The rule of law is essential to business and everyday life under any government and it seems another failure of the Iraqi government involves corruption and not only an inability to address it, but a complete disinclination to do so. The Nation has gotten its hands on a working draft of a secret US Bhagdad Embassy report 70 pages long that reviews the work of the Commission on Public Integrity, an independent Iraqi agency, and other anti-corruption programs.
The report details a government riddled with corruption beyond the reach of investigators threatening public support for the government and supplying materials and money to insurgents. The Ministry of Health is bad enough to threaten its ability to deliver services, the Oil Ministry has no accurate accounting of production and transportation because organized criminal gangs are stealing the place blind. The Ministries of Education, Water Resources, and Labor and Social Affairs are hostile to anti-corruption investigations and even make no effort to address it. The militia of Moqtada al Sadr have made the Ministry of Transportation immune from investigation and riddled with wholesale corruption. Several Ministries are so controlled by militias or criminal gangs that it is impossible for corruption investigators operate without security forces to protect the investigators. There is no apparent concern at the Defense Ministry over the theft of $850 million.
The CPI has little in staff or funding, 120 investigators for 34 Ministries, of 455 investigations only 15 have reached trial stage. Many of the investigators are described as little more than clerks and they are faced by the hostility of powers up to and including Maliki. Earlier this year he ordered the CPI not to forward any cases to court involving the President, Prime Minister, or any current or past Ministers without his permission. (George, you jealous? Nah, playing the same game) I'd say the reason you hear nothing about this is that BushCo really can't see the difference between their business as usual and Iraq.
To attempt to detail the level of corruption would take an article as long as The Nation's so if you're now curious, go see them.
Monday, September 03, 2007
Bush and You Traitors
George W Bush, PotUS, "The stakes in Iraq are too high and the consequences too grave for our security here at home to allow politics to harm the mission of our men and women in uniform.” You idjits had better get this, what ever else, GWB is the Decider, he's decided, so shut the .... up and get along with it. Once he's decided, the issue is no longer debatable and not subject to revision, by anybody - including the Congress.
A lot of things are coming unglued, the NIE, which certainly was messed with, and the GAO draft report, leaked before it could be mucked up, do not show what BushCo would like to have shown. “Our force is stretched and out of balance,” General Casey said Thursday at a ceremony. “The tempo of our deployments are not sustainable, our equipment usage is five times the normal rate and continuously operating in harsh environments.”
With certain disjoints the BushCo apparatus is pushing ahead with its Iraq war sales pitch, despite telling Congress it should wait for the Sept 15 Petraeus/Crocker briefing. Certainly nobody should notice the Ari Fleisher propaganda outfit's recent creation. You really might have to stretch pretty hard to find comparisons to BushCo in modern history.
A lot of things are coming unglued, the NIE, which certainly was messed with, and the GAO draft report, leaked before it could be mucked up, do not show what BushCo would like to have shown. “Our force is stretched and out of balance,” General Casey said Thursday at a ceremony. “The tempo of our deployments are not sustainable, our equipment usage is five times the normal rate and continuously operating in harsh environments.”
With certain disjoints the BushCo apparatus is pushing ahead with its Iraq war sales pitch, despite telling Congress it should wait for the Sept 15 Petraeus/Crocker briefing. Certainly nobody should notice the Ari Fleisher propaganda outfit's recent creation. You really might have to stretch pretty hard to find comparisons to BushCo in modern history.
Sunday, September 02, 2007
Blog Ratings ???
Mingle2 has a site to give a movie rating to a blog:
Mingle2
For:
sex (7x)
hell (5x)
gun (3x)
dangerous (2x)
torture (1x)
If you've read much of this site you might be a little puzzled what it is that might corrupt children's minds - other than recitations of BushCo idiocies. You could also find the word "damn" appearing in a dozen out of 485 posts, so I guess this really is a rude place.
A tip of the hat to John Cole's Balloon Juice for finding this neat little pastie.
Condi and the NYT
Sometimes important people give interviews to newspapers, sometimes newspapers ask the hard questions, sometimes you get this. I will admit to having a very negative view of Condi, based primarily on her public statements and actions both as National Security Advisor and as Secretary of State. Stanford, where she served as provost, seems to have plenty of people with the same kind of view regarding her return. The Stanford Daily, Stanford's student paper, ran this headline, "Condi Eyes Return, but in What Role?” and a representative letter to the editor from Emeritus Professor of Mathematics Don Ornstein followed, "Condoleezz Rice serves an administration that has trashed the basic values of academia: reason, science, expertise, and honesty. Stanford should not welcome her back.”
The thrust of the article is that Condi sucked as NSA and is now trying to repair that as SoS. From the NYT, "Beyond trying to influence the historical record, Ms. Rice is trying hard to rewrite her legacy to include something more than Iraq. Her colleagues and friends say that she has accepted that Iraq is a stain that she probably cannot remove before she leaves office. So she has thrown herself into shoring up the rest of her legacy, zeroing in in recent months on Arab-Israeli peace, as a possible source of redemption."
Condi herself, “I don’t know; if that’s the assessment, you know, I’ll accept people’s assessment,” she said, her demeanor resigned. “The national security adviser is a great job, because you’re very close to the president; you’re working with him, but it’s also a very difficult job because everything is by remote control. You do not own any of the assets.”
It may seem a small minded quibble, but I'd point out to her that there is one asset you can always own, -yourself.
If you're real curious what she tells the NYT she thinks she's up to, follow the links. I'm afraid I didn't find this thing to be much more than a re-branded press release.
The thrust of the article is that Condi sucked as NSA and is now trying to repair that as SoS. From the NYT, "Beyond trying to influence the historical record, Ms. Rice is trying hard to rewrite her legacy to include something more than Iraq. Her colleagues and friends say that she has accepted that Iraq is a stain that she probably cannot remove before she leaves office. So she has thrown herself into shoring up the rest of her legacy, zeroing in in recent months on Arab-Israeli peace, as a possible source of redemption."
