President-Elect Obama will be inheriting a Congress in which both houses have Democratic majorities in addition to 4 reliable votes on the Supreme Court. On first blush, this would seem to be a great time to be a liberal president - an obedient Congress to pass all the legislation that a president could want. But appearances can be deceiving.
The President will not be in control of the Congress. The Democratic congressional caucus will be in charge of the Obama administration and they will be the ones giving the orders.
The Democrats have been out of power for fourteen years since Newt Gingrich used the Contract With America to win a majority in the House in 1994. In 1976, President Caster believed that he would control Congress. He was wrong. The Democrats passed legislation without input from the White House. The struggle for power between the two branches became bitter. The falling out between the branches made for an ineffective administration during the "stagflation" period and, coupled with the failings of Carter's foreign policy, led to the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980.
In 1993 and 1994, President Clinton believed that he could control the Democrats in Congress and did not have to work with the Republicans. It wasn't long before President Clinton found himself being watching while Congress was legislating without his leadership.
In 1995, the Republicans took control of the House and a couple of years later, the Senate. This was the start of the great Clinton economy because President Clinton was forced to work with the Republicans to get any legislation passed. The Republicans were able to force fiscal restraint on the Clinton Administration. Anyone remember President Clinton's speech in which he declared that the "era of Big Government is over?"
From 1995 until 2006, the Republicans were in control of Congress. Even when the Democrats regained a majority in the House and a razor thin majority in the Senate, the Republicans still had sufficient control of Congress to block Democratic legislation using the filibuster and the Presidential veto.
Now, with an incoming Democratic President and a smaller Republican caucus in the Senate, it will be more difficult for the Republicans to maintain a filibuster. The Democrats in Congress are rejoicing at their new found power. They are in control again.
Which brings us to the plight of President-Elect Obama. He wants to lead. He wants to set the agenda. He wants to tell Congress what they will do for his agenda.
The Democrats in Congress will balk. I cannot see Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid telling Rep Rangel and Sen. Schumer that they will have to toe the administration line - and making it stick.
No way, no how.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Give unto ROme...
The Obama campaign is going to charge the press for its coverage of his victory slash coronation on the night of November 4th.
Guess what? It's just the beginning. This is the beginning of transformational politics - the transformation of money.
The Obama stunt of using text messaging to announce his choice of Vice President. Did anyone in the press ask how much that stunt cost the Obama campaign? How much it cost each person to receive that message? How many received that message? The total amount of money generated by that event? WHO GOT THE MONEY?
As Mark Felt said, follow the money.
The night that Obama had the private meeting with Senator Clinton, he had the press report to his campaign plane and his staff kept the press there so that his meeting could be private. I never heard, but was the airplane door ever closed or the stairs taken away from the plane? Did anyone in the press demand to be let off and was refused? I hope not, because that would be false imprisonment.
Note to Chris Matthews: that tingling you feel going up your leg? It a hand reaching for your wallet. Just so that you know.
Guess what? It's just the beginning. This is the beginning of transformational politics - the transformation of money.
The Obama stunt of using text messaging to announce his choice of Vice President. Did anyone in the press ask how much that stunt cost the Obama campaign? How much it cost each person to receive that message? How many received that message? The total amount of money generated by that event? WHO GOT THE MONEY?
As Mark Felt said, follow the money.
The night that Obama had the private meeting with Senator Clinton, he had the press report to his campaign plane and his staff kept the press there so that his meeting could be private. I never heard, but was the airplane door ever closed or the stairs taken away from the plane? Did anyone in the press demand to be let off and was refused? I hope not, because that would be false imprisonment.
Note to Chris Matthews: that tingling you feel going up your leg? It a hand reaching for your wallet. Just so that you know.
Monday, October 20, 2008
J-School, not B-School, Graduates
Maggie Rodriguez of is co- anchor of the CBS Early Show on Saturday. She is a newsreader, not an economist, or business person or a deep thinker.
Why?
After reporting that the decline in the price of oil is causing a decline in the price of gasoline at the pump but the drop in the price of oil was not causing a corresponding dropo in the price of food, she observed that the law of Supply and Demand should not determine the price of food in the market - here's her quote:
"But this is not affecting grocery bills, Chris, and that's because as long as there is demand, these grocers, they price their products based on that and not what they should be pricing them on."
Maggie, Maggie, Maggie. You need to think like an entrepeneur and not someone who reads copy. If you thonk that the prices being charged are unfair (too high), then there is opportunity to deliver a good service at a fair price and make some money for yourself or the charity of your choice. I suggest that Maggie should take some of that lucrative salary and invest in a grocery store. Put your ideas to the test. Charge lower prices and corner the market - put those greedy business owners out of business.
Also, to prove your moral superiority, I suggest that you not sell certain items for the good of the public:
cigarettes,
beer,
wine,
fatty foods,
lottery tickets,
anything forbidden by any religion.
