Facts have never gotten in the way of the conspiracy frenzy against President Barack Obama.
There’s a Chinese proverb which states, “A lie can travel halfway around the world while truth is putting on its shoes,” How could ancient Chinese wisdom have foreseen the impact of today’s technology?
DemWit has long railed against those undocumented and unattributed emails which people accept as gospel and cannot wait to pass along. The ones which always admonish the naïve: “This ia a must-read” and “Send this to everyone on your list.” And, let's face it, this is a phenomenon of the right-wing.
Sadly, it seems, these emails are the primary source of information for those just too damn lazy to think and research for themselves.
From such naivete was born the “birther” idiocy, and no amount of proof has shut down this vicious red herring.
In order to get on with the nation’s pressing business, the president of the United States decided enough is enough. Here are his remarks at a press conference yesterday:
OBAMA: Hello, everybody. Now, let me just comment, first of all, on the fact that I can't get the networks to break in on all kinds of other discussions.
(Laughter)
I was just back there listening to Chuck. He was saying, it’s amazing that he’s not going to be talking about national security. I would not have the networks breaking in if I was talking about that, Chuck, and you know it.
Q. Wrong channel. (Laughter)
OBAMA: As many of you have been briefed, we provided additional information today about the site of my birth. Now, this issue has been going on for two, two and a half years now. I think it started during the campaign. And I have to say that over the last two and a half years I have watched with bemusement, I've been puzzled at the degree to which this thing just kept on going. We've had every official in Hawaii, Democrat and Republican, every news outlet that has investigated this, confirm that, yes, in fact, I was born in Hawaii, August 4, 1961, in Kapiolani Hospital.
We've posted the certification that is given by the state of Hawaii on the Internet for everybody to see. People have provided affidavits that they, in fact, have seen this birth certificate. And yet this thing just keeps on going.
Now, normally I would not comment on something like this, because obviously there’s a lot of stuff swirling in the press on at any given day and I've got other things to do. But two weeks ago, when the Republican House had put forward a budget that will have huge consequences potentially to the country, and when I gave a speech about my budget and how I felt that we needed to invest in education and infrastructure and making sure that we had a strong safety net for our seniors even as we were closing the deficit, during that entire week the dominant news story wasn’t about these huge, monumental choices that we're going to have to make as a nation. It was about my birth certificate. And that was true on most of the news outlets that were represented here.
And so, I just want to make a larger point here. We've got some enormous challenges out there. There are a lot of folks out there who are still looking for work. Everybody is still suffering under high gas prices. We're going to have to make a series of very difficult decisions about how we invest in our future but also get a hold of our deficit and our debt - how do we do that in a balanced way.
And this is going to generate huge and serious debates, important debates. And there are going to be some fierce disagreements - and that’s good. That’s how democracy is supposed to work. And I am confident that the American people and America’s political leaders can come together in a bipartisan way and solve these problems. We always have.
But, we’re not going to be able to do it if we are distracted. We’re not going to be able to do it if we spend time vilifying each other. We’re not going to be able to do it if we just make stuff up and pretend that facts are not facts. We’re not going to be able to solve our problems if we get distracted by sideshows and carnival barkers.
We live in a serious time right now and we have the potential to deal with the issues that we confront in a way that will make our kids and our grandkids and our great grandkids proud. And I have every confidence that America in the 21st Century is going to be able to come out on top just like we always have. But, we’re going to have to get serious to do it.
I know that there’s going to be a segment of people for which, no matter what we put out, this issue will not be put to rest. But, I’m speaking to the vast majority of the American people, as well as to the press. We do not have time for this kind of silliness. We’ve got better stuff to do. I’ve got better stuff to do. We’ve got big problems to solve. And, I’m confident we can solve them, but we’re going to have to focus on them - not on this.
Thanks very much, everybody.
***
Every American has the right and the duty to criticize our elected leaders when they need it, but this issue has been shameful.
Now, back to those circulated emails: those of you who read and pass them along, without any verification, are doing great harm to your country. I mean that. Just yesterday a friend shared with me one which maliciously took words out of context from Obama's book, The Audacity of Hope. The original author of the email was counting on those who had not read the book to spread the propaganda. And spread it they did, and the lie it contains has been circulating since the book was published.
The Intrnet and the World Wide Web are such powerful tools. There are facts at our fingertips, and I simply do not understand why people choose to spend time, which might otherwise be put to research, reading and forwarding lies.
In doing so, you are doing the bidding of politial hired guns who soullessly sit at computer banks and play off your gullibility.
Or, hasn’t that ever crossed your mind?
I leave you, dear reader, with these words from German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer:
“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
4.28.2011
4.25.2011
Easing into a second childhood
Yesterday I turned 69 and, as planned for some time now, began to ease into my second childhood. To mark the passage, I have for the last couple of weeks. with a selection of books, celebrated those carefree days of youth.
With special thanks to the talented readers at Talking Books Services for the Visually Impaired, I recommend:
THE HARRY POTTER SERIES
J. K. Rowling
For the third time, I listened to the seven books comprising J. K. Rowling’s unsurpassed and ultimate children’s saga. Her genius lies in letting her books “grow up” with her readers, and what emerged was a story for all ages.
For me the most magical words in these magical works were those spoken by brave little Neville Longbottom during the battle fought in the Ministry of Magic’s Department of Mysteries.
With five friends lying injured or unconscious, Harry is cornered by ten of Lord Voldemort’s Death Eaters. Lucius Malfoy tells him, “You are not in a position to bargain, Potter. You see, there are ten of us and only one of you. Or, hasn’t Dumbledore ever taught you how to count?”
Neville staggers into the Death Chamber, his wand at the ready, and through his bloody nose shouts, “He’s dot alone! He’s still god be!” (“He’s not alone! He’s still got me!”)
And me. And a world of readers.
THE COMPLETE TALES OF WINNIE THE POOH
A. A. Milne
The author based “Winnie the Pooh” and “The House at Pooh Corner” on his own son, Christopher Robin Milne, and the boy’s collection of stuffed animals. Milne gave his wife full credit for suggesting his stories, and dedicated the first book, “To her: Hand in hand we come, Christopher Robin and I, to lay this book in your lap. Say you’re surprised, say you like it, say it’s just what you wanted, because it’s yours, because we love you.”
From the book jacket: “Elegant yet simple; whimsical yet wise.”
Milne takes you to “an enchanted place” and leaves you there.
THE WIND IN THE WILLOWS
Kenneth Grahame
“The mole had been working very hard all the morning, spring cleaning his little home, first with brooms, then with dusters, then on ladders and steps and chairs with a brush and a pail of whitewash ‘til he had dust in his throat and eyes and splashes of whitewash all over his black fur and an aching back and weary arms.
“Spring was moving in the air above and in the earth below and around him, penetrating even his dark and lowly little house with its spirit of divine discontent and longing. It was small wonder, then, that he suddenly flung down his brush on the floor and said, ‘Bother!’ And ‘oo-bloo!’ And also, ‘Hang spring cleaning!’ and bolted out of the house without even waiting to put on his coat. Something up above was calling him imperiously, and he made for the steep little tunnel which answered in his case to the graveled carriage drive owned by animals whose residences are nearer to the sun and air.
“So, he scraped and scratched and scrabbled and scrootched, and then he scrootched again, and scrabbled and scratched and scraped, working busily with his little paws and muttering to himself, ‘Up we go! Up we go!’ ‘til at last – pop! – his snout came out into the sunlight. …”
These opening words about a little blind animal, tired of cleaning, grabbed my heart in a personal way. It’s terrible to clean and not be able to see the results of your labor. He escaped from drudgery into a world where he – and I – can behold the wonders Grahame’s word pictures create.
TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD
Harper Lee
Although I’ve seen the film many times, I had never read this modern-day classic. I added it to my reading list because it is primarily the story of children, learning about life from the adults around them. So, once more, here are Scout, Jem, Dill, Boo Radley and Atticus Finch, this time in Miss Lee’s words.
THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA
C. S. Lewis
And finally, in the days ahead, 31 hours of listening to “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe” and the six other stories in C. S. Lewis’ fictional fantasy.
All of these books transport you to another world - whether Hogwarts, The Hundred-Acre Wood, Toad Hall or a small Southern town – where children are brave, animals sometimes talk, magic in all its senses is real and goodness prevails.
***
If I don’t achieve a second childhood, I will have at least achieved a degree of purification – armor against realities and the ever-stifling effects of commiserating with the elderly.
With special thanks to the talented readers at Talking Books Services for the Visually Impaired, I recommend:
THE HARRY POTTER SERIES
J. K. Rowling
For the third time, I listened to the seven books comprising J. K. Rowling’s unsurpassed and ultimate children’s saga. Her genius lies in letting her books “grow up” with her readers, and what emerged was a story for all ages.
For me the most magical words in these magical works were those spoken by brave little Neville Longbottom during the battle fought in the Ministry of Magic’s Department of Mysteries.
With five friends lying injured or unconscious, Harry is cornered by ten of Lord Voldemort’s Death Eaters. Lucius Malfoy tells him, “You are not in a position to bargain, Potter. You see, there are ten of us and only one of you. Or, hasn’t Dumbledore ever taught you how to count?”
Neville staggers into the Death Chamber, his wand at the ready, and through his bloody nose shouts, “He’s dot alone! He’s still god be!” (“He’s not alone! He’s still got me!”)
And me. And a world of readers.
THE COMPLETE TALES OF WINNIE THE POOH
A. A. Milne
The author based “Winnie the Pooh” and “The House at Pooh Corner” on his own son, Christopher Robin Milne, and the boy’s collection of stuffed animals. Milne gave his wife full credit for suggesting his stories, and dedicated the first book, “To her: Hand in hand we come, Christopher Robin and I, to lay this book in your lap. Say you’re surprised, say you like it, say it’s just what you wanted, because it’s yours, because we love you.”
From the book jacket: “Elegant yet simple; whimsical yet wise.”
Milne takes you to “an enchanted place” and leaves you there.
THE WIND IN THE WILLOWS
Kenneth Grahame
“The mole had been working very hard all the morning, spring cleaning his little home, first with brooms, then with dusters, then on ladders and steps and chairs with a brush and a pail of whitewash ‘til he had dust in his throat and eyes and splashes of whitewash all over his black fur and an aching back and weary arms.
“Spring was moving in the air above and in the earth below and around him, penetrating even his dark and lowly little house with its spirit of divine discontent and longing. It was small wonder, then, that he suddenly flung down his brush on the floor and said, ‘Bother!’ And ‘oo-bloo!’ And also, ‘Hang spring cleaning!’ and bolted out of the house without even waiting to put on his coat. Something up above was calling him imperiously, and he made for the steep little tunnel which answered in his case to the graveled carriage drive owned by animals whose residences are nearer to the sun and air.
“So, he scraped and scratched and scrabbled and scrootched, and then he scrootched again, and scrabbled and scratched and scraped, working busily with his little paws and muttering to himself, ‘Up we go! Up we go!’ ‘til at last – pop! – his snout came out into the sunlight. …”
These opening words about a little blind animal, tired of cleaning, grabbed my heart in a personal way. It’s terrible to clean and not be able to see the results of your labor. He escaped from drudgery into a world where he – and I – can behold the wonders Grahame’s word pictures create.
TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD
Harper Lee
Although I’ve seen the film many times, I had never read this modern-day classic. I added it to my reading list because it is primarily the story of children, learning about life from the adults around them. So, once more, here are Scout, Jem, Dill, Boo Radley and Atticus Finch, this time in Miss Lee’s words.
THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA
C. S. Lewis
And finally, in the days ahead, 31 hours of listening to “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe” and the six other stories in C. S. Lewis’ fictional fantasy.
All of these books transport you to another world - whether Hogwarts, The Hundred-Acre Wood, Toad Hall or a small Southern town – where children are brave, animals sometimes talk, magic in all its senses is real and goodness prevails.
***
If I don’t achieve a second childhood, I will have at least achieved a degree of purification – armor against realities and the ever-stifling effects of commiserating with the elderly.
