Alberto Gonzales lies to Congress. Bolton and Meirs refuse to even acknowledge their subpeonas to appear before Congress, and are on the verge of being hit with contempt. Karl Rove is hit with a subpeona, and most certainly will likewise defy Congress. Congress asks for a special prosecutor in the attorney-gate scandel, but faces a stonewall by the Attorney General, the same guy who just proved himself a congenital lier.
Looks like we're heading towards a full-blown Constitutional crisis, folks!
Meanwhile, Aviation Week magazine reports on their website that on at least two occasions Space Shuttle pilots flew missions while so inebriated they posed a threat to shuttle safety. Why not? Airplane pilots do it, and so do bus drivers, taxi drivers, Lindsay Lohan and Nicolle Richey. At least we don't have to worry about a shuttle pilot driving his ship the wrong way down the Ventura Freeway at five in the morning.
I used to lobby for NASA to move the launch and recovery site permanantly out here to Edwards Air Force Base because we almost never suffer from the weather problems that always seem to plague the site in South Florida. I have now rethought that position. I don't want drunken shuttle pilots flying through my skies. We have enough to worry about -- what with earthquakes, fires, mudslides, global warming and drunken celebrities -- without having to fear a drunk driving incident involving tons of rocket fuel.
Finally, in case you missed it, Lindsay Lohan is back in rehab. And the national media has apparently decided that's a much more important story than the impending Constitutional crisis. Where are we going, and why are we in this handbasket?
Friday, July 27, 2007
Thursday, July 26, 2007
My Vacation From Hell -- Part One
Or: Why I Avoid National Parks Like the Plague
It seemed like a good idea at the time. My wife came to me about eight months ago and said, "for vacation this year, why don't we go the the Grand Canyon?" "Well," I countered, "I don't think our son is anywhere near old enough to backpack there yet. The hike into and out of the canyon is horribly strenuous, and I just don't think . . ." She cut me off. "Not a hiking trip, silly. We're going to take the Grand Canyon Railroad out of Williams and stay in a lodge at the canyon rim."
And so began my vacation from hell. First, I should explain why I avoid our wonderful National Park system like I would a root canal with no Novocain. In a word: people. There are too many of them. And in our most popular national parks, during vacation season, there are really too many of them. They all act like tourists, and most of them have no business being in the outdoors, even in a pampered setting like the South Rim of the Grand Canyon. After this trip I have made a solemn vow: I will never again set foot in a National Park, unless it's Yosemite and I immediately head off into the back country, away from the over-weight, sun burnt, fast food-addled yahoos one usually finds in these places.
The trip started out well enough. We headed out last Friday. The drive to Williams was uneventful. We checked in at the Grand Canyon Railway Hotel and found the folks helpful and courteous. Our buffet dinner was somewhat bland, but edible. The rooms were not large but they were comfortable. And Williams is a delightful little town with an eclectic main drag largely devoid of the nondescript corporate-owned businesses that are increasingly making every main street in America look the same.
We caught the train to the canyon the next morning, after a fun wild-west shootout at the hotel that the young ones thoroughly enjoyed. The train ride was uneventful, if a bit long, but they served liquor in our first-class section, which made things at least bearable.
The fun started once we disembarked at the canyon rim, at about 11:00 A.M. Check-out time for the previous night's guests was 10:00 A.M., but we were informed that check-in time for us was not until 4:00 P.M. It takes six hours to vacuum a room and put on fresh linens and shelve some clean towels?
It was at that moment we discovered an immutable fact about tourists who stay in the lodges at the Grand Canyon, particularly those who take the train: we were their prisoners. We were trapped, completely at their mercy. They could house us when they wanted too, feed us what they wanted to, force us to walk through their interminable gift shops, and make us leave when they wanted to. At the Grand Canyon, the old saw that "the customer is always right" has been thrown out the window. The hired help was surly almost without exception, the food expensive and below mediocre, and the service was almost uniformly atrocious. And we couldn't do a damn thing about it.
The entire commercial operation at the South Rim is controlled by a company called Xanterra South Rim, L.L.C. This company has taken commercialism to an almost Disney-esque level. Almost every sight-seeing opportunity in the Grand Canyon Village requires one to walk through one of the ubiquitous gift shops along the rim. This trip certainly reinforced for me one of my main complaints about the privatization of our public areas: that doing so emphasizes profits over aesthetics.
(I should probably stop here and say the exception was the wonderful restaurant at the Bright Angel Lodge. I ate there twice, and both times the greeters, servers and busboys were uniformly cheerful, helpful and competent. I can only think that, for whatever reason, every good private employee at the South Rim must have somehow gravitated to the Bright Angel Lodge. Nor will I say anything bad about the park employees and rangers. These public servants are underpaid and overworked yet always seem to do their jobs with aplomb, even in the face of what must be some of the dumbest questions ever asked by human beings.)