Condi herself, “I don’t know; if that’s the assessment, you know, I’ll accept people’s assessment,” she said, her demeanor resigned. “The national security adviser is a great job, because you’re very close to the president; you’re working with him, but it’s also a very difficult job because everything is by remote control. You do not own any of the assets.”
It may seem a small minded quibble, but I'd point out to her that there is one asset you can always own, -yourself.
If you're real curious what she tells the NYT she thinks she's up to, follow the links. I'm afraid I didn't find this thing to be much more than a re-branded press release.
Saturday, September 01, 2007
BushCo, Vietnam, GAO, NY Times
Judith Miller's former paper ran an Editorial today, "More Realism, Less Spin" and concluded,
"Mr. Bush has invoked Vietnam to argue against leaving Iraq. That argument is specious, but there is a chilling similarity between the two American foreign policy disasters. In Vietnam, as in Iraq, American presidents and military leaders went to great lengths to pretend that victory was at hand when nothing could be farther from the truth."
The White House has attacked the GAO assessment of Iraq by stating that the standards set by Congressional investigators were too high. Perhaps, but there should be evidence of sustained and serious effort by the Iraqis and that is entirely missing. The White House has been using the August Congressional recess to pimp its stance and is warming up to ask for more money for Iraq, maybe $50 billion worth beyond the $600 billion already requested to take the war into spring 2008.
The NYT seems to think Congress ought to take a real look at what's out there when considering a fight over withdrawing troops. Take a real look and actually do something about it.
It is true that the Democrats don't have the votes at this time to override a veto, that's fine, just keep sending the same funding back until either Bush runs out of money or signs. If he won't sign, he's the one depriving the troops of funding. If Congress intends to do anything it had better remember that you don't oppose power except with power and signals that you'll just do what he wants after you make a gesture aren't power.
"Mr. Bush has invoked Vietnam to argue against leaving Iraq. That argument is specious, but there is a chilling similarity between the two American foreign policy disasters. In Vietnam, as in Iraq, American presidents and military leaders went to great lengths to pretend that victory was at hand when nothing could be farther from the truth."
The White House has attacked the GAO assessment of Iraq by stating that the standards set by Congressional investigators were too high. Perhaps, but there should be evidence of sustained and serious effort by the Iraqis and that is entirely missing. The White House has been using the August Congressional recess to pimp its stance and is warming up to ask for more money for Iraq, maybe $50 billion worth beyond the $600 billion already requested to take the war into spring 2008.
The NYT seems to think Congress ought to take a real look at what's out there when considering a fight over withdrawing troops. Take a real look and actually do something about it.
It is true that the Democrats don't have the votes at this time to override a veto, that's fine, just keep sending the same funding back until either Bush runs out of money or signs. If he won't sign, he's the one depriving the troops of funding. If Congress intends to do anything it had better remember that you don't oppose power except with power and signals that you'll just do what he wants after you make a gesture aren't power.
Swift, State Secrets, BushCo
State Secrets have been used as an excuse to shut down litigation and effectively enough for the director of the National Security Archives at George Washington University, Tom Blanton to note, "...when the government raised the ‘state secrets’ claim. It was a neutron bomb — no plaintiffs left standing." In the case of Belgian banking consortium Swift, it may not do, Chief Judge James F Holderman of the Chicago Federal District Court ruled that the suit based on Swift providing the Federal Treasury Dept with a broad range of documents may proceed. In the past 6 years BushCo has used state secrets 39 times compared to 59 times in the preceding 24 years according to NYT.
Swift routes trillions of dollars each day between banks, brokerage houses and other financial institutions. Millions of private financial records were provided to the Federal government since several months after September 11, 2001. This access was supposed to be for the purposes of tracing money supplied to terrorists.
It begins to look as though courts are wanting to have a look at what is behind some of the government's claims of state secrets.
Swift routes trillions of dollars each day between banks, brokerage houses and other financial institutions. Millions of private financial records were provided to the Federal government since several months after September 11, 2001. This access was supposed to be for the purposes of tracing money supplied to terrorists.
It begins to look as though courts are wanting to have a look at what is behind some of the government's claims of state secrets.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Same Sex Marriage In Iowa - Move, Larry
Polk County Iowa Judge Robert Hanson has ruled that Iowa's decade old gay marriage ban is unconstitutional and that the county must process marriage applications by same sex couples. The ruling would apply to any Iowan who wished to apply in that county. Two hours after the ruling was publicized Gary Seronko and David Rethmeier applied for license. From AP , "I started to cry because we so badly want to be able to be protected if something happens to one of us," Rethmeier said.
Deputy Recorder Trish Umthun expects a rush after taking 5 calls from gay couples. County Attorney John Sarcone said the County will appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court and sought an immediate stay from Hanson. House Minority Leader Christopher Rants (R-Sioux City), "I can't believe this is happening in Iowa. I guarantee you there will be a vote on this issue come January," when the Legislature convenes.
Judge Hanson, "Couples, such as plaintiffs, who are otherwise qualified to marry one another may not be denied licenses to marry or certificates of marriage or in any other way prevented from entering into a civil marriage ... by reason of the fact that both person comprising such a couple are of the same sex," on the basis of constitutional rights of due process and equal protection.
This would seem to me to be correct reasoning in demanding that all law abiding Iowans be treated the same under the law. I applaud the judge but I doubt the durability of his ruling, though it certainly would be nice to have Iowa prove me wrong.
Deputy Recorder Trish Umthun expects a rush after taking 5 calls from gay couples. County Attorney John Sarcone said the County will appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court and sought an immediate stay from Hanson. House Minority Leader Christopher Rants (R-Sioux City), "I can't believe this is happening in Iowa. I guarantee you there will be a vote on this issue come January," when the Legislature convenes.
Judge Hanson, "Couples, such as plaintiffs, who are otherwise qualified to marry one another may not be denied licenses to marry or certificates of marriage or in any other way prevented from entering into a civil marriage ... by reason of the fact that both person comprising such a couple are of the same sex," on the basis of constitutional rights of due process and equal protection.