4.22.2011
Foaming at the mouth
“The Don” must be eating his “Success by Trump” bubble bath, because the man seems to be foaming at the mouth these days, quite literally running himself into the ground.
Ticked off over Karl Rove’s criticism of his “birther” obsession, Trump lambasted the former Bush strategist on Fox News last night.
CNN’s “Political Ticker” quotes the presidential-waters tester:
"Karl Rove has a loser issue...[he] is the man that ran Bush into the ground. Bush finished so weak that we ended up getting Obama. He ran the man into the ground.
"The more I see about Karl Rove, the more I realize: maybe it wasn't completely Bush's fault,The fact is that Abraham Lincoln couldn't have beaten Obama because Bush finished so weakly, so I don't want to listen to Karl Rove."
With vivid memories of the smirk on Rove’s face as he dodged reporters’ questions about Valerie Plame Wilson, I am no fan of Bush’s so-called “Architect,” but it’s hardly fair to blame him for the obvious.
A Gallup poll yesterday reported Trump is the favorite presidential hopeful among “liberal Republicans.” Liberal Republicans could hold a convention in a phone booth, so let’s hope these numbers don’t go to Trump’s coifed head.
It’s almost a letdown that we won’t be seeing a Trump-Obama debate. I’d pay good money for that. I suspect Karl Rove would, too.
Ticked off over Karl Rove’s criticism of his “birther” obsession, Trump lambasted the former Bush strategist on Fox News last night.
CNN’s “Political Ticker” quotes the presidential-waters tester:
"Karl Rove has a loser issue...[he] is the man that ran Bush into the ground. Bush finished so weak that we ended up getting Obama. He ran the man into the ground.
"The more I see about Karl Rove, the more I realize: maybe it wasn't completely Bush's fault,The fact is that Abraham Lincoln couldn't have beaten Obama because Bush finished so weakly, so I don't want to listen to Karl Rove."
With vivid memories of the smirk on Rove’s face as he dodged reporters’ questions about Valerie Plame Wilson, I am no fan of Bush’s so-called “Architect,” but it’s hardly fair to blame him for the obvious.
A Gallup poll yesterday reported Trump is the favorite presidential hopeful among “liberal Republicans.” Liberal Republicans could hold a convention in a phone booth, so let’s hope these numbers don’t go to Trump’s coifed head.
It’s almost a letdown that we won’t be seeing a Trump-Obama debate. I’d pay good money for that. I suspect Karl Rove would, too.
4.19.2011
Oops, there goes another lie, kerplunk!
”Taxes: Myths, Lies and Deception.” That’s the intriguing title of The Progress Report, Center for American Progress, for Tax Day, 18 April 2011. I’ll summarize it for DemWit readers:
MYTH #1: Americans are unhappy paying taxes (as the Tea Party Movement would have us believe). A number of recent polls, including the Associated Press, Fox News and Gallup, show the majority of Americans say their taxes are "fair" and understand they pay for vital government programs and projects. The Fox News poll shows 43 percent say taxes are "unfair," while the majority say they are fair.
MYTH #2: The working poor don't pay taxes. Well, yes, they do. They pay payroll taxes just like everyone. And on the state and local levels, they pay a higher percentage of taxes than the rich. In Alabama, the working poor pay 11 percent in taxes. while the rich pay only 4 percent.
MYTH #3: Obama has raised taxes. Not true. "Federal income taxes under Obama are the lowest they have been since 1950."
READ THE REPORT, COMPLETE WITH SOURCES OF INFORMATION, HERE.
***
For Part 1 of this lies v. truth thing, see Demwit's previous post.
MYTH #1: Americans are unhappy paying taxes (as the Tea Party Movement would have us believe). A number of recent polls, including the Associated Press, Fox News and Gallup, show the majority of Americans say their taxes are "fair" and understand they pay for vital government programs and projects. The Fox News poll shows 43 percent say taxes are "unfair," while the majority say they are fair.
MYTH #2: The working poor don't pay taxes. Well, yes, they do. They pay payroll taxes just like everyone. And on the state and local levels, they pay a higher percentage of taxes than the rich. In Alabama, the working poor pay 11 percent in taxes. while the rich pay only 4 percent.
MYTH #3: Obama has raised taxes. Not true. "Federal income taxes under Obama are the lowest they have been since 1950."
READ THE REPORT, COMPLETE WITH SOURCES OF INFORMATION, HERE.
***
For Part 1 of this lies v. truth thing, see Demwit's previous post.
4.17.2011
GOP BS: myth vs. math
These figures don’t lie, so if you’re tired of the harangue, homily, hysteria and hypocrisy about which presidents have run up the national debt, read on.
The following figures show the national debt percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP) at the beginning and the end of the terms of American presidents since WWII. Source for figures: Congressional Budget Office.
Franklin D. Roosevelt/Harry S. Truman (D) 1945-1949: Debt/GDP at beginning of term: 117.5%. Debt/GDP at end of term: 93.1%.
Change: Down 24.4%
Harry S. Truman (D) 1949-1953: Debt/GDP at beginning of term, 93.1%. Debt/GDP at end of term: 71.4%.
Change: Down 21.7%
Dwight D. Eisenhower (R) 1953-1957: Debt/GDP at beginning of term: 71.4%. Debt/GDP at end of term: 60.4%.
Change: Down 11%
Dwight D. Eisenhowerr (R) 1957-1961: Debt/GDP at beginning of term: 60.4%. Debt/GDP at end of term: 55.2%.
Change: Down 5.2%
John F. Kennedy/Lyndon B. Johnson (D) 1961-1965: Debt/GDP at beginning of term: 55.2%. Debt/GDP at end of term: 46.9%.
Change: Down 8.3%
Lyndon B. Johnson (D) 1965-1969: Debt/GDP at beginning of term: 46.9%. Debt/GDP at end of term: 38.6%.
Change: Down 8.3%
Richard M. Nixon (R) 1969-1973: Debt/GDP at beginning of term: 38.6%. Debt/GDP at end of term: 35.6%.
Change: Down 3%
Richard M. Nixon/Gerald Ford (R) 1973-1977: Debt/GDP at beginning of term: 35.6%. Debt/GDP at end of term: 35.8%.
Change: Up 0.2%
Jimmy Carter (D) 1977-1981: Debt/GDP at beginning of term: 35.8%. Debt/GDP at end of term: 32.5%.
Change: Down 3.3%
Ronald Reagan (R) 1981-1985: Debt/GDP at beginning of term: 32.5%. Debt/GDP at end of term: 43.8%.
Change: Up 11.3%
Ronald Reagan (R) 1985-1989: Debt/GDP at beginning of term: 43.8%. Debt/GDP at end of term: 53.1%.
Change: Up 9.3%
George H.W. Bush (R) 1989-1993: Debt/GDP at beginning of term: 53.1%. Debt/GDP at end of term: 66.1%.
Change: Up 15%
Bill Clinton (D) 1993-1997: Debt/GDP at beginning of term: 66.1%. Debt/GDP at end of term: 65.4%.
Change: Down 0.7%
Bill Clinton (D) 1997-2001: Debt/GDP at beginning of term: 65.4%. Debt/GDP at end of term: 56.4%.
Change: Down 9%
George W. Bush (R) 2001-2005: Debt/GDP at beginning of term: 56.4%. Debt/GDP at end of term: 63.4%.
Change: Up 7.1%
George W. Bush (R) 2005-2009: Debt/GDP at beginning of term: 63.4%. Debt/GDP at end of term: 83.4%.
Change: Up 20%
Barack Obama (D) 2009 -. Debt/GDP at beginning of term: 83.4%.
***
So, there you have it, boys and girls, every Democratic president since Harry Truman has reduced the public debt share of the GDP. And, what's amazing, still managed to push through legislation beneficial to all Americans.
The last four Republican presidents – Ford, Reagan, Bush and Bush – have overseen increases in America’s debt, clearly marking a shift from true conservatism.
If I were a gambling woman I’d place my bets on Obama to pull us out of this fiscal mess.
And, to those who trust cureent GOP leaders to do their research and their thinking, read my lips:
SHUT UP!
The following figures show the national debt percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP) at the beginning and the end of the terms of American presidents since WWII. Source for figures: Congressional Budget Office.
Franklin D. Roosevelt/Harry S. Truman (D) 1945-1949: Debt/GDP at beginning of term: 117.5%. Debt/GDP at end of term: 93.1%.
Change: Down 24.4%
Harry S. Truman (D) 1949-1953: Debt/GDP at beginning of term, 93.1%. Debt/GDP at end of term: 71.4%.
Change: Down 21.7%
Dwight D. Eisenhower (R) 1953-1957: Debt/GDP at beginning of term: 71.4%. Debt/GDP at end of term: 60.4%.
Change: Down 11%
Dwight D. Eisenhowerr (R) 1957-1961: Debt/GDP at beginning of term: 60.4%. Debt/GDP at end of term: 55.2%.
Change: Down 5.2%
John F. Kennedy/Lyndon B. Johnson (D) 1961-1965: Debt/GDP at beginning of term: 55.2%. Debt/GDP at end of term: 46.9%.
Change: Down 8.3%
Lyndon B. Johnson (D) 1965-1969: Debt/GDP at beginning of term: 46.9%. Debt/GDP at end of term: 38.6%.
Change: Down 8.3%
Richard M. Nixon (R) 1969-1973: Debt/GDP at beginning of term: 38.6%. Debt/GDP at end of term: 35.6%.
Change: Down 3%
Richard M. Nixon/Gerald Ford (R) 1973-1977: Debt/GDP at beginning of term: 35.6%. Debt/GDP at end of term: 35.8%.
Change: Up 0.2%
Jimmy Carter (D) 1977-1981: Debt/GDP at beginning of term: 35.8%. Debt/GDP at end of term: 32.5%.
Change: Down 3.3%
Ronald Reagan (R) 1981-1985: Debt/GDP at beginning of term: 32.5%. Debt/GDP at end of term: 43.8%.
Change: Up 11.3%
Ronald Reagan (R) 1985-1989: Debt/GDP at beginning of term: 43.8%. Debt/GDP at end of term: 53.1%.
Change: Up 9.3%
George H.W. Bush (R) 1989-1993: Debt/GDP at beginning of term: 53.1%. Debt/GDP at end of term: 66.1%.
Change: Up 15%
Bill Clinton (D) 1993-1997: Debt/GDP at beginning of term: 66.1%. Debt/GDP at end of term: 65.4%.
Change: Down 0.7%
Bill Clinton (D) 1997-2001: Debt/GDP at beginning of term: 65.4%. Debt/GDP at end of term: 56.4%.
Change: Down 9%
George W. Bush (R) 2001-2005: Debt/GDP at beginning of term: 56.4%. Debt/GDP at end of term: 63.4%.
Change: Up 7.1%
George W. Bush (R) 2005-2009: Debt/GDP at beginning of term: 63.4%. Debt/GDP at end of term: 83.4%.
Change: Up 20%
Barack Obama (D) 2009 -. Debt/GDP at beginning of term: 83.4%.
***
So, there you have it, boys and girls, every Democratic president since Harry Truman has reduced the public debt share of the GDP. And, what's amazing, still managed to push through legislation beneficial to all Americans.
The last four Republican presidents – Ford, Reagan, Bush and Bush – have overseen increases in America’s debt, clearly marking a shift from true conservatism.
If I were a gambling woman I’d place my bets on Obama to pull us out of this fiscal mess.
And, to those who trust cureent GOP leaders to do their research and their thinking, read my lips:
SHUT UP!
4.13.2011
Middle ground or a morphed America?
A few words from CNN’s cover story of the president’s fiscal policy address today at George Washington University:
“Obama's approach seeks to carve out a political middle ground between conservatives -- who are pushing for deficit reduction based solely on spending cuts and expected economic growth -- and liberals, who are generally resisting entitlement reform and seeking higher corporate and personal taxes.
“He called for political leaders to put aside orthodox party ideology and work together for the good of the country, saying ‘we can solve this problem’ while noting that ‘any serious plan to tackle our deficit will require us to put everything on the table, and take on excess spending wherever it exists in the budget.’