And just as I feared, there were people everywhere. One couldn't walk ten feet without having to veer around some group of idiots who decided the best place to stop and reposition juniors hat or apply some sunscreen to little Sally was right in the middle of the trail. Almost everybody I came across was unconcerned about any other human being. It was as if every group of tourists was in its own plastic bubble, completely unaware of how their actions might be affecting the hoards around them.
When we were finally allowed to check onto our rooms at the Kachina Lodge, the first thing we noticed was that the "king sized" beds were smaller that the queen size that sits in our bedroom at home. The second was that the entire room was scarcely larger that a shoe box. Indeed, after fitting in the roll-away bed for my son we couldn't walk around in the room -- we actually had to crawl across the beds to traverse the tiny space.
That evening, I wandered down to the snack bar at the Bright Angel to get my son and his friend hot dogs for dinner, while the adults congregated at the El Tovar Lodge for dinner and drinks. Only the fact I had yet to imbibe much prevented what ensued from becoming an ugly scene.
When we got to the lodge and sat down with our hot dogs, we were informed we couldn't bring food from another establishment into the lodge. "Let me get this straight," I said to the surly waiter. "We have four adults here, ordering drinks and dinner -- we're spending plenty of money here. You don't offer a children's menu. Yet you're not going to let our two kids eat their hot dogs with their parents?"
Yep, I was banished to an outdoor bench with two kids because I had the gall to bring them to the El Tovar with hot dogs.
The next morning, Sunday, I awoke at 5:00 and was finally able to enjoy some peace. I walked along the South Rim Trail from our lodge up to Hermit's Rest. The seasonal monsoon system deprived me of the usual spectacular sunrise, but my early rise allowed me to walk alone -- the entire morning I only met five other people. Upon reaching Hermit's Rest I found only two folks who had taken an early bus shuttle and the operator at the obligatory gift shop. And the helicopters.
Why the National Park Service allows this practice is beyond me. The Grand Canyon, a place that should be among the most peaceful in the world, is shattered every day by the clop-clop-clop of choppers taking people with way too much disposable income over the canyons to sight-see the lazy-man's way. What was my one good day at the canyon was sullied by the constant buzz of helicopter engines.
We boarded the train at 4:00 for our journey back to the sanctity of the hotel back in Williams. Little did I know that this painful vacation was about to get even worse.
Next: Grand Canyon West -- or, The Hualapai Nation is Not Yet Ready For Prime Time.
It seemed like a good idea at the time. My wife came to me about eight months ago and said, "for vacation this year, why don't we go the the Grand Canyon?" "Well," I countered, "I don't think our son is anywhere near old enough to backpack there yet. The hike into and out of the canyon is horribly strenuous, and I just don't think . . ." She cut me off. "Not a hiking trip, silly. We're going to take the Grand Canyon Railroad out of Williams and stay in a lodge at the canyon rim."
And so began my vacation from hell. First, I should explain why I avoid our wonderful National Park system like I would a root canal with no Novocain. In a word: people. There are too many of them. And in our most popular national parks, during vacation season, there are really too many of them. They all act like tourists, and most of them have no business being in the outdoors, even in a pampered setting like the South Rim of the Grand Canyon. After this trip I have made a solemn vow: I will never again set foot in a National Park, unless it's Yosemite and I immediately head off into the back country, away from the over-weight, sun burnt, fast food-addled yahoos one usually finds in these places.
The trip started out well enough. We headed out last Friday. The drive to Williams was uneventful. We checked in at the Grand Canyon Railway Hotel and found the folks helpful and courteous. Our buffet dinner was somewhat bland, but edible. The rooms were not large but they were comfortable. And Williams is a delightful little town with an eclectic main drag largely devoid of the nondescript corporate-owned businesses that are increasingly making every main street in America look the same.
We caught the train to the canyon the next morning, after a fun wild-west shootout at the hotel that the young ones thoroughly enjoyed. The train ride was uneventful, if a bit long, but they served liquor in our first-class section, which made things at least bearable.
The fun started once we disembarked at the canyon rim, at about 11:00 A.M. Check-out time for the previous night's guests was 10:00 A.M., but we were informed that check-in time for us was not until 4:00 P.M. It takes six hours to vacuum a room and put on fresh linens and shelve some clean towels?
It was at that moment we discovered an immutable fact about tourists who stay in the lodges at the Grand Canyon, particularly those who take the train: we were their prisoners. We were trapped, completely at their mercy. They could house us when they wanted too, feed us what they wanted to, force us to walk through their interminable gift shops, and make us leave when they wanted to. At the Grand Canyon, the old saw that "the customer is always right" has been thrown out the window. The hired help was surly almost without exception, the food expensive and below mediocre, and the service was almost uniformly atrocious. And we couldn't do a damn thing about it.
The entire commercial operation at the South Rim is controlled by a company called Xanterra South Rim, L.L.C. This company has taken commercialism to an almost Disney-esque level. Almost every sight-seeing opportunity in the Grand Canyon Village requires one to walk through one of the ubiquitous gift shops along the rim. This trip certainly reinforced for me one of my main complaints about the privatization of our public areas: that doing so emphasizes profits over aesthetics.