Show the rest of us how its done.
Why?
After reporting that the decline in the price of oil is causing a decline in the price of gasoline at the pump but the drop in the price of oil was not causing a corresponding dropo in the price of food, she observed that the law of Supply and Demand should not determine the price of food in the market - here's her quote:
"But this is not affecting grocery bills, Chris, and that's because as long as there is demand, these grocers, they price their products based on that and not what they should be pricing them on."
Maggie, Maggie, Maggie. You need to think like an entrepeneur and not someone who reads copy. If you thonk that the prices being charged are unfair (too high), then there is opportunity to deliver a good service at a fair price and make some money for yourself or the charity of your choice. I suggest that Maggie should take some of that lucrative salary and invest in a grocery store. Put your ideas to the test. Charge lower prices and corner the market - put those greedy business owners out of business.
Also, to prove your moral superiority, I suggest that you not sell certain items for the good of the public:
cigarettes,
beer,
wine,
fatty foods,
lottery tickets,
anything forbidden by any religion.
Show the rest of us how its done.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
The George W. Bush Sewage Treatment Plant
The City of San Francisco may be renaming its sewage treatment plant after George W. Bush - as an insult to him, of course. To show their contempt and demonstrate their smug sense of superiority. San Francisco is the only city that had a ballot referendum to allow a uniformed police officer to carry a ventriloquist's dummy on his beat.
George W. Bush should attend the renaming ceremony to give a speech. If I may be sold bold, A speech along the following lines:
"To the good people of San Francisco, I am here to thank you for the honor of having this new sewage treatment facility named in my honor. The people who work here, day in and day out, perform a vital public service in regard to public health and the prevention of communicable diseases. The health and vitality of the people of San Francisco, the millions of tourists who visit this fine city every year, the marine life in the waters in and around San Francisco Bay, and the local, state and national economies are dependent on the efficient operation of this plant and other plants just like it across this great nation."
"There was a time when the size of a city - a health city - was limited by the ability of the local environment to absorb human and animal waste generated inside the city. When the city passed those limits, the human population therein became subject to those diseases whose names still strike dread in people - diseases such as cholera, diptheria, ..." Diseases that were a major threat to the people of San Francisco after the Great Earthquake."
"At the end of the Nineteenth Century, the City of Chicago was identifying the major problems that its continued growth would present to the people - one problem was the every increasing amount of manure created by horses used for transportation and by the cows used for milk and meat by Chicago families. As we all know, that cities fouled by animal waste never became a problem because of an unintended consequence of the invention of the automobile industry. By comparison, the American cities of the 21st Century would seem safe and clean to a person of the 19th Century."
"In the past century, human civilization has made great strides in fighting disease and extending the life expectancy of humanity. Advancements in medicine have conquered so many diseases and so many illness that plaques and pestilences that once ravaged humanity are nothing more than a footnote in our history books - not obliterated, perhaps not conquered, but certainly contained."
"But these strides would not have been possible if all the resources of medicine, all of the efforts of doctors, nurses, medical professionals, and public health workers were committed to fighting those old communicable diseases of black plague, cholera, typhus, yellow fever, malaria and other diseases. It is the containment of those diseases that have allowed our nation, our people, to pour its resources, time and energy to dealing with AIDS, Parkinsons, Alzheimers, and other diseases. We only have the ability to fight these emerging diseases because of the efforts of civil engineers, public health departments, and the people who work in this building day in and day out. They keep the bad bugs at bay for the benefit of us all."
"These workers are the reason why so many of you today are alive and in good health. The diseases that would otherwise kill and cripple so many in this community are removed and eliminated on an industrial scale. These workers are the reason why you have a reasonable expectation of living 20 - 30 - 40 years longer than your great-grandparents. These workers deserve our thanks and our gratitude for the very necessary work they do every day - it's not glamorous, it's not easy, it's not clean - but it is a necessary job."
"The next time the people of San Francisco are seated at the local Starbucks, drinking their coffee while talking how they are going to save the world, the should ask themselves who is there to keep them alive and healthy? It is the fine men and women who work in this building. They deserve our thanks and our gratitude."
"Please, everyone stand and let's give an rousing Standing-O to the workers of the George W. Bush Waste Treatment Plant."
Imagine how torn the protesters would be - waiting to protest his every word but constrained
by their big government view. Wanting to show contempt for Bush but not wanting to show contempt for their own city employees.
This would turn their show of contempt into a symbol of good government. If they act like petulant children by showing their contempt for a former president who is there to honor public workers, then the nation would have reason to refine an opinion of the San Francisco liberal.