This would seem to me to be correct reasoning in demanding that all law abiding Iowans be treated the same under the law. I applaud the judge but I doubt the durability of his ruling, though it certainly would be nice to have Iowa prove me wrong.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Larry Craig and Hell
It looks as though the Sen Craig (R-ID) thing isn't going to "just blow over" anytime soon. If the actual crime were the story, it wouldn't have made it into a tabloid. It is just too common - this is why there are police sting operations - it is annoyingly common. It is, of course, the Who that makes it a story and that Who has made his career on family values. Funny, but bathroom sex seems to miss the family values target. Many Republicans are lining up to kick Larry Craig through the goal posts, and this is something to see.
These folks weren't the ones all over Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney, Tom DeLay, Mark Foley, Ted Stevens, and Abromoff, they certainly kept pretty quiet then. Nope, they're not all over the BushCo for infringing the Constitution, starting a war on false pretences, or using Executive Privilege to cover infractions, they're all over a tacky sex story, a minor misdemeanor. Some things have national impact, some things are just creepy.
So, Larry Craig has spent decades on a political career based on "Republican" values and his colleagues would like him pilloried. His constituents are not happy, the papers and other media are all over him, and he has a family. Wow, for a few furtive minutes in an airport restroom his world exploded. That stuff must have been damned important to him to risk it, a major Idaho paper was looking into allegations of gay sex and others had made inquiries. What his wife knew or knows hasn't been made public, but she certainly knew about the previous allegations and that had to be somewhat distressing. We know nothing about their relationship and all kinds of arrangements are made - in private - but this can't make for comfortable home life. (ok, do YOU know what arrangements the Clintons had?)
I do not know whether Larry Craig is gay or what and I don't care, but it is evident that something pretty damn tacky is important to him. Way more important than all the posturing about "family values." Way more important than being Mitt Romney's best bud. Way more important than the regard of his colleagues. That must be hell. It must be a truly nightmarish life to live with such a nasty secret that drives and drives one. This is the natural outgrowth of the Republican politics of "family values." These things must be secret, they must be furtively pursued, they must endanger things of vast importance to one's life, and finally they must involve some level of hypocrisy for those engaging in them. Terry Schiavo was the ultimate hypocrisy of Republican "family values" collision with individual decisions and they learned nothing.
A part of me would like to have sympathy for Larry Craig, I surely do have some for his family, but I can't work up to it for him. He has profited from his hypocrisy, he has built a life on it. I look at his wreckage and ruin with cold eyes, he worked hard for that and I'm willing to indulge him. He has made a career out of making some ordinary people's lives more difficult, lives that would in the best of circumstances be difficult. There is absolutely no way that heterosexuals can, at the final level, approve of homosexuality, the drive is too basic for either orientation to see it neutrally. So there is always going to be a disconnect between the vast majority and the minority in this and that will make life more difficult for the minority. All the equality under the law will not remove that, and Larry Craig and his ilk have done their utmost to increase that difficulty through the law. They've deliberately and knowingly harmed friends of mine and people whom they know and even employ for the sake of political advantage.
Welcome to Hell, Larry, I think you've earned it, have a nice long stay.
These folks weren't the ones all over Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney, Tom DeLay, Mark Foley, Ted Stevens, and Abromoff, they certainly kept pretty quiet then. Nope, they're not all over the BushCo for infringing the Constitution, starting a war on false pretences, or using Executive Privilege to cover infractions, they're all over a tacky sex story, a minor misdemeanor. Some things have national impact, some things are just creepy.
So, Larry Craig has spent decades on a political career based on "Republican" values and his colleagues would like him pilloried. His constituents are not happy, the papers and other media are all over him, and he has a family. Wow, for a few furtive minutes in an airport restroom his world exploded. That stuff must have been damned important to him to risk it, a major Idaho paper was looking into allegations of gay sex and others had made inquiries. What his wife knew or knows hasn't been made public, but she certainly knew about the previous allegations and that had to be somewhat distressing. We know nothing about their relationship and all kinds of arrangements are made - in private - but this can't make for comfortable home life. (ok, do YOU know what arrangements the Clintons had?)
I do not know whether Larry Craig is gay or what and I don't care, but it is evident that something pretty damn tacky is important to him. Way more important than all the posturing about "family values." Way more important than being Mitt Romney's best bud. Way more important than the regard of his colleagues. That must be hell. It must be a truly nightmarish life to live with such a nasty secret that drives and drives one. This is the natural outgrowth of the Republican politics of "family values." These things must be secret, they must be furtively pursued, they must endanger things of vast importance to one's life, and finally they must involve some level of hypocrisy for those engaging in them. Terry Schiavo was the ultimate hypocrisy of Republican "family values" collision with individual decisions and they learned nothing.
A part of me would like to have sympathy for Larry Craig, I surely do have some for his family, but I can't work up to it for him. He has profited from his hypocrisy, he has built a life on it. I look at his wreckage and ruin with cold eyes, he worked hard for that and I'm willing to indulge him. He has made a career out of making some ordinary people's lives more difficult, lives that would in the best of circumstances be difficult. There is absolutely no way that heterosexuals can, at the final level, approve of homosexuality, the drive is too basic for either orientation to see it neutrally. So there is always going to be a disconnect between the vast majority and the minority in this and that will make life more difficult for the minority. All the equality under the law will not remove that, and Larry Craig and his ilk have done their utmost to increase that difficulty through the law. They've deliberately and knowingly harmed friends of mine and people whom they know and even employ for the sake of political advantage.