“At the same time, Obama blasted the House Republican 2012 budget proposal unveiled last week, saying it would ‘lead to a fundamentally different America than the one we've known throughout most of our history.’
"‘These are the kind of cuts that tell us we can't afford the America that I believe in and that I think you believe in,’ Obama said of the plan by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, who sat in the audience Wednesday. ‘I believe it paints a vision of our future that's deeply pessimistic.’"
Read about Ryan’s proposals linked at the top of DemWit’s sidebar.
TRANSCRIPT OF PRESIDENT’S ADDRESS: LINK (Note: For easy access to beginning of speech, go to the top of your screen, click on “edit,” then “find in top window” and type in: Here’s the president)
“Obama's approach seeks to carve out a political middle ground between conservatives -- who are pushing for deficit reduction based solely on spending cuts and expected economic growth -- and liberals, who are generally resisting entitlement reform and seeking higher corporate and personal taxes.
“He called for political leaders to put aside orthodox party ideology and work together for the good of the country, saying ‘we can solve this problem’ while noting that ‘any serious plan to tackle our deficit will require us to put everything on the table, and take on excess spending wherever it exists in the budget.’
“At the same time, Obama blasted the House Republican 2012 budget proposal unveiled last week, saying it would ‘lead to a fundamentally different America than the one we've known throughout most of our history.’
"‘These are the kind of cuts that tell us we can't afford the America that I believe in and that I think you believe in,’ Obama said of the plan by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, who sat in the audience Wednesday. ‘I believe it paints a vision of our future that's deeply pessimistic.’"
Read about Ryan’s proposals linked at the top of DemWit’s sidebar.
TRANSCRIPT OF PRESIDENT’S ADDRESS: LINK (Note: For easy access to beginning of speech, go to the top of your screen, click on “edit,” then “find in top window” and type in: Here’s the president)
4.11.2011
DemWit's words made plainer
I don’t have a Nobel Prize in economics, but this guy does. If I haven’t made myself clear over the last few days, along comes Paul Krugman in The New York Times to reiterate exactly what I’ve been saying in both my posts and my comments on the posts.
Only plainer.
Few political gambits have made me angrier than that pulled off by Republicans Friday night, so I wasn’t too receptive to President Obama’s words of praise for bipartisan accomplishment. And frankly, with so much at stake for so many Americans, all that BS about the Washington Monument turned me off.
As "Frodo" said in his last comment here, it’s better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you’re stupid than to open it and remove all doubt. So, let me shut up. Let a Nobel laureate say it:
“The President Is Missing,” Paul Krugman, The New York Times, 10 April 2011: LINK
Only plainer.
Few political gambits have made me angrier than that pulled off by Republicans Friday night, so I wasn’t too receptive to President Obama’s words of praise for bipartisan accomplishment. And frankly, with so much at stake for so many Americans, all that BS about the Washington Monument turned me off.
As "Frodo" said in his last comment here, it’s better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you’re stupid than to open it and remove all doubt. So, let me shut up. Let a Nobel laureate say it:
“The President Is Missing,” Paul Krugman, The New York Times, 10 April 2011: LINK
4.09.2011
Don't call Boehner 'stupid'
When John Boehner and House Republicans pushed through a last-minute bill demanding cuts to Planned Parenthood and stripping the Environmental Protection Agency of its power to control greenhouse emissions – as discussed in DemWit’s last post – they knew exactly what they were doing.
This was ideological trickery at its best. In addition to titillating his base, Boehner’s “social issues” scheme had America holding its collective breath, but, hey, a group of eighth-graders will now get to visit the Washington Monument.
The front page of The New York Times (LINK) sums it up nicely:
“Although both sides compromised, Republicans were able to force significant spending concessions from Democrats in exchange for putting to rest some of the vexing social policy fights that had held up the agreement.”
In his 11th hour comments to the nation, Obama continued to express his desire for both parties to work together for America’s future, calling spending cuts “painful” to many Americans and saying WE must begin to “live within our means.”
Now, whether the president means an editorial “we” referring to the government or to me as a citizen is unclear. (The New York Times article interprets the "we" as meaning Americans.) I have always lived within my means. My problem is, like so many Americans, my means ain't keeping up with the times.
I am not yet clear on how “painful” the historic $38 billion spending cuts deal will be. That requires further reading on my part, but I am clear on one thing.
Don’t call Boehner "stupid."
***
Read or view President Obama’s late-night remarks on the budget deal HERE.
This was ideological trickery at its best. In addition to titillating his base, Boehner’s “social issues” scheme had America holding its collective breath, but, hey, a group of eighth-graders will now get to visit the Washington Monument.
The front page of The New York Times (LINK) sums it up nicely:
“Although both sides compromised, Republicans were able to force significant spending concessions from Democrats in exchange for putting to rest some of the vexing social policy fights that had held up the agreement.”
In his 11th hour comments to the nation, Obama continued to express his desire for both parties to work together for America’s future, calling spending cuts “painful” to many Americans and saying WE must begin to “live within our means.”
Now, whether the president means an editorial “we” referring to the government or to me as a citizen is unclear. (The New York Times article interprets the "we" as meaning Americans.) I have always lived within my means. My problem is, like so many Americans, my means ain't keeping up with the times.
I am not yet clear on how “painful” the historic $38 billion spending cuts deal will be. That requires further reading on my part, but I am clear on one thing.
Don’t call Boehner "stupid."
***
Read or view President Obama’s late-night remarks on the budget deal HERE.
4.07.2011
NO COMPROMISE!
It’s not enough that House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan introduced a highly controversial spending proposal during budget negotiations - one that would compromise healthcare needs for 100 million Americans - but now House Republicans have pushed through a bill which makes it look to the less-than-informed as if the GOP wants to keep the government running.
But, in the bill which passed the House today by a vote of 247 to 181, the GOP doubled down with a couple of tried-and-true measures to rile the low-end of their base and satiate the high-end.
When all else fails throw in the hot-button issue of abortion and, by all means, let business know the environment will never trump profits.
In what Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid correctly deems “ideological,” Republicans “are no longer on how much savings we will get on government spending."
Today, they have thrown in provisions that would strip all funding from Planned Parenthood as well as prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.
President Obama, won't you use your bully pulpit, look into the cameras and tell the American people just how lowdown and dirty this ideological trickery is? Don’t let the Republicans come out smelling like a rose while the naïve blame a government shutdown on Democrats.
Enough, already!
NO COMPROMISE!
But, in the bill which passed the House today by a vote of 247 to 181, the GOP doubled down with a couple of tried-and-true measures to rile the low-end of their base and satiate the high-end.
When all else fails throw in the hot-button issue of abortion and, by all means, let business know the environment will never trump profits.
In what Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid correctly deems “ideological,” Republicans “are no longer on how much savings we will get on government spending."
Today, they have thrown in provisions that would strip all funding from Planned Parenthood as well as prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.
President Obama, won't you use your bully pulpit, look into the cameras and tell the American people just how lowdown and dirty this ideological trickery is? Don’t let the Republicans come out smelling like a rose while the naïve blame a government shutdown on Democrats.
Enough, already!
NO COMPROMISE!
4.06.2011
Messing it up!
My son Michael entered first grade about the time this country began to be aware of the environment. The word “ecology” had just entered the lexicon.
Michael came home from school one day with an assignment to make a poster about the environment, and I left him to his own devices. The finished poster had drawings of a few stars, the moon, the sun surround by rays, a fish, a bird in flight, a cat and a banana. All this resulted in a colorful work of art, but it was the words of a six-year-old, meticulously printed, which hit home:
“God created Heaven and Earth. Don’t you mess it up.”
Massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Dying honeybees.
More and more animals on the endangered species list.
Depleted rain forests.
Natural habitats destroyed.
Global warming.
A glut of medical waste, nuclear waste and unrecycled garbage.
Deadly chemicals in our lakes, rivers, streams and aquifers.
Acid rain.
And now this:
“Water gushing into the Pacific Ocean from Japan's damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant has radiation levels millions of times above the regulatory limit.”
In 1976, my biology professor was comparing our environmental challenges to a stack of cans at the grocery. One by one, he said, the cans would be removed until the whole stack crumbled.
I raised my hand and asked, “When will the last can be removed?”
“Fifty years ago,” he answered.
Earth isn’t going away. Our hermitage was here eons ago and will be here eons more.
How long before Homo sapiens are added to the endangered species list?
Now, it’s time for some smart ass Republican to call me a “tree hugger.”
PHOTO: NASA's "Blue Marble Earth"
***
Earth Day is coming on April 22. This year's theme is "A Billion Acts of Green." Go HERE to find out how YOU can help.
4.04.2011
To a friend on Monday morning
My buddy Chris and I didn't let up all weekend, most of the time spent cooking my 16-quart boiler full of stuff for the freezer. Plus lots of little chores he helps me with. When his folks picked him up at 7:30 Sunday night, I opted to sit and relax and listen to my book, then slept from midnight until 8 this morning.
For that reason, I didn't get a chance to read the news articles I had saved to Word until this morning, including the ones about the killings over the Quran burning. While what Terry Jones did is despicable, there is no excuse for passion that leads to the deaths of innocent people. I agree wholeheartedly with this quote from President Obama:
"The desecration of any holy text ... is an act of extreme intolerance and bigotry. However, to attack and kill innocent people in response is outrageous, and an affront to human decency and dignity."
You and I, my friend, would not go out and kill a bunch of innocent people if we witnessed the Holy Bible being burned. These killings are the result of fanaticism on both sides - Terry Jones' church and Muslim protesters. Looks like the "Crusades" are going to last forever. Terry Jones has had his "15 minutes of fame," but Americans will see these killings as one more excuse to condemn Islam. I swear ignorance just seems to prevail, doesn't it?
Just thought I would get back to you on this. When you initially emailed me about the killings at the UN compound, I had not been able to keep up with what's happening in the world. Many days now I don't get much in the way of news at all, other than scanning headlines. I am just so limited now in what I can read, because it just takes me so long to do so.
Last week I spent most days reading all those comments (76, so far) about Obama on Parsley’s Pics (because I was interested both in what the "hard left" Obama-bashers and his defenders were saying) AND reading Obama's address to the nation on Libya as well as reactions - pro and con. For that reason I didn't get around to the news. I wish I could find a Web site which would email a daily briefing on all the IMPORTANT news stories of the day, rather than insignificant crap and the latest antics of Sarah Palin!
I get a lot from the Center for American Progress' daily Progress Report, but quite often at the end of the week, I find myself deleting all of them without even opening them. I sure hate that.
I did manage to read the CNN article about Ryan's proposed Medicare, Medicaid cuts and decided to put it on DemWit. I swear I believe Republican leaders would be happy if all poor folks just died and got out of the way. I will never understand their lack of empathy and sympathy for the poor. Then, they claim they love Jesus. Can’t make that work in my head. Haven’t they read The Sermon on the Mount and the Beatitudes?
I am babbling, aren't I? I hope you have a good week, Ever think about taking a week off from the computer? Believe me, I have!
Love you, BJ
***
In the post that follows, Ryan’s proposals to cut Medicare, Medicaid while continuing to push permanent benefits for the wealthy are discussed. Full text and audio of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount containing the Beatitudes HERE.
For that reason, I didn't get a chance to read the news articles I had saved to Word until this morning, including the ones about the killings over the Quran burning. While what Terry Jones did is despicable, there is no excuse for passion that leads to the deaths of innocent people. I agree wholeheartedly with this quote from President Obama:
"The desecration of any holy text ... is an act of extreme intolerance and bigotry. However, to attack and kill innocent people in response is outrageous, and an affront to human decency and dignity."
You and I, my friend, would not go out and kill a bunch of innocent people if we witnessed the Holy Bible being burned. These killings are the result of fanaticism on both sides - Terry Jones' church and Muslim protesters. Looks like the "Crusades" are going to last forever. Terry Jones has had his "15 minutes of fame," but Americans will see these killings as one more excuse to condemn Islam. I swear ignorance just seems to prevail, doesn't it?