George W. Bush should attend the renaming ceremony to give a speech. If I may be sold bold, A speech along the following lines:
"To the good people of San Francisco, I am here to thank you for the honor of having this new sewage treatment facility named in my honor. The people who work here, day in and day out, perform a vital public service in regard to public health and the prevention of communicable diseases. The health and vitality of the people of San Francisco, the millions of tourists who visit this fine city every year, the marine life in the waters in and around San Francisco Bay, and the local, state and national economies are dependent on the efficient operation of this plant and other plants just like it across this great nation."
"There was a time when the size of a city - a health city - was limited by the ability of the local environment to absorb human and animal waste generated inside the city. When the city passed those limits, the human population therein became subject to those diseases whose names still strike dread in people - diseases such as cholera, diptheria, ..." Diseases that were a major threat to the people of San Francisco after the Great Earthquake."
"At the end of the Nineteenth Century, the City of Chicago was identifying the major problems that its continued growth would present to the people - one problem was the every increasing amount of manure created by horses used for transportation and by the cows used for milk and meat by Chicago families. As we all know, that cities fouled by animal waste never became a problem because of an unintended consequence of the invention of the automobile industry. By comparison, the American cities of the 21st Century would seem safe and clean to a person of the 19th Century."
"In the past century, human civilization has made great strides in fighting disease and extending the life expectancy of humanity. Advancements in medicine have conquered so many diseases and so many illness that plaques and pestilences that once ravaged humanity are nothing more than a footnote in our history books - not obliterated, perhaps not conquered, but certainly contained."
"But these strides would not have been possible if all the resources of medicine, all of the efforts of doctors, nurses, medical professionals, and public health workers were committed to fighting those old communicable diseases of black plague, cholera, typhus, yellow fever, malaria and other diseases. It is the containment of those diseases that have allowed our nation, our people, to pour its resources, time and energy to dealing with AIDS, Parkinsons, Alzheimers, and other diseases. We only have the ability to fight these emerging diseases because of the efforts of civil engineers, public health departments, and the people who work in this building day in and day out. They keep the bad bugs at bay for the benefit of us all."
"These workers are the reason why so many of you today are alive and in good health. The diseases that would otherwise kill and cripple so many in this community are removed and eliminated on an industrial scale. These workers are the reason why you have a reasonable expectation of living 20 - 30 - 40 years longer than your great-grandparents. These workers deserve our thanks and our gratitude for the very necessary work they do every day - it's not glamorous, it's not easy, it's not clean - but it is a necessary job."
"The next time the people of San Francisco are seated at the local Starbucks, drinking their coffee while talking how they are going to save the world, the should ask themselves who is there to keep them alive and healthy? It is the fine men and women who work in this building. They deserve our thanks and our gratitude."
"Please, everyone stand and let's give an rousing Standing-O to the workers of the George W. Bush Waste Treatment Plant."
Imagine how torn the protesters would be - waiting to protest his every word but constrained
by their big government view. Wanting to show contempt for Bush but not wanting to show contempt for their own city employees.
This would turn their show of contempt into a symbol of good government. If they act like petulant children by showing their contempt for a former president who is there to honor public workers, then the nation would have reason to refine an opinion of the San Francisco liberal.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Worst of times; best of times
For Journalists and journalism, it is the worst of times, it is the best of times.
It is the worst of times as evidenced by the fear evident in the reporting of many journalists. They are afraid of losing their jobs. They are saddened that too many of their friends and fellow journalists have lost their jobs. Too many of their icons have had their voices silenced by layoffs and closings. They do not see any light at the end of the tunnel. At this point, they would be happy to see the light of an oncoming freight train as an improvement over a long journey through they terrible, dark and dank tunnel called the Internet in which they find themselves.
It is the best of times because reporters who have a story to cover, who can cover the story accurately and fairly, and who are not afraid to tell the complete story are finding readers who appreciate good reporting. These reporters only have to please their readers, not their editors who may have their own narrative for which the reporting was intended to prove to the public.
There is an old saying, "in confusion, there is opportunity."
The journalists who stay with the old system are, metaphorically speaking, fighting to stay on a ship that is foundering. Unfortunately, many of their efforts to remain are putting holes in their own hull - some below the waterline.
The people to whom I refer to as journalists are a type of reporter who is using the facts of a story, or the public perception of the facts, to tell a story about some great cause or injustice.
The people to whom I refer to as reporters are there to report the facts - the great cause will take care of itself.
During an interview years ago, the reporter/author/celebrity Pete Hamill was commenting on the reporters of the past when he commented that the worst thing for reporting is when reporters became a part of the middle class. His point was that in the past, reporters when hungry for news, the "scoop", and were dogged in their efforts to cover the story. They had lost that edge, that passion, with their entry into the middle class.
Now, there are many journalists who consider themselves to be better, smarter, and more capable than the politicians in D.C. Correction - the Republican politicians whom the journalists to be dumb, corrupt, and panderers to the middle class.
If you do not believe me, then watch the Washington Press Corps.
