these are the Elkhorns.

Pyrennes Bath

Bath time for both of us, one was intended

***right click & follow link for full size***

Left wing politics, guns, fast cars...big dog - 145 pounds of pooch - sweet natured as the day is long.

Outrage, not tonight

Sorry, I'm outraged out. I know, great fodder for it exists: Habeus, Iraq Tours...but I'm tired and everything I could write on this stuff is written already.

So thanks for stopping by, I'll do better Thursday.

Rate Cut and Market Soars

The Dow Jones gained 300 points today, 9/18, on the news that the Fed had dropped its rate 1/2 point. The market gained 2.5 % on what? A half point might have some small effect on new home mortgage rates but it certainly will not undo what ails the mortgage industry. A certain amount of money will make its way into the market with credit a little cheaper. Most certainly the Fed's action will have not one bit of effect on wages.

What got the market into an uproar was that the Fed did something...to what effect is a mystery. The market gained because market investors felt good, or at least better than they have for awhile. The reality of what stocks actually are is quite simply immaterial.

If you stop to think about it, a stock is a piece of a company, a percentage of its value. The value of a company is composed of two factors; its assets - its buildings, equipment, materials, cash - and its business - its ability to turn a profit. The first factor isn't real hard to determine, the second a little tougher, but still fairly reasonable to get to. That is what a stock is and the market isn't anymore than a trading place for those stocks but it certainly isn't used in that fashion. The stock market is a wealth generator in and of itself, a playground of emotional psychosis having so little to do with real economic health as to be almost meaningless. Perception is the game, if you read it right you can win big, pay attention to reality and it's a crapshoot.

There are investors who work stocks hard, research companies and make reasoned decisions based on the companies themselves and they can do well, if they're not overtaken by some market emotional swing. Mostly investing in stocks is investing in the idea that things will be fine; well, things aren't fine. Unless you're a plutocrat...you're here - you're not.

Mitt Says...A Lot Of Things

***Right Click and follow link for full size***


Yes, it's pink, it's Mitt's, it's Gay. Then. And NOW ?

Economy and the NYT Editorial Board

This NYT Editorial shows some of what ails the "mainstream" picture of the economy and what is wrong with it:

"Rate cuts won’t attack the proximate causes of today’s economic turmoil — widespread mortgage defaults at one end of the economic scale and a credit squeeze afflicting Wall Street at the other, both rooted in the excesses of the housing boom."

No, rate cuts won't attack the proximate cause even though its not what NYT asserts, those problems are symptoms, the problem is that the bottom has fallen out. Wages have been falling for years, as those have fallen the middle has started to get dragged down, the only thing holding the mess together was the "housing boom." The easy credit available for housing, whether for purchase or simply equity refinancing, has kept many people in the consumerism game. New housing drives a huge portion of the consumer market, that new house frequently means new furnishings and appliances, lawns and gardens and related equipment. and some "rewards" for the stress. Refinances mean the down for the new vehicle, the vacation, the new TV, etc, etc, including those stock buys. As the middle has gotten squeezed they have to cut back on investments they might have made and some of those investment dollars went to the "dream home" possible with lower interest rates or ... gamed interest rates.

It seems that the NYT and a bunch of others all want to look up for the source of economic difficulties, not surprising, BushCo plays that game as they cater to the plutocrats, most of the "mavens" spout the same stuff. Of course, they're the same bunch that made a big deal out of rising average income...

I wonder if it is an inability to connect dots that are unfamiliar, or if it is willful stupidity. What I do know, is that the plight of ordinary Americans just does not count with the big players.

"Note From The Castle"

If you have the patience for a rather meandering discussion Jay Rosen has an insightful discussion with a White House Press Corps reporter. The reporter prefers to remain un-named, reasonably so in the context so: "I don't generally run things like that. But this is straight from the briefing room to correct PressThink on a few items. So I found a way." I'll take Jay's reputation on this one. I'm going to pull one exchange out and hope it piques your interest:

(Jay in italics)
That’s basically correct. Your rephrasing and your conclusion are basically sound. We’re back, in effect, to the superiority of McClatchy’s news judgment (or complaints from the WashPost’s national security team that their stories ran on A16). And you’re right about the potential spin factor (actually, not-so-potential), though at least in theory we’re supposed to be able to push past that.

Well, if you are not in the direct accountability business after all, and cannot yourselves “hold their feet to the fire,” as the newsroom saying goes, then I would suggest that your newsroom make a big announcement to that effect and maybe having a presser. There would be a lot of interest in that

Can it be that you genuinely don’t understand how central “holding their feet to the fire” is to getting that relevant information out?