(I should probably stop here and say the exception was the wonderful restaurant at the Bright Angel Lodge. I ate there twice, and both times the greeters, servers and busboys were uniformly cheerful, helpful and competent. I can only think that, for whatever reason, every good private employee at the South Rim must have somehow gravitated to the Bright Angel Lodge. Nor will I say anything bad about the park employees and rangers. These public servants are underpaid and overworked yet always seem to do their jobs with aplomb, even in the face of what must be some of the dumbest questions ever asked by human beings.)
And just as I feared, there were people everywhere. One couldn't walk ten feet without having to veer around some group of idiots who decided the best place to stop and reposition juniors hat or apply some sunscreen to little Sally was right in the middle of the trail. Almost everybody I came across was unconcerned about any other human being. It was as if every group of tourists was in its own plastic bubble, completely unaware of how their actions might be affecting the hoards around them.
When we were finally allowed to check onto our rooms at the Kachina Lodge, the first thing we noticed was that the "king sized" beds were smaller that the queen size that sits in our bedroom at home. The second was that the entire room was scarcely larger that a shoe box. Indeed, after fitting in the roll-away bed for my son we couldn't walk around in the room -- we actually had to crawl across the beds to traverse the tiny space.
That evening, I wandered down to the snack bar at the Bright Angel to get my son and his friend hot dogs for dinner, while the adults congregated at the El Tovar Lodge for dinner and drinks. Only the fact I had yet to imbibe much prevented what ensued from becoming an ugly scene.
When we got to the lodge and sat down with our hot dogs, we were informed we couldn't bring food from another establishment into the lodge. "Let me get this straight," I said to the surly waiter. "We have four adults here, ordering drinks and dinner -- we're spending plenty of money here. You don't offer a children's menu. Yet you're not going to let our two kids eat their hot dogs with their parents?"
Yep, I was banished to an outdoor bench with two kids because I had the gall to bring them to the El Tovar with hot dogs.
The next morning, Sunday, I awoke at 5:00 and was finally able to enjoy some peace. I walked along the South Rim Trail from our lodge up to Hermit's Rest. The seasonal monsoon system deprived me of the usual spectacular sunrise, but my early rise allowed me to walk alone -- the entire morning I only met five other people. Upon reaching Hermit's Rest I found only two folks who had taken an early bus shuttle and the operator at the obligatory gift shop. And the helicopters.
Why the National Park Service allows this practice is beyond me. The Grand Canyon, a place that should be among the most peaceful in the world, is shattered every day by the clop-clop-clop of choppers taking people with way too much disposable income over the canyons to sight-see the lazy-man's way. What was my one good day at the canyon was sullied by the constant buzz of helicopter engines.
We boarded the train at 4:00 for our journey back to the sanctity of the hotel back in Williams. Little did I know that this painful vacation was about to get even worse.
Next: Grand Canyon West -- or, The Hualapai Nation is Not Yet Ready For Prime Time.
Is Gonzo Gone-zo?
It's one thing to lie and obstruct over arcane matters of law. It's also one thing to exhibit the memory of a six-year old. It's entirely another thing, however, to perjure oneself over an issue so thoroughly vetted as Alberto Gonzales' bedside visit to then Attorney General John Ashcroft's hospital room. No fewer than three Congress-people and the director of the FBI have directly refuted Gonzo's testimony: that the visit didn't involve the Bush administration's illegal domestic wiretap program.
Yet there he was, before Congress, lying as if to lie comes to him as naturally as breathing. I know the concept of loyalty is of tantamount importance to this bunch (indeed, this obsession with loyalty is almost Mafia-like), but what did Gonzales hope to gain by repeatedly lying through his teeth? Is he just trying to stall Congress? Is there any real purpose for such an obvious legal transgression by the person who is supposed to be the nation's first arbiter of its laws?
I do know this: every minute this man stays in office just allows the Democrats to stick another needle in their George Bush voodoo doll, and Bush, despite his insane vow of loyalty to this toady, has to be squealing in pain at this point. Look for Gonzo to take a hike sometime before Congress comes back in September. Then he'll just hope we all forget about the sorry spectacle of the nation's leading law enforcement official behaving like an unrepentant, arrogant scofflaw. If not, Gonzo could be doing time at a minimum-security country club in the not-too-distant future, at least until Bush pardons him.
Yet there he was, before Congress, lying as if to lie comes to him as naturally as breathing. I know the concept of loyalty is of tantamount importance to this bunch (indeed, this obsession with loyalty is almost Mafia-like), but what did Gonzales hope to gain by repeatedly lying through his teeth? Is he just trying to stall Congress? Is there any real purpose for such an obvious legal transgression by the person who is supposed to be the nation's first arbiter of its laws?
I do know this: every minute this man stays in office just allows the Democrats to stick another needle in their George Bush voodoo doll, and Bush, despite his insane vow of loyalty to this toady, has to be squealing in pain at this point. Look for Gonzo to take a hike sometime before Congress comes back in September. Then he'll just hope we all forget about the sorry spectacle of the nation's leading law enforcement official behaving like an unrepentant, arrogant scofflaw. If not, Gonzo could be doing time at a minimum-security country club in the not-too-distant future, at least until Bush pardons him.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Executive Order Allows White House to Sieze Anyone's Assets
Or, Is George Bush After My Stuff?