Before the current generation of journalists, it was the norm for a reporter to not be married to someone in government - most of those who were married were the sole wage earner. Now , it would be a rare thing indeed to find a journalist whose spouse is not in the workforce.
Unfortunately, D.C. is a company town where probably 98% of all married couples are two wage households. Two sources of income is not a sin, except when the spouse works for the government, a think tank, or a lobbyist. This means that journalists can report the facts and let the truth find its way to the public regardless of whose spouse gets burned, or is can select to protect its own immediate family members, its own members of the press, or its sources by withholding teh facts and massaging the truth.
Andrea Mitchell of NBC News has been married to Alan Greenspan. Greenspan is the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board which gives him a lot of influence over the monetary policy of the United States. Does anyone believe that Ms. Mitchell would have a story about major problems caused by errors made by the Fed? Does anyone believe that another NBC reporter would cover such a story without thinking about how this would affect Andrea? Does anyone believe that another long time D.C. journalist would cover such a story knowing that they will be seeing Andrea and Alan at some press party in the near future?
David Gregory of NBC News is married to Beth Wilkinson, former General Counsel to Fannie Mae. Since we are in the middle of a financial crisis caused by B*A*D housing loans that were hypothicated to Fannie and Freddie Mac, we should be getting stories about why loans were made to people who could not afford to make the payments. Were any politicians involved? Did Congress have any role in the policies, procedures and decisions made that allowed people without jobs to qualify for quarter million dollar loans? Will we ever hear David Gregory report such a story if it could be tied to his wife?
Fannie Mae and Feddie Mac are at the heart of multi-billion dollar accounting scandal several years ago. Higher management was paid tens of millions of dollars, if not more than a 1oo million dollars, made possible by manipulating the numbers to make the highest of management appear to have hit their financial targets. Larger than the ENRON scandal, only no one went to jail. Imagine that! And we expect the D.C. press corp to tell us who was causing this mess? No - that might make for an embarrassing moment at the next cocktail party.
The press wonders why we don;t but their newspapers anymore. To some extent, I believe that the general public is aware at some level, almost subconscious, that the journalists are more interested in pushing their own politican agenda, satisfying their own self-aggrandizement, and protecting themselves and the other members of the elite club to which they belong. Why should I pay for a pack of lies and half-truths?
There was a time in the country when most people would have been honored to have dinner with Walter Cronkite, Howard K. Smith, Chet Huntley, David Brinkley, or Eric Sevareid.
There might be disagreement but it would be friendly and based upon mutual respect.
Now, if most people found themselves seated at the same table as a David Gregory, Chris Matthews, or Keith Olbermann, would find a quiet and polite way to excuse themselves from the table. After all. most rooms would have trouble accomadating the egos of such large size and most chairs would have trouble with talent that diminutive. These raving personalities consider themselves the new elite who are so far above the average American that they exist on almost another metaphysical plane from the population at large.
I believe that most of the members of the D.C. press corps are in competition to see who can be the first to have a child by Senator Barack Obama. And I'm not talking about the female members of the press corp.
It is the worst of times as evidenced by the fear evident in the reporting of many journalists. They are afraid of losing their jobs. They are saddened that too many of their friends and fellow journalists have lost their jobs. Too many of their icons have had their voices silenced by layoffs and closings. They do not see any light at the end of the tunnel. At this point, they would be happy to see the light of an oncoming freight train as an improvement over a long journey through they terrible, dark and dank tunnel called the Internet in which they find themselves.
It is the best of times because reporters who have a story to cover, who can cover the story accurately and fairly, and who are not afraid to tell the complete story are finding readers who appreciate good reporting. These reporters only have to please their readers, not their editors who may have their own narrative for which the reporting was intended to prove to the public.
There is an old saying, "in confusion, there is opportunity."
The journalists who stay with the old system are, metaphorically speaking, fighting to stay on a ship that is foundering. Unfortunately, many of their efforts to remain are putting holes in their own hull - some below the waterline.
The people to whom I refer to as journalists are a type of reporter who is using the facts of a story, or the public perception of the facts, to tell a story about some great cause or injustice.
The people to whom I refer to as reporters are there to report the facts - the great cause will take care of itself.
During an interview years ago, the reporter/author/celebrity Pete Hamill was commenting on the reporters of the past when he commented that the worst thing for reporting is when reporters became a part of the middle class. His point was that in the past, reporters when hungry for news, the "scoop", and were dogged in their efforts to cover the story. They had lost that edge, that passion, with their entry into the middle class.
Now, there are many journalists who consider themselves to be better, smarter, and more capable than the politicians in D.C. Correction - the Republican politicians whom the journalists to be dumb, corrupt, and panderers to the middle class.
If you do not believe me, then watch the Washington Press Corps.