Welcome to Hell, Larry, I think you've earned it, have a nice long stay.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Mitt Romney's Gay Problems
Former Gaymarrychusets governor Mitt Romney has to run hard against gays to cover that particular job, oh that and some of his other "previous" incarnations of a liberal sort. Now he has another problem, his co-Senate Liaison Senator Larry Craig (R - ID) who has been dogged by gayness allegations pleaded guilty in Minneapolis to disorderly conduct in a men's restroom. That wouldn't be a big problem other than Larry's anti-gay stance and his support for Mitt. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulp21rOFxKA would be where you would go to hear and see Larry Craig share his thoughts on Mitt Romney, it is, however, no longer available. http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=GovMittRomney (Gov. Mitt Romney's Videos) is the user who pulled the video, but this person seems to think it should stay, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTLpS8KTnXI and I particularly like the part about their shared "strong family values." http://idahoansformitt.wordpress.com/2007/03/14/idahoan-senator-larry-craig-supports-mitt-romney/ used to have Craig for Romney, seems to have gone away.
Now I personally don't care if Sen Larry Craig likes men, restrooms is tacky, but what kind of frosts me is his record on gay bashing legislation and his runs on "family values" coded as anti-gay theocratic agenda. I'm not real sure those "conservative" Idahoans will much like his arrest and guilty plea. Hypocrisy is what offends me, and the politics of creating "devils" enrages me. This nation has some rather serious issues, even leaving Iraq out, and these people waste time and emotional energy on "better than" crap. Oh well, I'm sure this will all turn out to just be a leftist media conspiracy...
Mitt keeps having campaign people go away for not too nice reasons, that kind of makes one wonder what it is about him that attracts them in the first place. Actually they seem to congregate in Republican circles, but maybe that's just the attraction of unmitigated greed. Watching the majority of the Republican candidates try to out-hawk and out-god each other makes me wonder is they've noticed that Karl Rove has left DC and GWB's polls are in the toilet. While they blame Bill Clinton for everything they manage to make him and Hillary look principled - and that's going some...
Now I personally don't care if Sen Larry Craig likes men, restrooms is tacky, but what kind of frosts me is his record on gay bashing legislation and his runs on "family values" coded as anti-gay theocratic agenda. I'm not real sure those "conservative" Idahoans will much like his arrest and guilty plea. Hypocrisy is what offends me, and the politics of creating "devils" enrages me. This nation has some rather serious issues, even leaving Iraq out, and these people waste time and emotional energy on "better than" crap. Oh well, I'm sure this will all turn out to just be a leftist media conspiracy...
Mitt keeps having campaign people go away for not too nice reasons, that kind of makes one wonder what it is about him that attracts them in the first place. Actually they seem to congregate in Republican circles, but maybe that's just the attraction of unmitigated greed. Watching the majority of the Republican candidates try to out-hawk and out-god each other makes me wonder is they've noticed that Karl Rove has left DC and GWB's polls are in the toilet. While they blame Bill Clinton for everything they manage to make him and Hillary look principled - and that's going some...
Monday, August 27, 2007
Albie In The Mud And Other Stupidities
Albie was "dragged through the mud for political reasons," quoth the "Decider." Well, yes, a big part of it was politics, the difference of opinion would be whose politics it was. George would have us believe that Congressional politics was in play - this from the all politics all the time President. Albie's problem was politics, no doubt, the playing at politics in DOJ where it had no place making politics policy at DOJ.
People expect the President to be political, but they also expect him to suborn politics to the good of the nation and they definitely expect justice to be applied apolitically. One of the basics that separates us from the third world dung holes is the rule of law. That rule of law creates transparency in government, it means that you know what is legal and not - every time. Not depending on whether you belong to the "X" Party or "Z" religion, each and every time. You know that the government will come after you for a violation not for an affiliation and that is important. Albie, amongst others (dragged through the mud others) ignored that.
Another person that seems to have little clue about law is Michael Vick. Today he apologized, saying he was ashamed. Wait a whole doggone minute. As far as I can tell, dog fighting has been illegal for quite some time and in the opinion of most Americans, cruel and degenerate. Michael just now figured this out? He just figured out that it was wrong? What exactly is he ashamed of, getting caught? Losing a boatload of money? Oh hell, we pay people who are of no use to the nation beyond entertainment buckets of money after coddling them through their youth, to play a game.
Vick pleaded out after his co-conspirators testified against him, Albie quit when there was no public heat - what was waiting in the wings for him?
People expect the President to be political, but they also expect him to suborn politics to the good of the nation and they definitely expect justice to be applied apolitically. One of the basics that separates us from the third world dung holes is the rule of law. That rule of law creates transparency in government, it means that you know what is legal and not - every time. Not depending on whether you belong to the "X" Party or "Z" religion, each and every time. You know that the government will come after you for a violation not for an affiliation and that is important. Albie, amongst others (dragged through the mud others) ignored that.
Another person that seems to have little clue about law is Michael Vick. Today he apologized, saying he was ashamed. Wait a whole doggone minute. As far as I can tell, dog fighting has been illegal for quite some time and in the opinion of most Americans, cruel and degenerate. Michael just now figured this out? He just figured out that it was wrong? What exactly is he ashamed of, getting caught? Losing a boatload of money? Oh hell, we pay people who are of no use to the nation beyond entertainment buckets of money after coddling them through their youth, to play a game.
Vick pleaded out after his co-conspirators testified against him, Albie quit when there was no public heat - what was waiting in the wings for him?
What Wasn't Said
I have a commenter, troll maybe, who loves to tell me I said or somebody said something that was never said. He accuses me of advocating amnesty and anchor babies, when the words that say exactly not that were right in front of him and have been repeated since February of '06. Isn't that odd? No, it's not odd, it is ordinary in the BushCo world of politics. I will state in blunt terms that there are people (terrorists) who need killing and that I don't have a problem with our government being damned dangerous for those people and be told that I'm amongst those who think therapy is the answer for terrorism. Maybe some of you recognize the tactic.
If you have had the patience to listen to the President's speeches those are the "talking points," the arguments he has are with himself. He states that some people say, "..." and then refutes it. The problem is that nobody is saying these things. Some blog research shows that Saudi Arabia offers therapy for those with terrorist tendencies but all other entries are either "liberals" scoffing or wingnuts screaming about it happening because BushCo said so. You can run through the litany and keep coming up with gems like that. Maybe you remember the liberal racists who opposed "No Child Left Behind" or the "9/11 changed everything,"' or "we'll hunt them down where they are," to justify Iraq.