Just thought I would get back to you on this. When you initially emailed me about the killings at the UN compound, I had not been able to keep up with what's happening in the world. Many days now I don't get much in the way of news at all, other than scanning headlines. I am just so limited now in what I can read, because it just takes me so long to do so.
Last week I spent most days reading all those comments (76, so far) about Obama on Parsley’s Pics (because I was interested both in what the "hard left" Obama-bashers and his defenders were saying) AND reading Obama's address to the nation on Libya as well as reactions - pro and con. For that reason I didn't get around to the news. I wish I could find a Web site which would email a daily briefing on all the IMPORTANT news stories of the day, rather than insignificant crap and the latest antics of Sarah Palin!
I get a lot from the Center for American Progress' daily Progress Report, but quite often at the end of the week, I find myself deleting all of them without even opening them. I sure hate that.
I did manage to read the CNN article about Ryan's proposed Medicare, Medicaid cuts and decided to put it on DemWit. I swear I believe Republican leaders would be happy if all poor folks just died and got out of the way. I will never understand their lack of empathy and sympathy for the poor. Then, they claim they love Jesus. Can’t make that work in my head. Haven’t they read The Sermon on the Mount and the Beatitudes?
I am babbling, aren't I? I hope you have a good week, Ever think about taking a week off from the computer? Believe me, I have!
Love you, BJ
***
In the post that follows, Ryan’s proposals to cut Medicare, Medicaid while continuing to push permanent benefits for the wealthy are discussed. Full text and audio of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount containing the Beatitudes HERE.
4.03.2011
The known unknowns of Ryan's plan
DemWit shares the following CNN.com article in the hopes of educating readers to the known unknowns of House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan’s budget plan, to be announced Tuesday.
In preparing GOP leaders for his very controversial proposals, Ryan uses fear, pointing out that without his plan:
"By the time my kids are my age, just those three programs - Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare - will consume all federal revenues. There will be no room for anything else in the federal budget."
Despite claims that no one over the age of 55 will be affected by Paul’s healthcare entitlement cuts, take a close look at $1 trilion in Medicaid cuts, which will eviscerate assistance for low-income American families.
SOURCE: CNN
House GOP budget to call for big changes to Medicare, Medicaid
by Dana Bash and Deirdre Walsh
April 2, 2011
House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan's spending plan is to be unveiled Tuesday
Washington (CNN) - House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, will unveil a highly anticipated 2012 Republican budget next week that proposes dramatic changes to political lightning rods: entitlements.
The plan, to be released Tuesday, calls for a controversial overhaul of Medicare, the health care program for seniors, and imposes deep cuts in Medicaid, which provides health benefits to low-income Americans, according to House Republican sources with knowledge of the proposal.
Starting 10 years from now, in 2021, Americans would no longer enroll in the Medicare program, but instead receive vouchers for private insurance, according to the GOP sources, who stressed anyone 55 or older now would not be affected by the change.
The plan is modeled after one Ryan proposed last year with Alice Rivlin, budget director under President Bill Clinton.
Details of how Ryan's Medicare voucher program would work are still unclear, but the Ryan-Rivlin plan said the amount of the voucher -- a lump sum payment from the government -- would be calculated in part by taking the average federal cost per Medicare enrollee.
The GOP aims to save billions of dollars in revamping Medicare, a large contributor to the massive federal deficit and debt.
Sources said they did not yet know how much savings Ryan would project by drastically changing the Medicare program.
On Medicaid, Ryan's plan calls for deep cuts, as much as $1 trillion. The program would also fundamentally change -- the federal share of the Medicaid system would become block grants to the states.
CNN has been told that the House GOP budget plan does not call for significant change to the Social Security program. Republicans argue that while Social Security is a factor in the nation's fiscal crisis, it doesn't contribute as much to the soaring debt as Medicare.
Two House GOP lawmakers briefed on the proposal told CNN they and others on the House Budget Committee believe it's a mistake not to tackle Social Security.
As for so-called discretionary spending, one of the sources -- who would not speak on the record before the plan is publicly announced -- said Ryan's proposal promises to roll back spending to 2006 levels.
It's unclear how much that would slash, but it is expected to be far more than the roughly $61 billion in spending cuts House Republicans passed in February.
Ryan is expected to give specifics on how much savings the plan would create when it is unveiled Tuesday.
One GOP source said even with the major cuts and changes in Ryan's proposal -- essentially a blueprint that guides spending decisions and does not go to the president for his signature -- it would not bring the budget into balance for many years.
Still, GOP sources briefed on the plan said it would save hundreds of billions of dollars more than the president's proposed 2012 budget, and trillions over the next 10 years.
The budget would also cut the corporate tax rate, but at the same time do away with tax loopholes for corporations.
Ryan's plan also provides for a permanent extension of all the Bush-era tax cuts, which under a compromise with President Barack Obama were extended last year through 2012.
House Republican leaders have been signaling for some time that they plan dramatic and controversial changes to entitlement programs in order to rein in the budget deficit and debt.
Knowing that the proposed changes will be politically risky and elicit an onslaught of criticism, Ryan and Republican Whip Kevin McCarthy have been holding sessions two or three times a week with House Republicans to try to arm them with information about the gravity of the debt problem and why it needs to be fixed.
CNN was allowed into one of these meetings last month, and heard Ryan lay out for his GOP colleagues in stark terms what he calls the "tidal wave" of debt the country is facing.
"The Congressional Budget Office has this economic model where they measure the economy going forward, and they are telling us that the entire economy crashes in the year 2037 because their computer simulation can't conceive of any way in which the U.S. economy can continue," Ryan told the GOP group.
"By the time my kids are my age, just those three programs -- Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare --will consume all federal revenues. There will be no room for anything else in the federal budget," Ryan said.
When Ryan proposed a version of his Medicare overhaul idea last year, known as his "road map," Democrats skewered it and tried to use it as a campaign weapon against Republicans across the country.
Obama has often said it is important for Washington to address entitlement spending. But the president has not offered any specific proposals, and Republicans suggest he wants them to take the first risky steps.
Multiple GOP sources admit the timing of Ryan's 2012 budget proposal is tricky. It will be released in the middle of down-to-the-wire, contentious negotiations with Democrats about a spending measure to keep the government running for the rest of this 2011 fiscal year.
CNN has been told that GOP leaders considered delaying the release of Ryan's budget until this year's spending differences are resolved. However, they decided to go ahead with it in hopes showing major cuts and reforms planned for next year will calm rank-and-file conservatives who feel the leadership is too compromising on spending cuts.
***
This is another GOP effort to privatize entitlement programs, putting the private business sector ahead of the healthcare of Americans. I cannot put it any clearer.
Low-income Americans - indeed, all Americans - should listen closely to the echo of Ryan’s announcement Tuesday. His words to the poor and to anyone with the heart to care will reverberate across this nation: If you can't afford medical care without this help, "Just die!”
In preparing GOP leaders for his very controversial proposals, Ryan uses fear, pointing out that without his plan:
"By the time my kids are my age, just those three programs - Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare - will consume all federal revenues. There will be no room for anything else in the federal budget."
Despite claims that no one over the age of 55 will be affected by Paul’s healthcare entitlement cuts, take a close look at $1 trilion in Medicaid cuts, which will eviscerate assistance for low-income American families.
SOURCE: CNN
House GOP budget to call for big changes to Medicare, Medicaid
by Dana Bash and Deirdre Walsh
April 2, 2011
House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan's spending plan is to be unveiled Tuesday
Washington (CNN) - House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, will unveil a highly anticipated 2012 Republican budget next week that proposes dramatic changes to political lightning rods: entitlements.
The plan, to be released Tuesday, calls for a controversial overhaul of Medicare, the health care program for seniors, and imposes deep cuts in Medicaid, which provides health benefits to low-income Americans, according to House Republican sources with knowledge of the proposal.
Starting 10 years from now, in 2021, Americans would no longer enroll in the Medicare program, but instead receive vouchers for private insurance, according to the GOP sources, who stressed anyone 55 or older now would not be affected by the change.
The plan is modeled after one Ryan proposed last year with Alice Rivlin, budget director under President Bill Clinton.
Details of how Ryan's Medicare voucher program would work are still unclear, but the Ryan-Rivlin plan said the amount of the voucher -- a lump sum payment from the government -- would be calculated in part by taking the average federal cost per Medicare enrollee.
The GOP aims to save billions of dollars in revamping Medicare, a large contributor to the massive federal deficit and debt.
Sources said they did not yet know how much savings Ryan would project by drastically changing the Medicare program.
On Medicaid, Ryan's plan calls for deep cuts, as much as $1 trillion. The program would also fundamentally change -- the federal share of the Medicaid system would become block grants to the states.
CNN has been told that the House GOP budget plan does not call for significant change to the Social Security program. Republicans argue that while Social Security is a factor in the nation's fiscal crisis, it doesn't contribute as much to the soaring debt as Medicare.
Two House GOP lawmakers briefed on the proposal told CNN they and others on the House Budget Committee believe it's a mistake not to tackle Social Security.
As for so-called discretionary spending, one of the sources -- who would not speak on the record before the plan is publicly announced -- said Ryan's proposal promises to roll back spending to 2006 levels.
It's unclear how much that would slash, but it is expected to be far more than the roughly $61 billion in spending cuts House Republicans passed in February.
Ryan is expected to give specifics on how much savings the plan would create when it is unveiled Tuesday.
One GOP source said even with the major cuts and changes in Ryan's proposal -- essentially a blueprint that guides spending decisions and does not go to the president for his signature -- it would not bring the budget into balance for many years.
Still, GOP sources briefed on the plan said it would save hundreds of billions of dollars more than the president's proposed 2012 budget, and trillions over the next 10 years.
The budget would also cut the corporate tax rate, but at the same time do away with tax loopholes for corporations.
Ryan's plan also provides for a permanent extension of all the Bush-era tax cuts, which under a compromise with President Barack Obama were extended last year through 2012.
House Republican leaders have been signaling for some time that they plan dramatic and controversial changes to entitlement programs in order to rein in the budget deficit and debt.
Knowing that the proposed changes will be politically risky and elicit an onslaught of criticism, Ryan and Republican Whip Kevin McCarthy have been holding sessions two or three times a week with House Republicans to try to arm them with information about the gravity of the debt problem and why it needs to be fixed.
CNN was allowed into one of these meetings last month, and heard Ryan lay out for his GOP colleagues in stark terms what he calls the "tidal wave" of debt the country is facing.
"The Congressional Budget Office has this economic model where they measure the economy going forward, and they are telling us that the entire economy crashes in the year 2037 because their computer simulation can't conceive of any way in which the U.S. economy can continue," Ryan told the GOP group.
"By the time my kids are my age, just those three programs -- Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare --will consume all federal revenues. There will be no room for anything else in the federal budget," Ryan said.
When Ryan proposed a version of his Medicare overhaul idea last year, known as his "road map," Democrats skewered it and tried to use it as a campaign weapon against Republicans across the country.
Obama has often said it is important for Washington to address entitlement spending. But the president has not offered any specific proposals, and Republicans suggest he wants them to take the first risky steps.
Multiple GOP sources admit the timing of Ryan's 2012 budget proposal is tricky. It will be released in the middle of down-to-the-wire, contentious negotiations with Democrats about a spending measure to keep the government running for the rest of this 2011 fiscal year.
CNN has been told that GOP leaders considered delaying the release of Ryan's budget until this year's spending differences are resolved. However, they decided to go ahead with it in hopes showing major cuts and reforms planned for next year will calm rank-and-file conservatives who feel the leadership is too compromising on spending cuts.
***
This is another GOP effort to privatize entitlement programs, putting the private business sector ahead of the healthcare of Americans. I cannot put it any clearer.
Low-income Americans - indeed, all Americans - should listen closely to the echo of Ryan’s announcement Tuesday. His words to the poor and to anyone with the heart to care will reverberate across this nation: If you can't afford medical care without this help, "Just die!”
3.31.2011
The right place at the right time
“I’m good enough. I’m smart enough. And, doggone it, people like me.”