George Bush yesterday signed an executive order entitled Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts In Iraq. This entire order should be required reading of any freedom-loving citizen, but I'll excerpt the most alarming portions:
"Any person determined by the Secretary of Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,
(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose of:
(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the government of Iraq; or
(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people." (Emphasis added)
Can basically have all their assets seized by the government.
In other words, if the White House determines that any U.S. resident might somehow pose a risk, however benign, to the stability of the Iraqi government or its economic reconstruction efforts, that person's house, bank account and other assets can be grabbed, due process be damned.
If I write in this blog that I think the Malaki government is corrupt to the core and has no chance in hell of ever forging a political solution in Iraq, I could wake up in the morning with a Mayflower van outside my door. If my wife writes a letter to the editor saying she thinks it's immoral to give no-bid contracts to Haliburton (which is, unfortunately, involved in "promoting economic reconstruction in Iraq") she might find a zero balance in her bank account the next day.
Just another day in paradise. The Bush Administration is basically trying to quell all dissent, using the hammer of economic reprisal, and it's tired of the Constitution getting in the way.
I have been on record for quite some time saying impeachment would be a waste of time because the votes clearly are not there in the Senate for conviction and removal. I now have rethought my position.
At this point, we at least have to try. Bush is systematically destroying our Constitutional form of government, one right at a time, and even if we can't get rid of him and his cabal, we need at least to get into the record his sorry history of malfeasance. We owe at least that much to future generations of repressed Americans who will wonder how we lost so much in so little time.
George Bush yesterday signed an executive order entitled Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts In Iraq. This entire order should be required reading of any freedom-loving citizen, but I'll excerpt the most alarming portions:
"Any person determined by the Secretary of Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,
(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose of:
(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the government of Iraq; or
(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people." (Emphasis added)
Can basically have all their assets seized by the government.
In other words, if the White House determines that any U.S. resident might somehow pose a risk, however benign, to the stability of the Iraqi government or its economic reconstruction efforts, that person's house, bank account and other assets can be grabbed, due process be damned.
If I write in this blog that I think the Malaki government is corrupt to the core and has no chance in hell of ever forging a political solution in Iraq, I could wake up in the morning with a Mayflower van outside my door. If my wife writes a letter to the editor saying she thinks it's immoral to give no-bid contracts to Haliburton (which is, unfortunately, involved in "promoting economic reconstruction in Iraq") she might find a zero balance in her bank account the next day.
Just another day in paradise. The Bush Administration is basically trying to quell all dissent, using the hammer of economic reprisal, and it's tired of the Constitution getting in the way.
I have been on record for quite some time saying impeachment would be a waste of time because the votes clearly are not there in the Senate for conviction and removal. I now have rethought my position.
At this point, we at least have to try. Bush is systematically destroying our Constitutional form of government, one right at a time, and even if we can't get rid of him and his cabal, we need at least to get into the record his sorry history of malfeasance. We owe at least that much to future generations of repressed Americans who will wonder how we lost so much in so little time.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
None Of the Above Leads Crowded GOP Field
In a stunning development, the latest AP-Ipsos 2008 presidential poll shows that None Of the Above has moved into the lead for the GOP nomination. Mr. Above received almost 23% of the vote, up from just 14% in June, to outpace Rudy Giuliani (21%) for the first time. Filling out the field are Fred Thompson (19%), John McCain (15%) and Mitt Romney (11%).
"This shows my message is resonating with the electorate," said Mr. Above in an exclusive interview with Haiwee.blogspot.com. "The American people are ready for change. They want a return to the traditional conservatism of Goldwater instead of the corporatism disguised as conservatism of George W. Bush and being peddled by the other GOP candidates."
Sounding much like a conservative Democrat, Mr. Above insists his views are in the mainstream. "I am, of course, opposed to abortion because I think it's immoral," he says. "However, I believe Roe Vs. Wade is settled law. Moreover, I would never deign to think any man should have a say in how a woman controls her own body."
Mr. Above is also moderate on the issue of gay marriage. "I don't necessarily think gays should be able to marry, but I do think they should be afforded the same rights and privileges as heterosexuals. Gay people don't choose to be gay any more than I chose to be a man. Denying them the rights we all hold dear is both unfair and immoral."
Mr. Above had some harsh words for the President. "I believe we should return to a foreign policy that emphasizes diplomacy and rejects preemptive war," he said. "This president has violated the principles upon which this country was founded," he continued. "He got us into an unnecessary and unjust war for no apparent reason, and it's time we got out."
None Of the Above also differed with Mr. Bush in his approach to the environment. "Since when is it considered 'conservative' to rape the commons?," he railed. "We conservatives should be conserving nature, not selling it out to the highest bidder. We also have an obligation to future generations to begin doing something about global warming. The jury is no longer out: we are systematically destroying our planet, and George Bush has done nothing to stop it."