Before the current generation of journalists, it was the norm for a reporter to not be married to someone in government - most of those who were married were the sole wage earner. Now , it would be a rare thing indeed to find a journalist whose spouse is not in the workforce.
Unfortunately, D.C. is a company town where probably 98% of all married couples are two wage households. Two sources of income is not a sin, except when the spouse works for the government, a think tank, or a lobbyist. This means that journalists can report the facts and let the truth find its way to the public regardless of whose spouse gets burned, or is can select to protect its own immediate family members, its own members of the press, or its sources by withholding teh facts and massaging the truth.
Andrea Mitchell of NBC News has been married to Alan Greenspan. Greenspan is the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board which gives him a lot of influence over the monetary policy of the United States. Does anyone believe that Ms. Mitchell would have a story about major problems caused by errors made by the Fed? Does anyone believe that another NBC reporter would cover such a story without thinking about how this would affect Andrea? Does anyone believe that another long time D.C. journalist would cover such a story knowing that they will be seeing Andrea and Alan at some press party in the near future?
David Gregory of NBC News is married to Beth Wilkinson, former General Counsel to Fannie Mae. Since we are in the middle of a financial crisis caused by B*A*D housing loans that were hypothicated to Fannie and Freddie Mac, we should be getting stories about why loans were made to people who could not afford to make the payments. Were any politicians involved? Did Congress have any role in the policies, procedures and decisions made that allowed people without jobs to qualify for quarter million dollar loans? Will we ever hear David Gregory report such a story if it could be tied to his wife?
Fannie Mae and Feddie Mac are at the heart of multi-billion dollar accounting scandal several years ago. Higher management was paid tens of millions of dollars, if not more than a 1oo million dollars, made possible by manipulating the numbers to make the highest of management appear to have hit their financial targets. Larger than the ENRON scandal, only no one went to jail. Imagine that! And we expect the D.C. press corp to tell us who was causing this mess? No - that might make for an embarrassing moment at the next cocktail party.
The press wonders why we don;t but their newspapers anymore. To some extent, I believe that the general public is aware at some level, almost subconscious, that the journalists are more interested in pushing their own politican agenda, satisfying their own self-aggrandizement, and protecting themselves and the other members of the elite club to which they belong. Why should I pay for a pack of lies and half-truths?
There was a time in the country when most people would have been honored to have dinner with Walter Cronkite, Howard K. Smith, Chet Huntley, David Brinkley, or Eric Sevareid.
There might be disagreement but it would be friendly and based upon mutual respect.
Now, if most people found themselves seated at the same table as a David Gregory, Chris Matthews, or Keith Olbermann, would find a quiet and polite way to excuse themselves from the table. After all. most rooms would have trouble accomadating the egos of such large size and most chairs would have trouble with talent that diminutive. These raving personalities consider themselves the new elite who are so far above the average American that they exist on almost another metaphysical plane from the population at large.
I believe that most of the members of the D.C. press corps are in competition to see who can be the first to have a child by Senator Barack Obama. And I'm not talking about the female members of the press corp.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Watched some of Keith Olberman the other night. I was very impressed. He must spend a fortune on facials and his pores. Other than that, Outrage Boy of MSNBC is a joke.
In a more perfect world, if one were to look up the words 'obsesses' or 'raving', there would be a picture of Keith-O. No more need be written.
I can imagine in three of four years that Keith-O would have his own subscription Internet/Satellite Radio/Cable Channel being sent from his new studio at the former Camp Casey in Crawford, Texas. Yes, Keith will be there to cover every person going
into or out of the Bush Ranch.
I am sure that he will get some great interviews while asking his great leading questions as he runs alongside their vehicles while banging his mike onto the windows.
"Sir, did you know that Bush is a war criminal? And you doing business with him! Sir, how could you? For the sake of humanity, why would you do business with such a despicable person - the worst person of the century?
"Idiot! I work for UPS. Didn't you notice the big lettering on the side of the truck? Can you spell? Get out of my way!"
"Oh? Picking up or delivering?"
"It's none of your business but at this time of the day we are usually delivering. Most people with sense enough to get out of the rain would know that."
"Then you were delivering something evil and nefarious? Plans to take over the government and throw our Saint Barack in Jail?"
"Saint Who?"
"Don't lie to me - the American people - sir. You, sir, are part of the criminal conspiracy who are dedicated to taking away the rights of every righteous American. I will fight you to my dying breath."
"My God, I just realized that your lemon aide stand with the camera has an address and I have a package for you. I think it's your meds. Here you go, sign here and get the hell out of my way."
"This is Keith Olberman reporting live from the Bush Survivalist Compound outside the community of Crawford, Texas. A community that could be rightfully now called a Village in that they have their Idiot once again in residence."
"Keith, this is Chris back in Washington. Did you know that there was a cow taking a dump behind you? So whatever you do, don't step back without looking . . . Keith? Keith? Damn, third time this month."