That mantra was the title of Al Franken’s first book. It became a favorite saying of David Letterman. Al Gore even read it on The Late Show as one of the “Top 10 Rejected Al Gore-Joe Lieberman Campaign Slogans.”
According to a USA Today/Gallup survey released today, that oft-repeated slogan could apply to a woman I admire and respect:
“Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's favorable rating from Americans is now 66%, up from 61% in July 2010 and just one percentage point below her all-time high from December 1998. She continues to get higher ratings than Barack Obama and Joe Biden, and she scores better with women than men, 72% vs. 59%.”
Hillary has topped Gallup’s end-of-the-year “Most Admired Woman” list 13 years since 1999 and has won that distinction for the last nine consecutive years.
I mention this for two reason:
First, a blogging buddy who keeps abreast of the liberal-progressive blogging world assures me that Hillary supporters are a strong element of the Obama-bashing coming from the hard left. (The left has done its share of Hillary-bashing as well.)
Second, since I supported Hillary for president, did not hesitate to vote for Barack Obama and do not now find myself part of the bashing, I’ve thought a lot about this capable – and popular - woman over the last few days.
We live in a time of amazing communications technology where news and opinion can be flashed around the globe as it happens. The world stage, tumultuous with natural disasters and civil unrest, is at our fingertips. Perhaps never before in the history of the world has reasoned diplomacy been so important.
In her memoir “Living History,” Mrs. Clinton recalls meetings with leaders around the world. With great courage and tact, the former first lady spoke out for women’s and children’s rights in countries where they do not exist.
Many across the U.S. Senate aisle found her likeable and said so. During her presidential campaign she charmed her archrival, Richard Mellon Scaife, into endorsing her. Diplomacy seems to be her long suit.
For these reasons, I have concluded that Hillary is exactly where she needs to be. And, President Obama is pretty damn smart to know it. Reading Obama’s address to the nation on Libya convinces me that this leadership combination is in the right place at the right time.
Carl Bernstein wrote in “A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton” (2007):
“Hillary is neither the demon of the right’s perception, nor a feminist saint. Here is a story of strength and vulnerability, a woman’s story. She is an intelligent woman endowed with energy, enthusiasm, humor, tempestuousness, inner strength, spontaneity in private, lethal (almost) powers of retribution, real-life lines that come from deep wounds, and the language skills of a sailor and of a minister, all evidence of her passion—which, deep down, is perhaps her most enduring and even endearing trait.”
God forbid if her legacy includes disrespect for the American president.
Sixty-eight years of life experiences have taught me there are people who love to hate. These people, whether on the left or the right, can, in blogosphere terms, “piss and moan” all they like. I am content that our country is in the very best of hands.
Best to stop all the bitching and make sure it stays that way.
That mantra was the title of Al Franken’s first book. It became a favorite saying of David Letterman. Al Gore even read it on The Late Show as one of the “Top 10 Rejected Al Gore-Joe Lieberman Campaign Slogans.”
According to a USA Today/Gallup survey released today, that oft-repeated slogan could apply to a woman I admire and respect:
“Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's favorable rating from Americans is now 66%, up from 61% in July 2010 and just one percentage point below her all-time high from December 1998. She continues to get higher ratings than Barack Obama and Joe Biden, and she scores better with women than men, 72% vs. 59%.”
Hillary has topped Gallup’s end-of-the-year “Most Admired Woman” list 13 years since 1999 and has won that distinction for the last nine consecutive years.
I mention this for two reason:
First, a blogging buddy who keeps abreast of the liberal-progressive blogging world assures me that Hillary supporters are a strong element of the Obama-bashing coming from the hard left. (The left has done its share of Hillary-bashing as well.)
Second, since I supported Hillary for president, did not hesitate to vote for Barack Obama and do not now find myself part of the bashing, I’ve thought a lot about this capable – and popular - woman over the last few days.
We live in a time of amazing communications technology where news and opinion can be flashed around the globe as it happens. The world stage, tumultuous with natural disasters and civil unrest, is at our fingertips. Perhaps never before in the history of the world has reasoned diplomacy been so important.
In her memoir “Living History,” Mrs. Clinton recalls meetings with leaders around the world. With great courage and tact, the former first lady spoke out for women’s and children’s rights in countries where they do not exist.
Many across the U.S. Senate aisle found her likeable and said so. During her presidential campaign she charmed her archrival, Richard Mellon Scaife, into endorsing her. Diplomacy seems to be her long suit.
For these reasons, I have concluded that Hillary is exactly where she needs to be. And, President Obama is pretty damn smart to know it. Reading Obama’s address to the nation on Libya convinces me that this leadership combination is in the right place at the right time.
Carl Bernstein wrote in “A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton” (2007):
“Hillary is neither the demon of the right’s perception, nor a feminist saint. Here is a story of strength and vulnerability, a woman’s story. She is an intelligent woman endowed with energy, enthusiasm, humor, tempestuousness, inner strength, spontaneity in private, lethal (almost) powers of retribution, real-life lines that come from deep wounds, and the language skills of a sailor and of a minister, all evidence of her passion—which, deep down, is perhaps her most enduring and even endearing trait.”
God forbid if her legacy includes disrespect for the American president.
Sixty-eight years of life experiences have taught me there are people who love to hate. These people, whether on the left or the right, can, in blogosphere terms, “piss and moan” all they like. I am content that our country is in the very best of hands.
Best to stop all the bitching and make sure it stays that way.
3.26.2011
Daphne du Maurier's 'Rebecca'
“Last night I dreamt I went to Manderley again.” Despite being caught up in its spell, I wasn’t dreaming. I went again to Manderley, not in Hitchcock’s classic film, but, for the first time, in Daphne du Maurier’s 1938 novel.
Literature has given us many complex female characters – Blanche DuBois, Elizabeth Bennet, Scarlett O’Hara, Emma Bovary, Milly Theale. The reader is often outside the character, observing, examining, but in “Rebecca,” you are inside and at one with the female narrator.
I cannot give this woman a name, because Dame du Maurier said simply she "could not think of one to give her." She is known to readers (and movie buffs) worldwide only as “the second Mrs. de Winter.”
Movies have never been a substitute for the books on which they are based, but Hitchcock came close. In one very important aspect, he failed. It is only through the words of du Maurier that one learns the narrator’s most fearful antagonist is neither the inescapable presence of Rebecca (the first Mrs. de Winter) nor the demented obsession of the housekeeper, Mrs. Danvers. What most troubles our narrator, we find, is that she is a martyr to her own inferiority complex.
My Talking Books version is based on a special edition which features a wonderful Author’s Note and the original epilogue to the book.
At the time of Dame du Maurier’s death in 1989 at the age of 82, there were 3 million copies of her "unsurpassed masterpiece" in print, translated into 25 languages.
As she reveals in her “Author’s Note,” Dame du Maurier, upon finishing her novel, cleverly made changes. She added two vital characters. She moved the epilogue, rewritten, to the beginning of the story and rewrote the ending. She changed the master of Manderley’s name from the “too plain” Henry to Maximillian or Maxim. No spoiler to reveal that in the original epilogue Manderley eventually becomes a country club where the morning room is converted to a billiards room and “The Happy Valley” becomes a golf course. Those who have experienced “Rebecca” will know, then, how this must have altered the book’s concluding scene.
Those who have not read it are missing a Gothic mystery and romance which sweeps the reader along like “the salt wind from the sea.”
Literature has given us many complex female characters – Blanche DuBois, Elizabeth Bennet, Scarlett O’Hara, Emma Bovary, Milly Theale. The reader is often outside the character, observing, examining, but in “Rebecca,” you are inside and at one with the female narrator.
I cannot give this woman a name, because Dame du Maurier said simply she "could not think of one to give her." She is known to readers (and movie buffs) worldwide only as “the second Mrs. de Winter.”
Movies have never been a substitute for the books on which they are based, but Hitchcock came close. In one very important aspect, he failed. It is only through the words of du Maurier that one learns the narrator’s most fearful antagonist is neither the inescapable presence of Rebecca (the first Mrs. de Winter) nor the demented obsession of the housekeeper, Mrs. Danvers. What most troubles our narrator, we find, is that she is a martyr to her own inferiority complex.
My Talking Books version is based on a special edition which features a wonderful Author’s Note and the original epilogue to the book.
At the time of Dame du Maurier’s death in 1989 at the age of 82, there were 3 million copies of her "unsurpassed masterpiece" in print, translated into 25 languages.
As she reveals in her “Author’s Note,” Dame du Maurier, upon finishing her novel, cleverly made changes. She added two vital characters. She moved the epilogue, rewritten, to the beginning of the story and rewrote the ending. She changed the master of Manderley’s name from the “too plain” Henry to Maximillian or Maxim. No spoiler to reveal that in the original epilogue Manderley eventually becomes a country club where the morning room is converted to a billiards room and “The Happy Valley” becomes a golf course. Those who have experienced “Rebecca” will know, then, how this must have altered the book’s concluding scene.
Those who have not read it are missing a Gothic mystery and romance which sweeps the reader along like “the salt wind from the sea.”
3.22.2011
Examining Kucinich's claim
In the great Rob Reiner-Aaron Sorkin film, “The American President,” President Andrew Shepherd (played by Michael Douglas) decides to retaliate after Libya bombs a U.S.-manned missile installation in Israel. In a conference room meeting with his White House staff and military leaders to discuss the possible air strike against Libya, the following dialogue occurs:
A. J. MacInerney, Chief of Staff: Sir, it's immediate, it's decisive, it's low-risk and it's a proportional response.
President Shepherd: Someday someone's going to have to explain to me the virtue of a proportional response.
(…)
President Shepherd (after ordering the air strike): What I did tonight was not about political gain.
Leon Kodak, Deputy Chief of Staff: Yes. sir. But it can be, sir. What you did tonight was very presidential.
President Shepherd: Leon, somewhere in Libya right now, a janitor's working the night shift at Libyan Intelligence headquarters. He's going about doing his job, because he has no idea, in about an hour he's going to die in a massive explosion. He's just going about his job, because he has no idea that about an hour ago I gave an order to have him killed. You've just seen me do the least presidential thing I do.
At no point in this scene does the president pick up the phone and consult with a Dennis Kucinich.
Kucinich, Democratic congressman from Ohio, has claimed that President Obama committed an “impeachable offense” by joining allies in air strikes on Libya.
The intent of this post, then, is not to argue the merits of the military action, but to ask whether it is, indeed, constitutional.
First, I am not a fan of the fiery, hard-left political views of Kucinich. Time and again he has voted against Democratic proposals in the U.S. House, then justified his vote on his Web site. He votes “no” because the bills don’t go far enough. Kucinich wants it all, and he wants it now, overlooking the fact that sweeping policy changes often come in increments.
Is Kucinich right that Obama should have gotten Congressional approval before ordering U.S. military strikes on Libya?
In 1986 when Ronald Reagan ordered air strikes on Libya in retaliation for the bombing of a Berlin discotheque, he consulted with bipartisan members of Congress, but I can find no record that Congress voted to give him authority to do so.
The Department of Justice has this to say:
“(T)he President has broad constitutional power to use military force. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution, Pub. L. No. 93-148, 87 Stat. 555 (1973), codified at 50 U.S.C. §§ 1541-1548 (the "WPR"), and in the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (2001). Further, the President has the constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations. Finally, the President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11.”
Using these criteria, if we are to exclude Ghadafi’s abuse against his own people, then Congress should never have given sanction to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Read the Department of Justice’s report, “The President’s Constitutional Authority to Conduct Military Operations against Terrorists and Nations Supporting Them” HERE.
How would one interpret the president’s “broad” and “inherent” Constitutional powers in this action?
According to Kucinich, "Such an action - that involves putting America's service men and women into harm's way, whether they're in the Air Force or the Navy - is a grave decision that cannot be made by the president alone."
That is not a true statement according to the powers granted the executive after 9/11.
"In a statement on his Web site Friday, Kucinich made clear he thinks Obama has violated Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which grants Congress the exclusive power to declare war."