To close the interview, Mr. Above quoted from his campaign stump speech: "A vote for None Of the Above is a vote for change in America. Any good, thinking, patriotic Republican can take one look at the GOP field and easily see their only rational choice is to vote None Of the Above."
"This shows my message is resonating with the electorate," said Mr. Above in an exclusive interview with Haiwee.blogspot.com. "The American people are ready for change. They want a return to the traditional conservatism of Goldwater instead of the corporatism disguised as conservatism of George W. Bush and being peddled by the other GOP candidates."
Sounding much like a conservative Democrat, Mr. Above insists his views are in the mainstream. "I am, of course, opposed to abortion because I think it's immoral," he says. "However, I believe Roe Vs. Wade is settled law. Moreover, I would never deign to think any man should have a say in how a woman controls her own body."
Mr. Above is also moderate on the issue of gay marriage. "I don't necessarily think gays should be able to marry, but I do think they should be afforded the same rights and privileges as heterosexuals. Gay people don't choose to be gay any more than I chose to be a man. Denying them the rights we all hold dear is both unfair and immoral."
Mr. Above had some harsh words for the President. "I believe we should return to a foreign policy that emphasizes diplomacy and rejects preemptive war," he said. "This president has violated the principles upon which this country was founded," he continued. "He got us into an unnecessary and unjust war for no apparent reason, and it's time we got out."
None Of the Above also differed with Mr. Bush in his approach to the environment. "Since when is it considered 'conservative' to rape the commons?," he railed. "We conservatives should be conserving nature, not selling it out to the highest bidder. We also have an obligation to future generations to begin doing something about global warming. The jury is no longer out: we are systematically destroying our planet, and George Bush has done nothing to stop it."
To close the interview, Mr. Above quoted from his campaign stump speech: "A vote for None Of the Above is a vote for change in America. Any good, thinking, patriotic Republican can take one look at the GOP field and easily see their only rational choice is to vote None Of the Above."
Monday, July 16, 2007
Iran Next?
George Bush seems determined to strike another blow against Muslim fundamentalists, and it looks more and more like that blow will be against Iran. Look for Bush to "manufacture" a Gulf of Tonkin-like incident sometime in the next few months to give him his "justification" for attacking the Iranians.
My question is: why all the blather about Iran? What have they done that has such blowhards as Joe Lieberman all in a lather?
After all, the army's own intelligence suggests that Saudi nationals make up a majority of the foreign fighters in Iraq killing and maiming our soldiers. Of course, we can't attack Saudi Arabia -- George has too many friends there, and the oil companies would go apoplectic if we were to interrupt their supply of crude.
So Iran it is. The American people won't stand for it, but then we really don't have a say in the matter. Bush doesn't care what we want -- he knows he is a lame duck who can't be removed from office because Senate Republicans remain completely cowed by him. Why, I don't know. Apparently they are content to watch from the sidelines as their respective careers go down in flames along with the most wretched presidency of our time -- or any time, for that matter.
My question is: why all the blather about Iran? What have they done that has such blowhards as Joe Lieberman all in a lather?
After all, the army's own intelligence suggests that Saudi nationals make up a majority of the foreign fighters in Iraq killing and maiming our soldiers. Of course, we can't attack Saudi Arabia -- George has too many friends there, and the oil companies would go apoplectic if we were to interrupt their supply of crude.
So Iran it is. The American people won't stand for it, but then we really don't have a say in the matter. Bush doesn't care what we want -- he knows he is a lame duck who can't be removed from office because Senate Republicans remain completely cowed by him. Why, I don't know. Apparently they are content to watch from the sidelines as their respective careers go down in flames along with the most wretched presidency of our time -- or any time, for that matter.
Friday, July 13, 2007
More Random Thoughts On the Day's News
So the arrival of some new soccer player was splashed across the front page of the L.A. Times today, just beneath the fold, but Harriet Miers openly defying a subpoena to appear before Congress was buried on the last page.
And we wonder how George Bush has managed to get away with so much malfeasance for so long. The mainstream news media have been utterly complicit in our long national nightmare, refusing to cover Mr. Bush's many transgressions because, hey, Paris Hilton gets better ratings, and besides, most people can't follow all that other stuff anyway. It's too complicated.
Democrats have been taking a flogging in the blogosphere, almost since taking control of Congress in January, because they haven't been howling loud enough about the many misdeeds of our incompetent-in-chief. I have a theory about this: I think the Dems have been howling, loud and clear --it's the media that have failed us, because they have steadfastly refused to report it.
It's the old "tree falling in the forest" thing: If Harry Reid says Bush is a miscreant, a liar and a reprobate, and nobody prints it or plays the footage on the nightly news, did he really say it?
Anyway, back to Harriet Miers. How could she just not show up? Worse, how could Bush be so brazen as to tell her to not show up? George Bush just mooned the Congress of the United States. At some point even his Republican lackeys on Capitol Hill are going to get the message that this guy is not only criminally incompetent, but dangerous as well. I look forward to the day Miers is frog-walked into a waiting police cruiser for showing so much contempt for what used to be a co-equal branch of government.