In a more perfect world, if one were to look up the words 'obsesses' or 'raving', there would be a picture of Keith-O. No more need be written.
I can imagine in three of four years that Keith-O would have his own subscription Internet/Satellite Radio/Cable Channel being sent from his new studio at the former Camp Casey in Crawford, Texas. Yes, Keith will be there to cover every person going
into or out of the Bush Ranch.
I am sure that he will get some great interviews while asking his great leading questions as he runs alongside their vehicles while banging his mike onto the windows.
"Sir, did you know that Bush is a war criminal? And you doing business with him! Sir, how could you? For the sake of humanity, why would you do business with such a despicable person - the worst person of the century?
"Idiot! I work for UPS. Didn't you notice the big lettering on the side of the truck? Can you spell? Get out of my way!"
"Oh? Picking up or delivering?"
"It's none of your business but at this time of the day we are usually delivering. Most people with sense enough to get out of the rain would know that."
"Then you were delivering something evil and nefarious? Plans to take over the government and throw our Saint Barack in Jail?"
"Saint Who?"
"Don't lie to me - the American people - sir. You, sir, are part of the criminal conspiracy who are dedicated to taking away the rights of every righteous American. I will fight you to my dying breath."
"My God, I just realized that your lemon aide stand with the camera has an address and I have a package for you. I think it's your meds. Here you go, sign here and get the hell out of my way."
"This is Keith Olberman reporting live from the Bush Survivalist Compound outside the community of Crawford, Texas. A community that could be rightfully now called a Village in that they have their Idiot once again in residence."
"Keith, this is Chris back in Washington. Did you know that there was a cow taking a dump behind you? So whatever you do, don't step back without looking . . . Keith? Keith? Damn, third time this month."
Friday, May 16, 2008
The Obaminator
The day that I knew was coming was here.
Everything is about the Obaminator.
The President makes a speech about the failure of appeasement when dealing with brutal dictators; a speech I thought was directed to the despot's best friend - Jimmah Carter.
The Obama stands up and declares that Bush is talking about him - the Obaminator. Talk about self-obsessed. Someone should warn The Obama about believing one's own press releases.
I can't wait until we talk about fiscal policy and the tax code. Any criticism of anything that comes from the lips of The Obaminator will be condemned as Racists Rants of Republicans.
Folks, it's time to pay off your credit cards, save your money, and refinance from an ARM to a fixed rate mortgage - it's gonna be a bumpy ride.
Everything is about the Obaminator.
The President makes a speech about the failure of appeasement when dealing with brutal dictators; a speech I thought was directed to the despot's best friend - Jimmah Carter.
The Obama stands up and declares that Bush is talking about him - the Obaminator. Talk about self-obsessed. Someone should warn The Obama about believing one's own press releases.
I can't wait until we talk about fiscal policy and the tax code. Any criticism of anything that comes from the lips of The Obaminator will be condemned as Racists Rants of Republicans.
Folks, it's time to pay off your credit cards, save your money, and refinance from an ARM to a fixed rate mortgage - it's gonna be a bumpy ride.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Is Senator Obama smarter that a Fifth grader?
Senator Obama recently stated that he would meet with the enemies of this country, as Roosevelt and Kennedy had met with the enemies of this country during their Presidency.
Roosevelt, if you overlook his administration's antipathy for the Soviet Union before September 1, 1939, only had to deal with three leaders who led nations that were enemies of the United States: Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo. Of these three, only Tojo survived the war as a prisoner before his execution for war crimes. Mussolini was killed by Italian partisans and Hitler committed suicide so as to not fall into the hands of the Soviet Red Army.
Roosevelt never met with any of these three leaders; he did meet with the leaders of our allied nations: Churchill and Stalin. While the United States and the Soviet Union did become adversaries again after the end of the Second World War, that was not until after the death of President Roosevelt.
The point is that if the Senator wishes to base his candidacy and his administration policies upon the lessons his history, it would behoove him to known enough about history - real history - and not some alternate history from a paperback book, to learn what has worked in the past, and what has failed in the past, before he makes his usual empty and high sounding pronouncements.
The old adage is that those who fail to learn [from] history are doomed to repeat it. Maybe the Obama corollary should be that those who learn an incorrect version of history will never admit they are wrong. Maybe If the Senator would start singing a Sam Cooke song, the press might forgive him for his lack of knowledge about basic American history.
Now, about his desire to be the President of all 57 states...
Roosevelt, if you overlook his administration's antipathy for the Soviet Union before September 1, 1939, only had to deal with three leaders who led nations that were enemies of the United States: Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo. Of these three, only Tojo survived the war as a prisoner before his execution for war crimes. Mussolini was killed by Italian partisans and Hitler committed suicide so as to not fall into the hands of the Soviet Red Army.