But, Obama has no more declared war on Libya than Reagan did in 1986.
Perhaps I need to do a little more digging – where is constitutional authority Jonathan Turley when I need him?
Or, perhaps this is a matter which should be clarified by both Congress and the courts.
POSTSCRIPT
There's a lot of hellraising about this issue, a squaring off on the left of anti-war advocates and folks like me who believe force is sometimes necessary. There also seems to be a confusion, IMO, in distinguishing retaliatory air strikes and a "declaration of war." This post has been strengthened by readers' comments, which you can access by clicking on the post title above or on "comments" below. Thanks!
A. J. MacInerney, Chief of Staff: Sir, it's immediate, it's decisive, it's low-risk and it's a proportional response.
President Shepherd: Someday someone's going to have to explain to me the virtue of a proportional response.
(…)
President Shepherd (after ordering the air strike): What I did tonight was not about political gain.
Leon Kodak, Deputy Chief of Staff: Yes. sir. But it can be, sir. What you did tonight was very presidential.
President Shepherd: Leon, somewhere in Libya right now, a janitor's working the night shift at Libyan Intelligence headquarters. He's going about doing his job, because he has no idea, in about an hour he's going to die in a massive explosion. He's just going about his job, because he has no idea that about an hour ago I gave an order to have him killed. You've just seen me do the least presidential thing I do.
At no point in this scene does the president pick up the phone and consult with a Dennis Kucinich.
Kucinich, Democratic congressman from Ohio, has claimed that President Obama committed an “impeachable offense” by joining allies in air strikes on Libya.
The intent of this post, then, is not to argue the merits of the military action, but to ask whether it is, indeed, constitutional.
First, I am not a fan of the fiery, hard-left political views of Kucinich. Time and again he has voted against Democratic proposals in the U.S. House, then justified his vote on his Web site. He votes “no” because the bills don’t go far enough. Kucinich wants it all, and he wants it now, overlooking the fact that sweeping policy changes often come in increments.
Is Kucinich right that Obama should have gotten Congressional approval before ordering U.S. military strikes on Libya?
In 1986 when Ronald Reagan ordered air strikes on Libya in retaliation for the bombing of a Berlin discotheque, he consulted with bipartisan members of Congress, but I can find no record that Congress voted to give him authority to do so.
The Department of Justice has this to say:
“(T)he President has broad constitutional power to use military force. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution, Pub. L. No. 93-148, 87 Stat. 555 (1973), codified at 50 U.S.C. §§ 1541-1548 (the "WPR"), and in the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (2001). Further, the President has the constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations. Finally, the President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11.”
Using these criteria, if we are to exclude Ghadafi’s abuse against his own people, then Congress should never have given sanction to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Read the Department of Justice’s report, “The President’s Constitutional Authority to Conduct Military Operations against Terrorists and Nations Supporting Them” HERE.
How would one interpret the president’s “broad” and “inherent” Constitutional powers in this action?
According to Kucinich, "Such an action - that involves putting America's service men and women into harm's way, whether they're in the Air Force or the Navy - is a grave decision that cannot be made by the president alone."
That is not a true statement according to the powers granted the executive after 9/11.
"In a statement on his Web site Friday, Kucinich made clear he thinks Obama has violated Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which grants Congress the exclusive power to declare war."
But, Obama has no more declared war on Libya than Reagan did in 1986.
Perhaps I need to do a little more digging – where is constitutional authority Jonathan Turley when I need him?
Or, perhaps this is a matter which should be clarified by both Congress and the courts.
POSTSCRIPT
There's a lot of hellraising about this issue, a squaring off on the left of anti-war advocates and folks like me who believe force is sometimes necessary. There also seems to be a confusion, IMO, in distinguishing retaliatory air strikes and a "declaration of war." This post has been strengthened by readers' comments, which you can access by clicking on the post title above or on "comments" below. Thanks!
3.17.2011
Planet Me
You know that little bos in the upper righthand corner of envelopes which says, “Postal Service requires first-class stamp” or “Place stamp here”? That’s for Fox News viewers. Or, at least the ones who can read.
I’ve been too busy, with no TV, reading straight news articles about the disasters in Japan to pay attention to the vocal yokels on the right. (Vocal Yokels was the name of my first blog.)
But, when a friend emailed me that Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity (as well as Rush Limbaugh) are taking this “opportunity” to downplay Japan’s peril and to bash Obama, I thought, “Enough is enough!”
A Google romp through the comments being made by these cretins leads me to ask: why would anyone with a conscience and an IQ above room temperature pay attention to them?
This kind of unconscionable talk in the face of human misery is unacceptable.
I believe I’ve coined a new term for such egocentric people who reside in their own little world: “Planet Me.”
Leslie at Parsley’s Pics features an appropriate quote from John Kenneth Galbraith:
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”
I am certain my Republican readers will take umbrage with this statement, but sadly it’s what your Party – and its propaganda arm, Fox News – now represent.
Earth’s population, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, is nearing 7 billion. Methink is an illusion.
I’ve been too busy, with no TV, reading straight news articles about the disasters in Japan to pay attention to the vocal yokels on the right. (Vocal Yokels was the name of my first blog.)
But, when a friend emailed me that Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity (as well as Rush Limbaugh) are taking this “opportunity” to downplay Japan’s peril and to bash Obama, I thought, “Enough is enough!”
A Google romp through the comments being made by these cretins leads me to ask: why would anyone with a conscience and an IQ above room temperature pay attention to them?
This kind of unconscionable talk in the face of human misery is unacceptable.
I believe I’ve coined a new term for such egocentric people who reside in their own little world: “Planet Me.”
Leslie at Parsley’s Pics features an appropriate quote from John Kenneth Galbraith:
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”
I am certain my Republican readers will take umbrage with this statement, but sadly it’s what your Party – and its propaganda arm, Fox News – now represent.
Earth’s population, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, is nearing 7 billion. Methink is an illusion.
3.15.2011
Three to get ready
August of 2012 will be here before we know it. That’s when Republicans will convene to select their presidential ticket, so DemWit, from time to time, will be taking a close look at so-called GOP “hopefuls.”
Here’s three to get ready:
TIM PAWLENTY
With little name recognition and fundraising ability, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty wants to be Everyman:
“At a recent Tea Party Patriots rally, he pronounced, ‘The government’s too damn big!’ To an evangelical audience, he declared, ‘The Constitution was designed to protect people of faith from government, not to protect government from people of faith.’ And to Republicans in New Hampshire, he closed with a gentle plea: ‘Please leave with hope and optimism.’”
For more on Pawlenty as Everyman:
“Campaigning as All Things to All Republicans,” Jeff Zeleny, The New York Times, 13 March 2011: LINK
NEWT GINGRICH
With a pretty poor track record on fidelity and like a sobbing Jimmy Swaggart, Newt Gingrich blames his propensity for hanky-panky (read: adultery) on WHAT?
As New York Times columnist Gail Collins reads it, Newt’s tragic flaw is the result of hard work and patriotism. In his own words in a Christian Broadcasting Network interview:
“There’s no question that at times in my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and that things happened in my life that were not appropriate.”
Read Ms. Collins' amusing suggestions for Newt: “Eye of the Newt”, The New York Times, 11 March 2011: LINK
SARAH PALIN
In their continuing fixation with former Alaskan governor and GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, the folks at CNN’s “Political Ticker” didn’t quite get the headline right. (They never do!) The “win” refers to her party's nomination, not the White House, and that has some mainline Republicans scared senseless.
Republican Judd Gregg, former New Hampshire senator and governor, is one.
Gregg warns (the key word in the headline) that Palin’s “base” could coalesce to give her the Republican nomination and warns (there’s that word again) that a run by Palin would “lead to President Barack Obama’s clear re-election.”
Well, duh.
“(Gregg) says the muddled GOP presidential field means it's more likely than ever there won't be a clear consensus candidate before the party's nominating convention in August of 2012. If that happens, says Gregg, Palin and her army of supporters might have the upper hand when it comes to settling on a presidential candidate.”
From “Palin has path to win, Republican warns,” CNN Political Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney, 14 March 2011: LINK
Here’s three to get ready:
TIM PAWLENTY
With little name recognition and fundraising ability, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty wants to be Everyman:
“At a recent Tea Party Patriots rally, he pronounced, ‘The government’s too damn big!’ To an evangelical audience, he declared, ‘The Constitution was designed to protect people of faith from government, not to protect government from people of faith.’ And to Republicans in New Hampshire, he closed with a gentle plea: ‘Please leave with hope and optimism.’”
For more on Pawlenty as Everyman:
“Campaigning as All Things to All Republicans,” Jeff Zeleny, The New York Times, 13 March 2011: LINK
NEWT GINGRICH
With a pretty poor track record on fidelity and like a sobbing Jimmy Swaggart, Newt Gingrich blames his propensity for hanky-panky (read: adultery) on WHAT?
As New York Times columnist Gail Collins reads it, Newt’s tragic flaw is the result of hard work and patriotism. In his own words in a Christian Broadcasting Network interview:
“There’s no question that at times in my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and that things happened in my life that were not appropriate.”
Read Ms. Collins' amusing suggestions for Newt: “Eye of the Newt”, The New York Times, 11 March 2011: LINK
SARAH PALIN
In their continuing fixation with former Alaskan governor and GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, the folks at CNN’s “Political Ticker” didn’t quite get the headline right. (They never do!) The “win” refers to her party's nomination, not the White House, and that has some mainline Republicans scared senseless.
Republican Judd Gregg, former New Hampshire senator and governor, is one.
Gregg warns (the key word in the headline) that Palin’s “base” could coalesce to give her the Republican nomination and warns (there’s that word again) that a run by Palin would “lead to President Barack Obama’s clear re-election.”
Well, duh.
“(Gregg) says the muddled GOP presidential field means it's more likely than ever there won't be a clear consensus candidate before the party's nominating convention in August of 2012. If that happens, says Gregg, Palin and her army of supporters might have the upper hand when it comes to settling on a presidential candidate.”
From “Palin has path to win, Republican warns,” CNN Political Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney, 14 March 2011: LINK
3.13.2011
A simple reminder
Across the political spectrum – from the far left to the far right – there’s a lot of unhappiness in the United States of America over how things are going.
From the depths of tragedy come these simple words of faith from Japan’s Prime Minister Naoto Kan:
“If the nation works together, we will overcome.”
A simple reminder.
From the depths of tragedy come these simple words of faith from Japan’s Prime Minister Naoto Kan:
“If the nation works together, we will overcome.”
A simple reminder.
3.08.2011
Stop bitching about gas prices!
"We don't want to be totally reactive so that when the price goes up, everybody panics, and when it goes back down, everybody goes back to sleep."
Amen! These wise words from Secretary of Energy Steven Chu came in response to the Obama administration’s mulling over “tapping into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in response to rapidly rising prices due to the turmoil in the Middle East.”
GOP leaders, including Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour and Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann (LINK), are brazenly opportunistic and ignorantly oversimplify when they blame the current rise in gasoline prices on President Barack Obama. They are appealing to The Sleeping American – persons who are ignorant of recent history - and to young people who depend on a minimum wage, to old folks getting by on Social Security and to the unemployed who currently have no wages.
Wanna bet the old folks get it?
So, let’s call this a Crash Course for the Unenlightened.
CAUSES OF OIL-PRICE HIKES
First, I don’t drive because of vision problems, but I’ve got enough sense to know the rise in gasoline prices affects all prices and that this is not just a U.S. problem – it will affect economies worldwide. Oil prices are unstable, and there are many causes of hikes, including “sudden, unexpected political volatility,” “excessive speculation in the commodities market” and climate disasters such as Hurricane Katrina (LINK). Persons unwilling to grasp these causes, while bitching about their pocketbooks, can accept the more succinct Republican version: “Obama did it!”
LOOK IN THE MIRROR
Readers know I have always been quick to point out consumer responsibility, whether it’s in an energy crunch or the current sport of corporation-bashing.