Meanwhile, here in Los Angeles, the county sheriff is in hot water for supposedly offering "special treatment" to the nation's most famous outlaw, Paris Hilton. Seems she was given a cordless phone to use (so as to not have to wait in line for the pay phone) and a brand-new orange jumpsuit (so as to not have to soil her body with previously-worn garments).
Now I like to poke fun at Ms. Hilton as much as the next guy, and I guess the phone thing does stink, at least a little, of "special treatment." But the jumpsuit? Those things do wear out, don't they? I mean, eventually someone is going to get a new one, right? Isn't that why they have the new ones in the jail linen closet, to replace the worn out ones?
But then that's our corporate news media, manufacturing outrage where there is none, all the while ignoring the true outrage right under their noses.
And we wonder how George Bush has managed to get away with so much malfeasance for so long. The mainstream news media have been utterly complicit in our long national nightmare, refusing to cover Mr. Bush's many transgressions because, hey, Paris Hilton gets better ratings, and besides, most people can't follow all that other stuff anyway. It's too complicated.
Democrats have been taking a flogging in the blogosphere, almost since taking control of Congress in January, because they haven't been howling loud enough about the many misdeeds of our incompetent-in-chief. I have a theory about this: I think the Dems have been howling, loud and clear --it's the media that have failed us, because they have steadfastly refused to report it.
It's the old "tree falling in the forest" thing: If Harry Reid says Bush is a miscreant, a liar and a reprobate, and nobody prints it or plays the footage on the nightly news, did he really say it?
Anyway, back to Harriet Miers. How could she just not show up? Worse, how could Bush be so brazen as to tell her to not show up? George Bush just mooned the Congress of the United States. At some point even his Republican lackeys on Capitol Hill are going to get the message that this guy is not only criminally incompetent, but dangerous as well. I look forward to the day Miers is frog-walked into a waiting police cruiser for showing so much contempt for what used to be a co-equal branch of government.
Meanwhile, here in Los Angeles, the county sheriff is in hot water for supposedly offering "special treatment" to the nation's most famous outlaw, Paris Hilton. Seems she was given a cordless phone to use (so as to not have to wait in line for the pay phone) and a brand-new orange jumpsuit (so as to not have to soil her body with previously-worn garments).
Now I like to poke fun at Ms. Hilton as much as the next guy, and I guess the phone thing does stink, at least a little, of "special treatment." But the jumpsuit? Those things do wear out, don't they? I mean, eventually someone is going to get a new one, right? Isn't that why they have the new ones in the jail linen closet, to replace the worn out ones?
But then that's our corporate news media, manufacturing outrage where there is none, all the while ignoring the true outrage right under their noses.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
The President Thinks We're Stupid
An Open Letter to President Bush:
At your press conference today, President Bush, you said the insurgents attacking U.S. troops in Iraq "are the same one's who attacked us on September 11th."
The time has come for the media, the Democrats and any Republican with a brain to come out and label you for what you are: a bald-faced liar.
Time and again you and your administration have tried to link the September 11th terrorist attacks with Iraq when you full well know there is absolutely no evidence to that effect.
Mr. Bush, the American people may be apathetic, but we are not stupid -- we are on to you. We know you lied us into an unnecessary and unjust war. We know you are personally responsible for thousands of dead and maimed U.S. troops and hundreds of thousands of dead, innocent Iraqi civilians. We know we only went to Iraq to avenge your daddy and enrich your buddies. The blood is on your hands, sir.
And now this outrageous lie, this lie you have tried to sell us again and again: that Iraq had something to do with what was the most emotional and horrifying event in the U.S. since Pearl Harbor. To tell this lie the day after a report that the real perpetrators of that event, Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, are now as strong as they were on September 10th 2001, is unconscionable.
You have utterly failed us, sir. You failed to bring the real criminals to justice, and you failed us by invading a country that had nothing to do with our national day of infamy. And then you lie to the American people to try to cover your failures. Have you no shame?
At your press conference today, President Bush, you said the insurgents attacking U.S. troops in Iraq "are the same one's who attacked us on September 11th."
The time has come for the media, the Democrats and any Republican with a brain to come out and label you for what you are: a bald-faced liar.
Time and again you and your administration have tried to link the September 11th terrorist attacks with Iraq when you full well know there is absolutely no evidence to that effect.
Mr. Bush, the American people may be apathetic, but we are not stupid -- we are on to you. We know you lied us into an unnecessary and unjust war. We know you are personally responsible for thousands of dead and maimed U.S. troops and hundreds of thousands of dead, innocent Iraqi civilians. We know we only went to Iraq to avenge your daddy and enrich your buddies. The blood is on your hands, sir.
And now this outrageous lie, this lie you have tried to sell us again and again: that Iraq had something to do with what was the most emotional and horrifying event in the U.S. since Pearl Harbor. To tell this lie the day after a report that the real perpetrators of that event, Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, are now as strong as they were on September 10th 2001, is unconscionable.