The truly peculiar aspect is to watch people on the right claim they have little use for GWB and turn around and use his strawman positions to attack the left.
If you have had the patience to listen to the President's speeches those are the "talking points," the arguments he has are with himself. He states that some people say, "..." and then refutes it. The problem is that nobody is saying these things. Some blog research shows that Saudi Arabia offers therapy for those with terrorist tendencies but all other entries are either "liberals" scoffing or wingnuts screaming about it happening because BushCo said so. You can run through the litany and keep coming up with gems like that. Maybe you remember the liberal racists who opposed "No Child Left Behind" or the "9/11 changed everything,"' or "we'll hunt them down where they are," to justify Iraq.
The truly peculiar aspect is to watch people on the right claim they have little use for GWB and turn around and use his strawman positions to attack the left.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Florida Democrats Might Want Their Vote To Count
Florida's Republican legislature moved their Primary Election to January 29th in defiance of Democratic National Committee rules. 210 Delegates are at stake since the DNC Rules Committee has imposed the harshest penalty of refusing seat Delegates elected prior to February 5th. Floridians are crying foul and disenfranchisement, seems an odd notion since the rules were in effect before the offense and it was clearly known. Democratic Party of Oregon had extended discussions on the matter last winter and made its opposition known to the legislature.
These front loading states may be making a large mistake in their thinking that they will attract candidates by moving up. The early field may get so crowded that candidates simply will not have the resources to give them the attention they desire. Candidates will definitely have to concentrate their early resources on large delegations if they crowd up. State like Oregon with a May 5th Primary (and a paltry delegation) may well turn into decisive votes if the candidates come out of the early fray bunched up. There are candidate strategies that could turn an early crowd into a low dollar campaign benefit, concentration on the small delegations could turn to advantage as the big bucks brawl in the big states.
The DNC certainly had the right to set the rules and the timetable limits, it is their Primary. Beyond a simple matter of "rights" is the matter of controlling chaos in the process. The practical effect of a DNC cave in on this issue is having Primary elections the day after Inauguration. OK, I exaggerate, but at what point does the thing become ludicrous and fall apart. I'd say it's already become ridiculous. The General Election is November 10th, this isn't a pregnancy, it does not take 9 months from Floridians voting and having an election.
I'd be real pleased to see these numbskulls have to sit on their hands February, March, and April to find out that Oregon just selected the nominee in May. Sure, it might not work that way; but it could and that's something to think about when States consider messing about with the Primary process. Size might not be all, it might get canceled by size, but that wouldn't occur to them - they're big.
These front loading states may be making a large mistake in their thinking that they will attract candidates by moving up. The early field may get so crowded that candidates simply will not have the resources to give them the attention they desire. Candidates will definitely have to concentrate their early resources on large delegations if they crowd up. State like Oregon with a May 5th Primary (and a paltry delegation) may well turn into decisive votes if the candidates come out of the early fray bunched up. There are candidate strategies that could turn an early crowd into a low dollar campaign benefit, concentration on the small delegations could turn to advantage as the big bucks brawl in the big states.
The DNC certainly had the right to set the rules and the timetable limits, it is their Primary. Beyond a simple matter of "rights" is the matter of controlling chaos in the process. The practical effect of a DNC cave in on this issue is having Primary elections the day after Inauguration. OK, I exaggerate, but at what point does the thing become ludicrous and fall apart. I'd say it's already become ridiculous. The General Election is November 10th, this isn't a pregnancy, it does not take 9 months from Floridians voting and having an election.
I'd be real pleased to see these numbskulls have to sit on their hands February, March, and April to find out that Oregon just selected the nominee in May. Sure, it might not work that way; but it could and that's something to think about when States consider messing about with the Primary process. Size might not be all, it might get canceled by size, but that wouldn't occur to them - they're big.
BushCo Muzzles Dissenters
I don't think I'll bother to try to improve on this NYT Editorial where they take a dim view of the Executive Branch's attempts to stifle protest. I will note to the President that there is a difference between a gun and a T shirt and assasination and character assisination, though you may have rendered the last moot, yourself.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Disqualified From Expert Rating
Tim Robbins made a suggestion Friday night on Bill Mahr's "Real Time" that deserves serious consideration. "Experts" who have been blatantly wrong about things like Iraq need to be disqualified from using the modifier "expert." Unfortunately there is no National Board of Expert Qualification to revoke credentials or supposed credentials for repeated failures to be even sort of right about an issue. After sufficient BushCo butt-kissing stupidities you'd think somebody would call the "Expert" label into question when one of these numb heads opens his mouth; nope, they're still experts.
I do not doubt that there are people who have spent a lifetime studying an area and who make judgements based on something other than wishful thinking and partisanship, we just don't seem to see and hear much from them. Big media has an unspoken news agenda, confrontation is more salable than discussion, "Shock and Awe" is way sexier than boring footage of UN WMD inspectors poking around in factories; so when experts advocate the sexy stuff guess who gets air time and print space.
In George Bush's Orwellian vision there is no place for the truth in advertising involved in naming his pool of experts "Ministry of Propaganda." I guess it's up to the public to call Bull Shit on them, sometime...
Go ahead and try to find the original voices of opposition to the Iraq invasion, they were right - after all - and you'd think they'd have positions of real import...as experts...sure.
I do not doubt that there are people who have spent a lifetime studying an area and who make judgements based on something other than wishful thinking and partisanship, we just don't seem to see and hear much from them. Big media has an unspoken news agenda, confrontation is more salable than discussion, "Shock and Awe" is way sexier than boring footage of UN WMD inspectors poking around in factories; so when experts advocate the sexy stuff guess who gets air time and print space.
In George Bush's Orwellian vision there is no place for the truth in advertising involved in naming his pool of experts "Ministry of Propaganda." I guess it's up to the public to call Bull Shit on them, sometime...
Go ahead and try to find the original voices of opposition to the Iraq invasion, they were right - after all - and you'd think they'd have positions of real import...as experts...sure.