The United States holds 2 percent of the world's oil reserves, but uses one-quarter of the world's oil production. Aside from the fact that this makes the Republican cry of “drill, baby, drill” absurd, it also means we are downright greedy.
Americans are no longer willing to make sacrifices when our nation is in trouble – sacrifices like cutting back and planning ahead to reduce personal consumption of energy. Why car pool or use public transportation? Why make one monthly trip for shopping instead of running here and there daily? Why turn down the thermostat and wear a sweater? Why reduce Interstate speed limits?
Our current economic crunch might just be the catalyst to force Americans - finally - to think about their energy consumption and the need for alternative sources of energy. God knows, we’ve had enough time to prepare.
THE TOCSIN
The tocsin came in 1973, then again in the summer of 1979, when 79-cents-a-gallon gasoline soared over the dollar-mark at the pumps. Little did we know. And, little, it seems, do people remember the history of periodic spikes in oil prices.
In 1973, the Arab nations in OPEC – Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and pronounced OH-pec - joined by Syria, Tunisia and Egypt, got ticked off at the United States for providing supplies to Israel in the Yom Kippur War. The Arab nations of OPEC formed a subgroup and retaliated by imposing an oil embargo on the United States and Western Europe.
That should have been the day the United States began a “Manhattan Project” effort to develop alternative energy sources. But as soon as the crises was over, Americans went back to sleep.
We had a second chance for action in 1979 when the deposing of the Shah of Iran created a second energy crisis in one decade.
THE PHALANX
So, we’ve had 38 years to fix the problem and to free ourselves from what President George W. Bush called our addiction to oil. Yet, every attempt by Democrats to introduce sensible energy policies has been met by a phalanx of oil-industry funds and Congressional front men, who, unhappily, convince Republican voters that this is just some anti-American, socialistic, tree-hugging idiocy on the part of their political opponents.
In other words, “Obama did it!”
HEAR ME
I recently read a quote from a battered woman accused of murder in the death of her husband: “If I’d killed him when I met him, I’d be out of prison by now.” There’s a missed-opportunity principle somewhere in that tragic statement which could apply to our dependency on foreign oil.
So, stop your bitching about the high price of gasoline. Stop paying attention to propaganda and to politicians fueled by big-oil money. Start supporting energy policies which will release America from the whims of outside forces.
Or, just blame it on Obama and go back to sleep.
***
I highly recommend:
“Energy: Rising Gas Prices,” THE PROGRESS REPORT, Center for American Progress, 7 March 2011 (LINK).
For historical perspective:
OPEC
THE 1973 OIL CRISIS
THE 1979 ENERGY CRISIS
And ...
Pay close attention to developments in Saudi Arabia, which produces one-fifth of the planet’s oil.
Amen! These wise words from Secretary of Energy Steven Chu came in response to the Obama administration’s mulling over “tapping into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in response to rapidly rising prices due to the turmoil in the Middle East.”
GOP leaders, including Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour and Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann (LINK), are brazenly opportunistic and ignorantly oversimplify when they blame the current rise in gasoline prices on President Barack Obama. They are appealing to The Sleeping American – persons who are ignorant of recent history - and to young people who depend on a minimum wage, to old folks getting by on Social Security and to the unemployed who currently have no wages.
Wanna bet the old folks get it?
So, let’s call this a Crash Course for the Unenlightened.
CAUSES OF OIL-PRICE HIKES
First, I don’t drive because of vision problems, but I’ve got enough sense to know the rise in gasoline prices affects all prices and that this is not just a U.S. problem – it will affect economies worldwide. Oil prices are unstable, and there are many causes of hikes, including “sudden, unexpected political volatility,” “excessive speculation in the commodities market” and climate disasters such as Hurricane Katrina (LINK). Persons unwilling to grasp these causes, while bitching about their pocketbooks, can accept the more succinct Republican version: “Obama did it!”
LOOK IN THE MIRROR
Readers know I have always been quick to point out consumer responsibility, whether it’s in an energy crunch or the current sport of corporation-bashing.
The United States holds 2 percent of the world's oil reserves, but uses one-quarter of the world's oil production. Aside from the fact that this makes the Republican cry of “drill, baby, drill” absurd, it also means we are downright greedy.
Americans are no longer willing to make sacrifices when our nation is in trouble – sacrifices like cutting back and planning ahead to reduce personal consumption of energy. Why car pool or use public transportation? Why make one monthly trip for shopping instead of running here and there daily? Why turn down the thermostat and wear a sweater? Why reduce Interstate speed limits?
Our current economic crunch might just be the catalyst to force Americans - finally - to think about their energy consumption and the need for alternative sources of energy. God knows, we’ve had enough time to prepare.
THE TOCSIN
The tocsin came in 1973, then again in the summer of 1979, when 79-cents-a-gallon gasoline soared over the dollar-mark at the pumps. Little did we know. And, little, it seems, do people remember the history of periodic spikes in oil prices.
In 1973, the Arab nations in OPEC – Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and pronounced OH-pec - joined by Syria, Tunisia and Egypt, got ticked off at the United States for providing supplies to Israel in the Yom Kippur War. The Arab nations of OPEC formed a subgroup and retaliated by imposing an oil embargo on the United States and Western Europe.
That should have been the day the United States began a “Manhattan Project” effort to develop alternative energy sources. But as soon as the crises was over, Americans went back to sleep.
We had a second chance for action in 1979 when the deposing of the Shah of Iran created a second energy crisis in one decade.
THE PHALANX
So, we’ve had 38 years to fix the problem and to free ourselves from what President George W. Bush called our addiction to oil. Yet, every attempt by Democrats to introduce sensible energy policies has been met by a phalanx of oil-industry funds and Congressional front men, who, unhappily, convince Republican voters that this is just some anti-American, socialistic, tree-hugging idiocy on the part of their political opponents.
In other words, “Obama did it!”
HEAR ME
I recently read a quote from a battered woman accused of murder in the death of her husband: “If I’d killed him when I met him, I’d be out of prison by now.” There’s a missed-opportunity principle somewhere in that tragic statement which could apply to our dependency on foreign oil.
So, stop your bitching about the high price of gasoline. Stop paying attention to propaganda and to politicians fueled by big-oil money. Start supporting energy policies which will release America from the whims of outside forces.
Or, just blame it on Obama and go back to sleep.
***
I highly recommend:
“Energy: Rising Gas Prices,” THE PROGRESS REPORT, Center for American Progress, 7 March 2011 (LINK).
For historical perspective:
OPEC
THE 1973 OIL CRISIS
THE 1979 ENERGY CRISIS
And ...
Pay close attention to developments in Saudi Arabia, which produces one-fifth of the planet’s oil.
3.04.2011
'Moamar, the Movie'
Casting call! Frodo, Keeper of the Ring, has a movie for you:
There Must Be 50 Ways To Lose Your Lover
Mood: party time!
Topic: "Moamar:The Movie"
It matters not that the guy spells his name with a G, a K, or a Q, especially when he can best be identified by his lookalike cartoon character "Goofy." He proved that beyond all doubt Thursday evening when he sent one of his sons to cajole Anderson Cooper with definitive proof that "al Qaeda was smuggling hallucinogenics into Libya and putting them into the Nescafe of the young people" (or words to that effect).
The discussion took place in front of a truck full of packaged medication (which was probably the same vehicle exposed by Colin Powell to prove the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq). Goofy's son was there to introduce the capsules into evidence for all the world to see. Unfortunately, the pills turned out to be a mild painkiller, as opposed to something cooked up in the hills of East Tennessee. Rather than producing psychedelic results, this medication warns the patient that residual effects may include only headaches, or constipation.
Perhaps that says much, much more than even the wordy Frodo can proffer.
Frodo ends his commentary this eve with a suggestion for the casting of the movie which is bound to hit the malls of America before this volatile year concludes. Who other better to star in "Moamar, The Movie," than Charlie Sheen? Frodo would watch those Oscars (and that is really news).
***
Please leave comments for Frodo HERE. For more of the Hobbit’s pennings, go HERE.
There Must Be 50 Ways To Lose Your Lover
Mood: party time!
Topic: "Moamar:The Movie"
It matters not that the guy spells his name with a G, a K, or a Q, especially when he can best be identified by his lookalike cartoon character "Goofy." He proved that beyond all doubt Thursday evening when he sent one of his sons to cajole Anderson Cooper with definitive proof that "al Qaeda was smuggling hallucinogenics into Libya and putting them into the Nescafe of the young people" (or words to that effect).
The discussion took place in front of a truck full of packaged medication (which was probably the same vehicle exposed by Colin Powell to prove the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq). Goofy's son was there to introduce the capsules into evidence for all the world to see. Unfortunately, the pills turned out to be a mild painkiller, as opposed to something cooked up in the hills of East Tennessee. Rather than producing psychedelic results, this medication warns the patient that residual effects may include only headaches, or constipation.
Perhaps that says much, much more than even the wordy Frodo can proffer.
Frodo ends his commentary this eve with a suggestion for the casting of the movie which is bound to hit the malls of America before this volatile year concludes. Who other better to star in "Moamar, The Movie," than Charlie Sheen? Frodo would watch those Oscars (and that is really news).
***
Please leave comments for Frodo HERE. For more of the Hobbit’s pennings, go HERE.
3.02.2011
CYA quote out-stupids Huckabee
Mike Huckabee: “I’ll tell you what I do know …” And, now, hopefully, everyone in America knows. But, this gets even better.
Huckabee spokesman Hogan Gidley told CNN’s “Political Ticker” that the former Arkansas governor, presidential hopeful and current Fox News host meant to say Obama grew up in Indonesia, not Kenya.
As the CNN report points out, the Mau Mau uprising Huckabee mentined did not take place in Indonesia.
But, here’s the pièce de résistance:
Spokesman Gidley went on to say, “The governor would, however, like to know more about where President Obama's liberal policies come from and what else the president plans to do to this country – as do most Americans."
Gidley might just be a little giddy from all the brouhaha and hahas but he has managed with that last quote to out-stupid his boss.
For the record, I got my liberal views growing up in Mississippi.
Huckabee spokesman Hogan Gidley told CNN’s “Political Ticker” that the former Arkansas governor, presidential hopeful and current Fox News host meant to say Obama grew up in Indonesia, not Kenya.
As the CNN report points out, the Mau Mau uprising Huckabee mentined did not take place in Indonesia.
But, here’s the pièce de résistance:
Spokesman Gidley went on to say, “The governor would, however, like to know more about where President Obama's liberal policies come from and what else the president plans to do to this country – as do most Americans."
Gidley might just be a little giddy from all the brouhaha and hahas but he has managed with that last quote to out-stupid his boss.
For the record, I got my liberal views growing up in Mississippi.
2.27.2011
Death of a childhood hero
Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin and I are taking a moment today to reflect on our growing-up years when we ate, drank and dreamed about “next year” and the Messrs. Pee Wee Reese, Jackie Robinson, Gil Hodges, Carl Furillo, Roy Campanella, Don Newcombe and Duke Snider.
Those of us who remember the years of broken hearts and cursing the Damn Yankees are taking time today to mourn the passing of one of our childhood heroes:
“Duke Snider, Brookyn Dodgers Great, Dies at 84,” The New York Times, 27 February 2011 (LINK).
In Snider's words, "It was a great time for baseball." Heaven's center field is covered.
***
A second post follows.
Those of us who remember the years of broken hearts and cursing the Damn Yankees are taking time today to mourn the passing of one of our childhood heroes:
“Duke Snider, Brookyn Dodgers Great, Dies at 84,” The New York Times, 27 February 2011 (LINK).
In Snider's words, "It was a great time for baseball." Heaven's center field is covered.
***
A second post follows.
Sex, lies and Ailes on tape
A former high school classmate, now living in NYC, sent me a copy of the New York Daily News front page with its blaring headline, “Deadly Voodoo Sex Romp.” The friend opined, “Voodoo candles sex ceremony sparks deadly Brooklyn fire. I can’t make this stuff up.”
The next article in my inbox queue, sent by another friend, falls in the “I can’t make this stuff up” category as well.