Roosevelt never met with any of these three leaders; he did meet with the leaders of our allied nations: Churchill and Stalin. While the United States and the Soviet Union did become adversaries again after the end of the Second World War, that was not until after the death of President Roosevelt.
The point is that if the Senator wishes to base his candidacy and his administration policies upon the lessons his history, it would behoove him to known enough about history - real history - and not some alternate history from a paperback book, to learn what has worked in the past, and what has failed in the past, before he makes his usual empty and high sounding pronouncements.
The old adage is that those who fail to learn [from] history are doomed to repeat it. Maybe the Obama corollary should be that those who learn an incorrect version of history will never admit they are wrong. Maybe If the Senator would start singing a Sam Cooke song, the press might forgive him for his lack of knowledge about basic American history.
Now, about his desire to be the President of all 57 states...
Thursday, May 8, 2008
I am waiting for someone in the Democratic Party or the Democratic Media to make the observation that the defense of President Clinto during the impeachment was, in retrospect, a mistake.
The rationale being that if President Clinton had been removed from office, Al Gore would have become the President and would have been elected in 2000. Further, a President Gore would have been able to prevent the 9-11 attacks, so no war in Afghanistan or Iraq, the Clinton years of prosperity would have continued uninterrupted, the United States would have not pulled out of the Kyoto treaty, the threat of global warming would have been reduced, etc.
The rationale being that if President Clinton had been removed from office, Al Gore would have become the President and would have been elected in 2000. Further, a President Gore would have been able to prevent the 9-11 attacks, so no war in Afghanistan or Iraq, the Clinton years of prosperity would have continued uninterrupted, the United States would have not pulled out of the Kyoto treaty, the threat of global warming would have been reduced, etc.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
I took the title of this blog from my desire to get the facts and not the narrative.
What's the difference?
The facts are the facts - the who, what, when, where, why and how of information gathering and dissemination. What used to be called serious reporting.
What we get now is the narrative - the overarching truth that the journalist wants us to understand is behind the story. At least, what the journalist believes is behind the story.
The slant that the journalist gives to the story so that we can feel what he feels about the world he sees and experiences.
I once saw an interview with Pete Hamill on the C-SPAN program booknotes. Mr. Hamill, a reporter and author, said that the newspaper business had suffered when reporters became middle class. Now that so many journalists have become personalities who aspire to be pundits, the damage to serious reporting must be severe.
Reporters once went to politicians, bureaucrats, scientists, engineers, and businessmen looking for experts - someone with an informed opinion. Today, the journalists are the experts. Watch the political shows and see how many people being interviewed are journalists. The interview each other more than anyone else. Are they talking about the what they have learned from experts or are they talking from their perspective, their view, their opinion?
I do not want a journalist who works for a paper that laying off other journalists to write stories about the economy. If he is afraid about losing his job, and he writes about the economy using his narrative, how can he not write about "the worst economy since the Depression" irrespective of the facts?
How else could a 5.1 per cent unemployment rate under one president being a sign of a great economy and a 5.0 per cent unemployment rate under a different president be the sign of a economic meltdown?
When have you ever seen a journalist get a story wrong, wrong, wrong, and was made to pay a price for his error or omission? Journalists have gotten into trouble for plagiarism - they stole from the works of others and one got into trouble for stealing from himself. No journalist has ever been called down for getting the narrative wrong. The press has a vested interest in burying their mistakes and pretending that they weren't wrong.
Examples:
Dan Rather and the Bush TANG memo - still believes that the documents have been proven to be fakes.
Walter Cronkite and the Tet offensive. He said we lost Tet, but the facts prove otherwise. Do you think he or CBS will ever admit he got it wrong?
When the press, which loves to serve humble pie, can learn to eat the same, then maybe more of the public might be interested in their product.
What's the difference?
The facts are the facts - the who, what, when, where, why and how of information gathering and dissemination. What used to be called serious reporting.
What we get now is the narrative - the overarching truth that the journalist wants us to understand is behind the story. At least, what the journalist believes is behind the story.
The slant that the journalist gives to the story so that we can feel what he feels about the world he sees and experiences.
I once saw an interview with Pete Hamill on the C-SPAN program booknotes. Mr. Hamill, a reporter and author, said that the newspaper business had suffered when reporters became middle class. Now that so many journalists have become personalities who aspire to be pundits, the damage to serious reporting must be severe.
Reporters once went to politicians, bureaucrats, scientists, engineers, and businessmen looking for experts - someone with an informed opinion. Today, the journalists are the experts. Watch the political shows and see how many people being interviewed are journalists. The interview each other more than anyone else. Are they talking about the what they have learned from experts or are they talking from their perspective, their view, their opinion?
I do not want a journalist who works for a paper that laying off other journalists to write stories about the economy. If he is afraid about losing his job, and he writes about the economy using his narrative, how can he not write about "the worst economy since the Depression" irrespective of the facts?