Low Power FM
Some of you are fortunate enough to live in a radio market with some form of independence, stations that are locally controlled. Most of the low population large area communities do not have that luxury, they are stuck with what some media conglomerate decides is programming. This is increasingly true in medium size markets and even large market communities.
There are significant costs involved in broadcasting and a limited number of licenses available. Some of the FCC limits on licenses involve rather fantastic interference regulations, resulting in protection of market rather than signal. Recent history has shown that despite some ludicrous stances on obscenity the FCC is truly large media's friend, or perhaps more accurately - tool.
Low power FM is a community friendly solution, while not cheap, the transmitter equipment is not out of the reach of smaller organizations and with its limited signal reach is not attractive to media conglomerates. There is a bill in the House, House Bill 2802 -- the Local Community Radio Act of 2007 -- which would expand low power FM. You can learn more about low power FM at Prometheus Radio and learn how to help. If you think your community organization or non-profit could operate a full power station, there is a limited window in mid-October to apply and Get Radio has important information.
Americans have got to do something to take back the airwaves from the giants with no concern for or interest in local programming and social benefits. Particularly the political agenda of giants like Clear Channel need to be balanced with the voices of others.
I don't often get the opportunity to promote and advocate and live up to the Blog title of "Chuck for..." so I'm happy to do so here. I don't care what music you like or what your political leanings are, we all benefit from wider perspectives and wider analysis. Don't expect a lot of opportunities like this to come along.
There are significant costs involved in broadcasting and a limited number of licenses available. Some of the FCC limits on licenses involve rather fantastic interference regulations, resulting in protection of market rather than signal. Recent history has shown that despite some ludicrous stances on obscenity the FCC is truly large media's friend, or perhaps more accurately - tool.
Low power FM is a community friendly solution, while not cheap, the transmitter equipment is not out of the reach of smaller organizations and with its limited signal reach is not attractive to media conglomerates. There is a bill in the House, House Bill 2802 -- the Local Community Radio Act of 2007 -- which would expand low power FM. You can learn more about low power FM at Prometheus Radio and learn how to help. If you think your community organization or non-profit could operate a full power station, there is a limited window in mid-October to apply and Get Radio has important information.
Americans have got to do something to take back the airwaves from the giants with no concern for or interest in local programming and social benefits. Particularly the political agenda of giants like Clear Channel need to be balanced with the voices of others.
I don't often get the opportunity to promote and advocate and live up to the Blog title of "Chuck for..." so I'm happy to do so here. I don't care what music you like or what your political leanings are, we all benefit from wider perspectives and wider analysis. Don't expect a lot of opportunities like this to come along.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Viet Iraq Nam
Let me see how this works, GWB awol TX ANG along with 5x deferred Dick and the rest of the chickenhawks NOW want to say Viet Nam and Iraq in the same sentence. Not in 2004 when the quagmire aspect started to get obvious, but now a couple weeks before the White House tells Congress what it thinks Gen. Petraeus ought to say. No, despite the BushCo insistence for months that Patraeus would report, the White House will do the report. We are now on the umpteenth iteration of "new and improved" plans that will save the day.
The same team that brought you the war in Iraq tells you that we ran away in Viet Nam and emboldened the terrorists and cost thousands (millions) of lives there and that is what will happen in Iraq, and the defeat will bring terrorist home to us. I really can't think of a much more stupid and dangerous analogy to run with. Not one Admin. ever told the American public the truth about Viet Nam - Tonkein Gulf Resolution/WMDs & 9/11, the SVN government never had wide support with its citizens, that government was corrupt, our troops were never sure who was an enemy outside uniformed NVA, we used conventional troops against guerrilla troops, we did not win "hearts and minds," we won every pitched conventional battle, the American public finally lost patience, the war was primarily fought by the poor and blue collar, we destabilized the region, we spent blood and treasure on a cause that their civilian populace didn't care about, and made ourselves unpopular with our ordinary allies. There was, also, the Domino Theory, you know the one... Each year the war got bigger and bigger and always right around the corner was the final resolution. There never was a political settlement in the country and its army, for the most part, stunk. There are two real big differences, rain and race. Communism is essentially a sort of religion and the Saigon government was one of personality not law - another form of religion government. Most of the people were dedicated to the proposition of staying alive and getting by, not noble causes.
The dead-enders insist the "libbers" lost 'Nam, I'd be surprised to hear that Henry Kissinger ever thought of himself in those terms and Nixon - well, I guess an unpopular war and anti-democracy actions by presidents may go hand in hand, along with patriotism/treason rhetoric Militarists insist that Viet Nam was over managed by politicians, then deny that it is exactly what is happening in Iraq.
I admit it, I'm still trying to figure out how anybody thought invading Iraq was a good idea, I cannot understand the logic. Now that we have a nice little religious civil war going I can't seem to wrap my head around the idea that it is "our" war. GHWB refused to do it, before sanctions had crushed Iraq's economy and infrastructure, but the failed son just had to try to "one up" the old man, and pulled another of his inimitable failures. At election time people chose to ignore that this is the guy that could wreck an oil company - even with all the family oil connections - and a professional ball club, so he became President and now....
The same team that brought you the war in Iraq tells you that we ran away in Viet Nam and emboldened the terrorists and cost thousands (millions) of lives there and that is what will happen in Iraq, and the defeat will bring terrorist home to us. I really can't think of a much more stupid and dangerous analogy to run with. Not one Admin. ever told the American public the truth about Viet Nam - Tonkein Gulf Resolution/WMDs & 9/11, the SVN government never had wide support with its citizens, that government was corrupt, our troops were never sure who was an enemy outside uniformed NVA, we used conventional troops against guerrilla troops, we did not win "hearts and minds," we won every pitched conventional battle, the American public finally lost patience, the war was primarily fought by the poor and blue collar, we destabilized the region, we spent blood and treasure on a cause that their civilian populace didn't care about, and made ourselves unpopular with our ordinary allies. There was, also, the Domino Theory, you know the one... Each year the war got bigger and bigger and always right around the corner was the final resolution. There never was a political settlement in the country and its army, for the most part, stunk. There are two real big differences, rain and race. Communism is essentially a sort of religion and the Saigon government was one of personality not law - another form of religion government. Most of the people were dedicated to the proposition of staying alive and getting by, not noble causes.