Turning back time to when Dubya named Rudy Giuliani’s buddy, former NYC police commissioner Bernard "Bernie" Kerik, to head homeland security - and the proverbial you-know-what hit the fan:
There was the matter of Kerik’s extramarital affair and the love tryst in an apartment donated for use by Ground Zero recovery and rescue workers. A lot of dirty little secrets came to light.
And now, a new one.
It is no secret that Fox News has no qualms about lying. “In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.” (LINK) Yep, Fox News' defense was lying is protected by the First Amendment because there is no specific law against it!
But, when the cable “news” network’s head honcho advises an employee to lie to federal investigators, he’s on tape, and his actions could constitute a federal crime, things are getting serious for Rupert Murdoch’s flagship money-maker. Well, actually, they would be serious for any other media outlet, but seemingly Fox News has a business-as-usual immunity.
Read on.
“Fox News Chief, Roger Ailes, Urged Employee to Lie, Records Show,” Russ Buettner, The New York Times, 24 February 2011 (LINK).
Since David Corn (biography) is a favorite journalist and author, I was particularly interested in his take – emailed by my friend – on all the dirty little secrets which have emerged from this story that won’t go away. Read his column, “Roger Ailes' Sex-and-Lies Tale: There Is Something Different About Fox.” (LINK)
Oh, what tangled webs ...
The lady is $10.75 million richer. A president, a presidential candidate and former NYC mayor, a former NYC police commissioner and, now, a powerful media executive ended up with pie on their faces.
The next article in my inbox queue, sent by another friend, falls in the “I can’t make this stuff up” category as well.
Turning back time to when Dubya named Rudy Giuliani’s buddy, former NYC police commissioner Bernard "Bernie" Kerik, to head homeland security - and the proverbial you-know-what hit the fan:
There was the matter of Kerik’s extramarital affair and the love tryst in an apartment donated for use by Ground Zero recovery and rescue workers. A lot of dirty little secrets came to light.
And now, a new one.
It is no secret that Fox News has no qualms about lying. “In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.” (LINK) Yep, Fox News' defense was lying is protected by the First Amendment because there is no specific law against it!
But, when the cable “news” network’s head honcho advises an employee to lie to federal investigators, he’s on tape, and his actions could constitute a federal crime, things are getting serious for Rupert Murdoch’s flagship money-maker. Well, actually, they would be serious for any other media outlet, but seemingly Fox News has a business-as-usual immunity.
Read on.
“Fox News Chief, Roger Ailes, Urged Employee to Lie, Records Show,” Russ Buettner, The New York Times, 24 February 2011 (LINK).
Since David Corn (biography) is a favorite journalist and author, I was particularly interested in his take – emailed by my friend – on all the dirty little secrets which have emerged from this story that won’t go away. Read his column, “Roger Ailes' Sex-and-Lies Tale: There Is Something Different About Fox.” (LINK)
Oh, what tangled webs ...
The lady is $10.75 million richer. A president, a presidential candidate and former NYC mayor, a former NYC police commissioner and, now, a powerful media executive ended up with pie on their faces.
2.22.2011
Highwaymen, burglars and book abridgers
Viewing the Mona Lisa from La Gioconda’s nose up or stopping the music before Ravel’s “Bolero” reaches its fullest crescendo compares, in my opinion, to reading an abridged book.
Like Meg Ryan in “You’ve Got Mail,” I get “lost in the language” of Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice.” Imagine reading an abridged version of that book. There’s a reason such books becomes immortal. So, why take a chainsaw to them?
Katharine Hepburn’s memoir, “Me,” had long graced my bookshelves when a friend gave me an audio copy of the book. Since it is read by the actress herself I gave it a listen, only to find it ended before Miss Hepburn's heartfelt recollections of Spencer Tracy.
Abridged audiobooks are a natural progression from Illustrated Classics comic books, CliffsNotes and Reader’s Digest Condensed Books.
I chafe at the omission of skillfully drawn word pictures – none so breathtaking as Mr. Dickens' in my favorite, “Barnaby Rudge.” Take away the ghostly appartition in the burnt castle, the massacre at the roadside tavern or the fire at Newgate Prison, and you might as well read a gum wrapper or a cereal box.
Imagine some book editor whacking away at the psychological impact of a single footprint on a stranded Robinson Crusoe.
I found a comrade in Daniel Defoe’s Preface to “The Farther Adventures of Robinson Crusoe," part two of the trilogy:
“The just application of every incident; the religious and useful inferences drawn from every part are so many testimonies to the good design of making it public and must legitimate all the part that may be called invention or parable in the story.
“The second part, if the editor’s opinion may pass, is, contrary to the usage of second parts, every way as entertaining as the first, contains as strange and surprising incidents and as great a variety of them. Nor is the application less serious or suitable, and doubtless will to the sober or ingenious reader be every way as profitable and diverting, and this makes the abridging of this work as scandalous as it is knavish and ridiculous.
“Seeing, while to shorten the book, that they may seem to reduce the value, they strip it of all those reflections as well religious as moral which are not only the greatest beauties of the work, but are calculated for the infinite advantage of the reader.
“By this, they leave the work naked of its brightest ornaments. And, if they would, at the time, pretend the author has supplied the story out of his invention, they take from it the improvement which alone recommends that invention to wise and good men.
“The injury these men do the proprietor of this work is a practice all honest men abhor, and he believes he may challenge them to show the difference between that and robbing on the highway or breaking open a house. If they can’t show any difference in the crime, they will find it hard to show why there should be any difference in the punishment, and he will answer for it, that nothing shall be wanting on his part to do them justice.”
***
Trust me:
In addition to pamphlets and poetry, Daniel Defoe wrote some 500 books on every conceivable subject. (My favorite is "Moll Flanders.") A tribute to his writing genius is that no editor has been tempted to clean up his grammar and spelling errors!
Like Meg Ryan in “You’ve Got Mail,” I get “lost in the language” of Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice.” Imagine reading an abridged version of that book. There’s a reason such books becomes immortal. So, why take a chainsaw to them?
Katharine Hepburn’s memoir, “Me,” had long graced my bookshelves when a friend gave me an audio copy of the book. Since it is read by the actress herself I gave it a listen, only to find it ended before Miss Hepburn's heartfelt recollections of Spencer Tracy.
Abridged audiobooks are a natural progression from Illustrated Classics comic books, CliffsNotes and Reader’s Digest Condensed Books.
I chafe at the omission of skillfully drawn word pictures – none so breathtaking as Mr. Dickens' in my favorite, “Barnaby Rudge.” Take away the ghostly appartition in the burnt castle, the massacre at the roadside tavern or the fire at Newgate Prison, and you might as well read a gum wrapper or a cereal box.
Imagine some book editor whacking away at the psychological impact of a single footprint on a stranded Robinson Crusoe.
I found a comrade in Daniel Defoe’s Preface to “The Farther Adventures of Robinson Crusoe," part two of the trilogy:
“The just application of every incident; the religious and useful inferences drawn from every part are so many testimonies to the good design of making it public and must legitimate all the part that may be called invention or parable in the story.
“The second part, if the editor’s opinion may pass, is, contrary to the usage of second parts, every way as entertaining as the first, contains as strange and surprising incidents and as great a variety of them. Nor is the application less serious or suitable, and doubtless will to the sober or ingenious reader be every way as profitable and diverting, and this makes the abridging of this work as scandalous as it is knavish and ridiculous.
“Seeing, while to shorten the book, that they may seem to reduce the value, they strip it of all those reflections as well religious as moral which are not only the greatest beauties of the work, but are calculated for the infinite advantage of the reader.
“By this, they leave the work naked of its brightest ornaments. And, if they would, at the time, pretend the author has supplied the story out of his invention, they take from it the improvement which alone recommends that invention to wise and good men.
“The injury these men do the proprietor of this work is a practice all honest men abhor, and he believes he may challenge them to show the difference between that and robbing on the highway or breaking open a house. If they can’t show any difference in the crime, they will find it hard to show why there should be any difference in the punishment, and he will answer for it, that nothing shall be wanting on his part to do them justice.”
***
Trust me:
In addition to pamphlets and poetry, Daniel Defoe wrote some 500 books on every conceivable subject. (My favorite is "Moll Flanders.") A tribute to his writing genius is that no editor has been tempted to clean up his grammar and spelling errors!
2.18.2011
STAMP: Support this anti-violence mail project
As part of an ongoing effort to pressure Fox News into pulling the plug on the Glenn Beck Show, here is a standard petition letter addressed to Fox News CEO Roger Ailes. Please feel free to copy the text of this letter and paste it into your letterhead - adjusting type size and font style as needed:
(Date)
Roger Ailes
Chairman and CEO, Fox News Channel
News Corporation
1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10036
Dear Mr. Ailes:
After the shooting rampage in Tucson that left six people dead and 13 injured, you offered this appeal for civility: “I told all of our guys, shut up, tone it down, make your argument intellectually. You don’t have to do it with bombast.”
Weeks after Tucson, nothing has changed. Glenn Beck has turned up the volume on partisan hate speech. The poisoned atmosphere unleashed by Glenn Beck means any citizen - Democrat, Independent or Republican - can be defamed in public and targeted for persecution. Beck’s messages provoke unstable persons to act on impulse, and news headlines have shown that violent rhetoric leads to violent acts:
Prison Term for Man Who Threatened Speaker Pelosi
Mother of Accused Man Blames Fox News
Renowned Professor Terrorized After Glenn Beck Broadcasts
League of Women Voters Targeted by Glenn Beck Fans
Two California Highway Patrolmen Shot by Glenn Beck Fan
Three Pittsburgh Policemen Killed by Glenn Beck Follower
There is no plausible deniability that can wipe the blood off Beck’s hands or absolve the Fox News Channel of responsibility for reckless incitement. Shooting sprees, murder, malicious defamations and infamous provocations: these have no place in a free society. When toxic television threatens public safety, all citizens of all persuasions have grounds for alarm.
Glenn Beck has crossed boundaries that should never be crossed. It is time to pull the plug on the Glenn Beck Show before more people are terrorized, injured and killed.
Sincerely,
(Name and Signature)
Just copy and paste the letter into your document format and print. Within a few days, please look for another petition letter addressed to Fox News advertisers (i.e. the boycott letter). A startup list of advertisers will be included with that post.
Five minutes and a STAMP can make a difference. Thanks!
(Date)
Roger Ailes
Chairman and CEO, Fox News Channel
News Corporation
1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10036
Dear Mr. Ailes:
After the shooting rampage in Tucson that left six people dead and 13 injured, you offered this appeal for civility: “I told all of our guys, shut up, tone it down, make your argument intellectually. You don’t have to do it with bombast.”
Weeks after Tucson, nothing has changed. Glenn Beck has turned up the volume on partisan hate speech. The poisoned atmosphere unleashed by Glenn Beck means any citizen - Democrat, Independent or Republican - can be defamed in public and targeted for persecution. Beck’s messages provoke unstable persons to act on impulse, and news headlines have shown that violent rhetoric leads to violent acts:
Prison Term for Man Who Threatened Speaker Pelosi
Mother of Accused Man Blames Fox News
Renowned Professor Terrorized After Glenn Beck Broadcasts
League of Women Voters Targeted by Glenn Beck Fans
Two California Highway Patrolmen Shot by Glenn Beck Fan
Three Pittsburgh Policemen Killed by Glenn Beck Follower
There is no plausible deniability that can wipe the blood off Beck’s hands or absolve the Fox News Channel of responsibility for reckless incitement. Shooting sprees, murder, malicious defamations and infamous provocations: these have no place in a free society. When toxic television threatens public safety, all citizens of all persuasions have grounds for alarm.
Glenn Beck has crossed boundaries that should never be crossed. It is time to pull the plug on the Glenn Beck Show before more people are terrorized, injured and killed.
Sincerely,
(Name and Signature)
Just copy and paste the letter into your document format and print. Within a few days, please look for another petition letter addressed to Fox News advertisers (i.e. the boycott letter). A startup list of advertisers will be included with that post.
Five minutes and a STAMP can make a difference. Thanks!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