How else could a 5.1 per cent unemployment rate under one president being a sign of a great economy and a 5.0 per cent unemployment rate under a different president be the sign of a economic meltdown?
When have you ever seen a journalist get a story wrong, wrong, wrong, and was made to pay a price for his error or omission? Journalists have gotten into trouble for plagiarism - they stole from the works of others and one got into trouble for stealing from himself. No journalist has ever been called down for getting the narrative wrong. The press has a vested interest in burying their mistakes and pretending that they weren't wrong.
Examples:
Dan Rather and the Bush TANG memo - still believes that the documents have been proven to be fakes.
Walter Cronkite and the Tet offensive. He said we lost Tet, but the facts prove otherwise. Do you think he or CBS will ever admit he got it wrong?
When the press, which loves to serve humble pie, can learn to eat the same, then maybe more of the public might be interested in their product.
I've been reading about the realtionship between Senator Barack Obama and two former Weathermen, William Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn f/k/a Bernadine Dohrn.
Ayers and Dohrn were involved in bombings of government offices and attempts to kill people for the purposes of a political purpose. Isn't a definition of terrorism the use of violence, and the threat of violence, to strike fear into a people to achieve a political goal? Their goal, the overthrow of the government of the United States or the system of capitalism, would logically make Ayers and Dohrn self-described enemies of the United States government.
Yet, Mr. Ayers has hosted a fundraiser for Barack Obama when he first ran for the Illinois state senate. Since Mr. Ayers has never repudiated his own past actions and rhetoric concerning the government, and in fact has gone on record still being in favor of his past actions, then his support for someone running for elective office as part of a government that he despises leaves me puzzled. Did Mr. Ayers believe that he knew something about Mr. Obama that would allow him, Ayers, to support Mr. Obama who wanted to be part of the government that he wanted to destroy?
Unless Mr. Ayers believed that Mr. Obama would be an agent of change - radical change in line with the stated goals of Ayers and Dohrn, then supporting Obama would be in support of the government that they wanted to destroy.
I am not of the opinion that Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn are hypocrites.
Assuming that Senator Obama becomes President Obama, he would have to make the following oath:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Would not his pledge to "preserve, protect and defend" place him at odds with people who believe in using bombs and bullets to change United States policy that was arrived at using the legal means under the Constitution?
Would not the past actions and current declarations by Ayers and Dohrn place them at odds with a President Obama?
Since Senator Obama has not condemned the terrorism of Ayers and Dohrn in the past or their current afformations thereof, would he be as neutral about their oppostion to his administration and its policies. and he has been to their opposition to the administrations of his predecessors?
After all, the Senator could not bring himself to criticize Reverend Wright in the Philadelphia speech and had nothing to add until the Reverend was seen making statements that made the Senator seem like another politician doing the expedient thing to get elected. How would President Obama react to similar statements made by Ayers and Dohrn? That the President was only doing what all politicians do - lying to the people?
Ayers and Dohrn were involved in bombings of government offices and attempts to kill people for the purposes of a political purpose. Isn't a definition of terrorism the use of violence, and the threat of violence, to strike fear into a people to achieve a political goal? Their goal, the overthrow of the government of the United States or the system of capitalism, would logically make Ayers and Dohrn self-described enemies of the United States government.
Yet, Mr. Ayers has hosted a fundraiser for Barack Obama when he first ran for the Illinois state senate. Since Mr. Ayers has never repudiated his own past actions and rhetoric concerning the government, and in fact has gone on record still being in favor of his past actions, then his support for someone running for elective office as part of a government that he despises leaves me puzzled. Did Mr. Ayers believe that he knew something about Mr. Obama that would allow him, Ayers, to support Mr. Obama who wanted to be part of the government that he wanted to destroy?
Unless Mr. Ayers believed that Mr. Obama would be an agent of change - radical change in line with the stated goals of Ayers and Dohrn, then supporting Obama would be in support of the government that they wanted to destroy.
I am not of the opinion that Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn are hypocrites.
Assuming that Senator Obama becomes President Obama, he would have to make the following oath:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Would not his pledge to "preserve, protect and defend" place him at odds with people who believe in using bombs and bullets to change United States policy that was arrived at using the legal means under the Constitution?
Would not the past actions and current declarations by Ayers and Dohrn place them at odds with a President Obama?
Since Senator Obama has not condemned the terrorism of Ayers and Dohrn in the past or their current afformations thereof, would he be as neutral about their oppostion to his administration and its policies. and he has been to their opposition to the administrations of his predecessors?
After all, the Senator could not bring himself to criticize Reverend Wright in the Philadelphia speech and had nothing to add until the Reverend was seen making statements that made the Senator seem like another politician doing the expedient thing to get elected. How would President Obama react to similar statements made by Ayers and Dohrn? That the President was only doing what all politicians do - lying to the people?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)