The dead-enders insist the "libbers" lost 'Nam, I'd be surprised to hear that Henry Kissinger ever thought of himself in those terms and Nixon - well, I guess an unpopular war and anti-democracy actions by presidents may go hand in hand, along with patriotism/treason rhetoric Militarists insist that Viet Nam was over managed by politicians, then deny that it is exactly what is happening in Iraq.
I admit it, I'm still trying to figure out how anybody thought invading Iraq was a good idea, I cannot understand the logic. Now that we have a nice little religious civil war going I can't seem to wrap my head around the idea that it is "our" war. GHWB refused to do it, before sanctions had crushed Iraq's economy and infrastructure, but the failed son just had to try to "one up" the old man, and pulled another of his inimitable failures. At election time people chose to ignore that this is the guy that could wreck an oil company - even with all the family oil connections - and a professional ball club, so he became President and now....
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
And You Only Thought You Were Poorer
The NYT Business Section tells an interesting story about average income in the US since 2000, seems it was lower in 2005 for the fifth year running, a record (again) since 1945, it dropped once previous to this BushCo debacle. I'll tell the story their way - and then I'll tell you just how badly you're having your leg pulled. Incomes, adjusted for inflation, have risen since 2002 but 2005 was still 1% lower than 2000.
Here's where it all gets sticky, the number of people making over $1 million rose by 26% from 2000 which is 0.25% of taxpayers and they accounted for 47% of the income gains compared to 2000. They also got 62% of the tax cuts from the BushCo capital gains & investment cuts, the folks earning over $10 million - 11,433 people out of 134 million taxpayers (whew, 0.000085%) got 28% of the savings, that's $21.7 billion for this handful. So you know not everyone else was left out, the 90% who make less than $100,000 got an average of $318 in savings.
Here's where it gets real ugly and NYT didn't tell you the meaningful numbers; since the gains were almost all at the top, those folks dragged the average up, if you were to put the median income (half above, half below) into this equation the picture would be considerably grimmer (unless you're rich) since 2000. In fact you would be talking about a national disgrace, not a 1% shortfall.
Now here's what BushCo's thinking is on this matter:
GWB fall 2006, “I’m pleased with the economic progress we’re making.”
Tony Fratto, White House spokesman, “the significant wrenching hits that our economy took in 2001 and 2002, so no one should be surprised that what a bubble economy created in the late 1990s and 2000, where economic data were skewed, would take some time to recover.” (that skew would be Clinton)((Clinton's fault, Clinton's fault))
Fratto on whose income grew, “is not a very interesting story.” (certainly not breaking news)
Fratto on taxes, “There is no question that you will always have distributional concerns with a tax rate, a broad-based tax rate, at the very top of the income scale.”
So, you made less than $1 million in IRS declared income and thought you counted with BushCo and the Republican Party? While they're busy flattening your wallet they'll give you WAR, FEAR, BRAINDEAD WOMAN, and GAYS to keep you distracted, and if that fails, some more FEAR. Oh, I know; the list is much longer than that, but I've only so much energy. No wonder Rupe Murdoch loves them, fodder to whip up Faux News and he's way up in that 0.000085% of taxpayers, what do you suppose Wall Street Journal will report on this story? (you'd have to add several more zeros to that percentage to get to Rupe)
Trying to wrap your head around some of these numbers will make your head spin, but you need to. You need to understand how many people are fighting for an infitisimal piece of the pie and what any losses in that group mean. You need to try to understand the colossal level of greed that not only produces these numbers but also produces 12-20 million low wage illegal immigrants to use as a serf class and replaces jobs with cheap Walmart Chinese goods - poisonous ones, to boot. The Republicans asked if you'd like to have your country back, ok, I'm asking. How do you like Compassionate Conservatism? Want some more of this? Well then, squeal and run around with your head up your patoot while they chant , terror, terror; and pay no attention to what's really going on. Pah.
Here's where it all gets sticky, the number of people making over $1 million rose by 26% from 2000 which is 0.25% of taxpayers and they accounted for 47% of the income gains compared to 2000. They also got 62% of the tax cuts from the BushCo capital gains & investment cuts, the folks earning over $10 million - 11,433 people out of 134 million taxpayers (whew, 0.000085%) got 28% of the savings, that's $21.7 billion for this handful. So you know not everyone else was left out, the 90% who make less than $100,000 got an average of $318 in savings.
Here's where it gets real ugly and NYT didn't tell you the meaningful numbers; since the gains were almost all at the top, those folks dragged the average up, if you were to put the median income (half above, half below) into this equation the picture would be considerably grimmer (unless you're rich) since 2000. In fact you would be talking about a national disgrace, not a 1% shortfall.
Now here's what BushCo's thinking is on this matter:
GWB fall 2006, “I’m pleased with the economic progress we’re making.”
Tony Fratto, White House spokesman, “the significant wrenching hits that our economy took in 2001 and 2002, so no one should be surprised that what a bubble economy created in the late 1990s and 2000, where economic data were skewed, would take some time to recover.” (that skew would be Clinton)((Clinton's fault, Clinton's fault))
Fratto on whose income grew, “is not a very interesting story.” (certainly not breaking news)
Fratto on taxes, “There is no question that you will always have distributional concerns with a tax rate, a broad-based tax rate, at the very top of the income scale.”