You have utterly failed us, sir. You failed to bring the real criminals to justice, and you failed us by invading a country that had nothing to do with our national day of infamy. And then you lie to the American people to try to cover your failures. Have you no shame?
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
More Random Thoughts On the Day's News
President Bush will announce today that this year's budget deficit will be about $200 billion, or almost $50 billion less than was thought. "We kept your taxes low, which cause the economy to grow, which yielded more tax revenues. And because we set priorities, the deficit is shrinking," he said.
There's so much material here I hardly know where to begin.
First of all, seven years ago we were running a surplus. Crowing about a 200 billion dollar deficit seems, well, unseemly. What are we supposed to tell our children? Gee, son, I'm sorry our generation saddled yours with this humongous pile of I.O.U.'s, but heck, Republicans kept stealing elections from us.
Second, the Iraq occupation is completely off the books. That's about $150 billion -- give or take a Haliburton contract -- that should be added to the bottom line. Plus they keep borrowing every red cent from the Social Security Trust Fund surplus and counting it as revenue. If my company's comptroller ran the books like this bunch, she'd be wearing a fancy new orange jump-suit.
Finally, this causal effect Republicans constantly try to claim -- that tax cuts miraculously create a growing economy and therefore more tax receipts -- just defies logic. Repeat after me, supply-siders: you can't cut taxes to raise more taxes. Particularly when almost all the tax cuts go to the richest 5% of Americans. Sorry, but these people don't consume enough goods and services to make that much of a difference. Did I miss something, or has there been a big run on Hummers and second vacation homes this year?
Senator Jim Webb's amendment to make sure troops are properly trained and to allow the them to spend more time at home was denied cloture by forty Republicans and our indomitable Joe Lieberman. The Dems need to bring this amendment up for vote every day until enough Republicans jump ship to pass it. Then let Bush veto it while claiming he "supports the troops."
Food for thought: more people know Nicolle Richey is pregnant than know Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9-11.
There's so much material here I hardly know where to begin.
First of all, seven years ago we were running a surplus. Crowing about a 200 billion dollar deficit seems, well, unseemly. What are we supposed to tell our children? Gee, son, I'm sorry our generation saddled yours with this humongous pile of I.O.U.'s, but heck, Republicans kept stealing elections from us.
Second, the Iraq occupation is completely off the books. That's about $150 billion -- give or take a Haliburton contract -- that should be added to the bottom line. Plus they keep borrowing every red cent from the Social Security Trust Fund surplus and counting it as revenue. If my company's comptroller ran the books like this bunch, she'd be wearing a fancy new orange jump-suit.
Finally, this causal effect Republicans constantly try to claim -- that tax cuts miraculously create a growing economy and therefore more tax receipts -- just defies logic. Repeat after me, supply-siders: you can't cut taxes to raise more taxes. Particularly when almost all the tax cuts go to the richest 5% of Americans. Sorry, but these people don't consume enough goods and services to make that much of a difference. Did I miss something, or has there been a big run on Hummers and second vacation homes this year?
Senator Jim Webb's amendment to make sure troops are properly trained and to allow the them to spend more time at home was denied cloture by forty Republicans and our indomitable Joe Lieberman. The Dems need to bring this amendment up for vote every day until enough Republicans jump ship to pass it. Then let Bush veto it while claiming he "supports the troops."
Food for thought: more people know Nicolle Richey is pregnant than know Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9-11.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
More Random Thoughts On the Day's News
Surely I'm not the only one who's amused by the fact Fred Thompson has risen to the top of the polls as the GOP's latest, greatest hope to win the presidential nomination. This is how bad it is for the Republicans: the best they can do is a former Senator and current mediocre actor, out of politics for years, about whom it has been said lacks the "fire in the belly" required of anybody who hopes to endure a hard and draining campaign. And he was a member of Scooter Libby's legal defense team. Those are some solid credentials. The Republican field is so bad Hillary might actually win.
And what is it about the GOP and bad, old actors? Can't they at least find a bad actor who's younger? Is Tom Cruise too liberal, too whacky, or not a bad enough actor? I guess they can't tap Arnold the "Governator" because he's not a natural born citizen. What about Bruce Willis? I hear he's available.
So Giuliani's director of Southern States used to frequent hookers. His South Carolina campaign manager is under indictment for cocaine possession. Methinks Rudy has some judgement issues.
Did everybody catch Michael Moore's act on CNN yesterday with Wolf Blitzer? The guy came completely unhinged, although watching Blitzer squirm as he got broadsided by Moore was priceless. It's no wonder Moore doesn't get more live interviews -- you never know what wierd tangent he's going to veer into. Seriously, Blitzer, among many in the mainstream media, should feel ashamed at the way they cheerleaded the Bush administration in its run-up to war. The 'fourth branch" failed us big time.
And what is it about the GOP and bad, old actors? Can't they at least find a bad actor who's younger? Is Tom Cruise too liberal, too whacky, or not a bad enough actor? I guess they can't tap Arnold the "Governator" because he's not a natural born citizen. What about Bruce Willis? I hear he's available.