“What did the president know and when did he know it?” is an effort to get information to news consumers. Fact-checking presidential statements is the same. McClatchy’s superb pre-war coverage was the same. “For Bush, Facts Are Malleable” in the Washington Post was the same. NSA wiretapping story in the NYTimes? Dana Priest’s “secret prison network” stories? The same.

I guess I just think that final “accountability” rests in institutions other than the press. The Congress, the Courts, and elections. If I underplayed the role we have to play, that was my mistake.
*****
OK, I want to weigh in here; if the electorate and public servants get junk in the place of information they cannot be expected to make decisions that are something other than stupid. I ran for US Rep and built my policy stances on the best information I could find and a whacking lot of that was from journalists - and if I'd made it?? In Congress you certainly have more access to information, but journalists are still a basic part of it, and the constituents who call, mail, and visit rely on it. The Courts come from where? Some place outside the reach of journalism?

I write an opinion and advocacy blog, I'm not a journalist, I count on them. Sure I research as much as I can, but they're still my sources and if it's crappola then I'm hung out. I credit my primary sources, they did the work and deserve the credit, and if it's no more than hits on a counter, I still did my part. I sure don't get paid a nickle to do this.

These folks stand on the First Amendment, they hold their place with Speech and Religion out as a sacred trust, that being the case they'd sure better make sure what they do lives up to it. Much of the press has a tendency to kick the Second Amendment around on the basis of the irresponsibility and unlawfulness of some, that might be a cautionary tale for themselves.

I run a business and I'm responsible for the mistakes of my employees, I sure couldn't afford the mistakes of the magnitude of journalists over the past few years, in fact I don't see how their employers can, unless there is a good reason for it. Knight Ridder (now McClatchy) got the run up to the Iraq war mostly right, their competitors failed - seriously. I do not see the profession taking it as seriously as meaning their careers or even their profession to have failed so miserably. There is, of course, the question of how much filtering happened at the employer...and what their relationship is to power.

Take some patience and go check the article at PressThink and the comments - Jay's participation does not stop at the article.

Faux WSJ

NYT Media and Advertsing :

In a Dow Jones news release to be issued today, Marcus W. Brauchli, The Journal’s managing editor, said, “Pursuits will offer compelling journalism, vivid imagery and an unmatched guide to wealth, fashion, collecting and travel.”

What else can I add to this?

Something To Do, For Awhile

***right click and follow link for full size***

When I started this was a foundation and slab, now we're siding up and painting down. I'm not a painter, but the owner preferred to pay me to paint using my siding scaffolding. The tarped up tools are two radial arm saws, one 220AC 12" equipped with a diamond blade to cut the cementious siding (HardiPlank) and a 110AC 10" for OSB based trim (SmartTrim). The roof is 10 pitch and the eves on the sides are 30 feet above ground and yes, I have spent a fair amount of time walking those walls.

This house is quite unique, three stories are uncommon and this one has very close lot lines, 5 feet to the eves on the side and 15 feet in the rear. The building it attached to is turn of the century as is the house directly behind it, so features were added to make it congruent with the neighborhood. There is some heavy duty and complex framing within, all floors clear span the width of the building minus in places the stairwell and the elevator shaft, which is in the front right corner behind the small lower roof. The interior ceiling at roof line is vaulted, including the smaller side gables, some fairly involved and time consuming stick framing.

I enjoy what I do for a living, so I thought I'd share a bit of it.

1950 Chevy COE

This truck is for sale - contact 541-523-7520 or cbutcher1@hotmail.com Truck is sold
***right click follow link for full size***

Nah, it's not a fast car, this is a working truck. 1950 Chevrolet Cab Over Engine dump truck plated in Oregon at 24,000 pounds GVW. Those are not cheap plates, though in OR they're probably cheaper than a lot of places. The bed is 13.5 cubic yards, with side hung rear doors for loading or unloading.

It's so homely it's almost cute and when it's on the job I'm not the oldest "tool" there. Equipped with a 292 cid 6 cylinder, a 4 speed granny tranny and split axle it can run at 65 mph on the flat, empty and loaded just about get out of its own way. In granny 1st with the axle split down to low range the engine tops out at about 5 mph so it can climb just about any grade loaded, but it sure takes awhile to get anywhere.

I like the old beast, but once you've driven it for about 4 hours you gain a great appreciation for modern equipment - that I can't afford... Since it spends most of its life parked on job sites as the trash truck it should last very nearly forever.