So, you made less than $1 million in IRS declared income and thought you counted with BushCo and the Republican Party? While they're busy flattening your wallet they'll give you WAR, FEAR, BRAINDEAD WOMAN, and GAYS to keep you distracted, and if that fails, some more FEAR. Oh, I know; the list is much longer than that, but I've only so much energy. No wonder Rupe Murdoch loves them, fodder to whip up Faux News and he's way up in that 0.000085% of taxpayers, what do you suppose Wall Street Journal will report on this story? (you'd have to add several more zeros to that percentage to get to Rupe)
Trying to wrap your head around some of these numbers will make your head spin, but you need to. You need to understand how many people are fighting for an infitisimal piece of the pie and what any losses in that group mean. You need to try to understand the colossal level of greed that not only produces these numbers but also produces 12-20 million low wage illegal immigrants to use as a serf class and replaces jobs with cheap Walmart Chinese goods - poisonous ones, to boot. The Republicans asked if you'd like to have your country back, ok, I'm asking. How do you like Compassionate Conservatism? Want some more of this? Well then, squeal and run around with your head up your patoot while they chant , terror, terror; and pay no attention to what's really going on. Pah.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Vice-presidency In Alternate Universe
Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT) was complaining that the BushCo hadn't responded to the Senate Judiciary Committee's subpoenas for NSA wire tapping related documents and noted the Admin. had sent a letter asking for time while identifying some documents relevant and providing a Twilight Zone moment, "the administration claims the Office of the Vice President is not part of the Executive Office of the President." I seem to remember bumper stickers, Bush/Cheney '04, and if memory serves from the passing glance this part of the ballot got, their names were linked there.
Now it seems that there are 3 branches of government set out in the Constitution, the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judiciary. Now the VP ain't a judge, Congress doesn't claim him, and now evidently the Executive doesn't want him - I guess we can just dispense with him altogether. Wouldn't this also take care of any of this Executive privilege nonsense?
During the 109th the same committee chaired by Arlen Spector, "In fact, we were about to issue subpoenas then and one of the senators came to our meeting and said that the vice president had met with the Republican senators and told them they were not allowed to issue subpoenas."
OK, my head's exploded, you figure it out...
Now it seems that there are 3 branches of government set out in the Constitution, the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judiciary. Now the VP ain't a judge, Congress doesn't claim him, and now evidently the Executive doesn't want him - I guess we can just dispense with him altogether. Wouldn't this also take care of any of this Executive privilege nonsense?
During the 109th the same committee chaired by Arlen Spector, "In fact, we were about to issue subpoenas then and one of the senators came to our meeting and said that the vice president had met with the Republican senators and told them they were not allowed to issue subpoenas."
OK, my head's exploded, you figure it out...
Monday, August 20, 2007
Credit Crunch Widens
Some bigger names in the credit industry are having real problems, the WaPo reports Capital One will close it's mortgage subsidiary GreenPoint Mortgage eliminating 1,900 jobs with an after tax cost of $860 million. Thornburg Mortgage whose business specialty is jumbo mortgages, in excess of $417,000 for wealthy clients with stellar credit ratings, has sold $20.5 billion in assets to cover debts. Friedman, Billings, Ramsey Group has sold $4.9 billion in mortgage backed securities at a $75 million loss to cover its problems. Luminent Mortgage Capital and KKR Financial Holdings are all scrambling to cover themselves.
Consumers will have fewer and narrower choices in home loans than in the recent past. What that finally means is higher cost loans. This will not help the housing downturn to recover and sadly, the biggest prop for this BushCo economy has been the cheap available credit in the housing market, either purchase or refinance. Bernanke is going to have to scramble to keep this from getting bad.
To a certain extent an unnecessary panic mentality has hit, anyone who has planned to stay in their home for five or more years need pay little attention to this downturn as far as selling their home. Housing pressure will continue, over the long term, people will buy their first homes or move up - it is simply a matter of time. As housing stocks decrease pressure will again force prices back up. If you happen to have very good credit the next 6 months may be a very good buying opportunity. If you see payment problems coming your way, don't wait around to try to get something straightened around. Markets that have not seen a bubble probably have little to fear in lost valuation. The first step is to keep your head and make sure you actually understand what is happening where you are.
Consumers will have fewer and narrower choices in home loans than in the recent past. What that finally means is higher cost loans. This will not help the housing downturn to recover and sadly, the biggest prop for this BushCo economy has been the cheap available credit in the housing market, either purchase or refinance. Bernanke is going to have to scramble to keep this from getting bad.
To a certain extent an unnecessary panic mentality has hit, anyone who has planned to stay in their home for five or more years need pay little attention to this downturn as far as selling their home. Housing pressure will continue, over the long term, people will buy their first homes or move up - it is simply a matter of time. As housing stocks decrease pressure will again force prices back up. If you happen to have very good credit the next 6 months may be a very good buying opportunity. If you see payment problems coming your way, don't wait around to try to get something straightened around. Markets that have not seen a bubble probably have little to fear in lost valuation. The first step is to keep your head and make sure you actually understand what is happening where you are.
Impeaching Gonzales
It is easy enough to forget that impeachment was built into the Constitution for more than just action against a President and this NYT Editorial is happy to point that out in regard to AG Gonzales. Now that Jay Inslee (D-WA) and 5 other Reps have introduced a resolution to conduct an impeachment inquiry it is important to know just what it means within the Constitutional framework.
Treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors are the Constitutional basis for impeachment and while this may be a rather loose sounding list it is so for a reason. While the Founders did not want Congress to undertake an impeachment lightly they also did not want them hamstrung. The impeachment process was promoted at conventions as a means to rein in any office holder who “dares to abuse the power vested in him by the people.”
If you're thinking such a thing would be without precedence the case of US Grant's Sec of War William Belknap was impeached for taking bribes, Alberto might find Congress a bit more polite in that they impeached William even though he'd resigned.
Treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors are the Constitutional basis for impeachment and while this may be a rather loose sounding list it is so for a reason. While the Founders did not want Congress to undertake an impeachment lightly they also did not want them hamstrung. The impeachment process was promoted at conventions as a means to rein in any office holder who “dares to abuse the power vested in him by the people.”
If you're thinking such a thing would be without precedence the case of US Grant's Sec of War William Belknap was impeached for taking bribes, Alberto might find Congress a bit more polite in that they impeached William even though he'd resigned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)