So Giuliani's director of Southern States used to frequent hookers. His South Carolina campaign manager is under indictment for cocaine possession. Methinks Rudy has some judgement issues.
Did everybody catch Michael Moore's act on CNN yesterday with Wolf Blitzer? The guy came completely unhinged, although watching Blitzer squirm as he got broadsided by Moore was priceless. It's no wonder Moore doesn't get more live interviews -- you never know what wierd tangent he's going to veer into. Seriously, Blitzer, among many in the mainstream media, should feel ashamed at the way they cheerleaded the Bush administration in its run-up to war. The 'fourth branch" failed us big time.
Monday, July 9, 2007
10 Steps to Fix America -- #2: Medicare For All
Almost every other industrialized nation has it. 43 million uninsured Americans wish they had it. Our businesses are less competative because we don't have it.
The time has come for Congress and the President to initiate legislation making Medicare available to all citizens, young and old. Known as "single-payer health insurance," Medicare For All would instantly solve one of the worst problems our country faces: an almost unworkable health care system with spiralling costs that now sees over 43 million Americans with no health insurance at all.
This will be a two-part article. Part one rebuts the arguments made by pharmaceutical companies, health insurance companies and libertarians against Medicare For All. Part two rebuts anecdotal attacks against single-payer health plans in other nations.
Since Lyndon Johnson signed it into law in 1965, our nation's senior citizens have been covered by a phenomenally successful single-payer health plan called Medicare. Before then, only about 50% of citizens over age 65 were covered by health insurance; today about 97% of our older citizens have insurance. Almost from its inception Medicare has been efficient and reliable. Medicare represents the best our government can do, and the program is almost universally respected among the populace.
If Medicare works so well and almost everyone enrolled is happy with it, doesn't it make sense to make the program available to all citizens? After all, everyone agrees that having almost one-sixth of the citizenry uncovered by any health plan at all is a travesty.
Well, the health insurance industry and Big Pharma don't quite see it that way. The current system serves them just fine, thank you; health care is big business in this country, and business is good. Top health care executives garner multi-million dollar salaries and millions more in stock options. They fly in private jets and own multiple vacation homes. To say they have a vested interest in the status quo is a vast understatement.
Their arguments against Medicare For All almost always boil down to three issues: first, they claim Medicare isn't really more efficient than the current system. Second, that Medicare For All would result in fewer choices and a substandard health care system. Finally, they argue Medicare For All would be too expensive.
In 2006 the Council For Affordable Health Insurance (CAHI), an advocacy group comprised of most of the nation's health insurance providers, published a white paper by Dr. Merrill Mathews entitled Medicare's Hidden Administrative Costs (pdf. file here). This paper is based in part on a study published by Mark Litow of Milliman, Incorporated, a consulting firm that delivers health insurance plans, investing plans and employee benefits plans for businesses.
Leaving aside the fact that, given their financial interests, neither CAHI nor Milliman, Inc. can be expected to be impartial in their analysis, let's look at the claims in Dr. Mathews' white paper. One of the arguments often put forth by advocates of Medicare For All is the program's legendary efficiency; most claim that just two or three percent of all Medicare outlays are administrative, whereas for-profit insurance firms typically spend 20 to 30 percent for administration. Mr. Litow says that, contrary to popular belief, Medicare's legendary efficiency is overstated (he says it's 5.2%), and for-profit inefficiency is overstated (he says it's 16.7%). We'll come back to those numbers in a moment.
Dr. Mathews further claims that Medicare should appear more efficient because the average yearly claim amount for a Medicare recipient is $6,600, while a private insurance recipient receives just $2,700 per year. Thus the administrative costs per dollar paid should be lower for Medicare.
Dr. Mathews then goes on to make the bizarre claim that private insurance administrative costs actually add value for the consumer, because much of those costs involve a closer scrutinizing of claims and a subsequent denial of coverage (about how this helps health care consumers I haven't the foggiest notion).
Therein lies the rub: much of the higher administrative costs associated with for-profit health insurance involve the one thing most people hate about private health insurance: in their drive for profits, insurance companies consistently deny coverage to people that their own doctors think they need.
In addition, private insurance companies further enhance their profits by excluding patients with pre-existing conditions, shunting them to far more expensive plans, or off the rolls altogether. No wonder their administrative costs are higher: they reduce claims by only taking healthy people, and when those healthy people do happen to get sick, they deny them coverage.
O.K., let's get back to the numbers. The insurance industry's advocacy group claims the current system works just fine, even though, by their own numbers, administration of Medicare is 11.5% more efficient. In other words, if we had Medicare For All, we'd immediately save 11.5%. Maybe I'm crazy, that sounds like a compelling argument to throw out the entire for-profit system and make Medicare available to everyone.
The second argument, that consumers won't have any choice under Medicare For All, is patently ridiculous on its face.
Private schools didn't disappear with the advent of public education. People who can afford it and choose to do so still send their children to private school. But they also understand why it's important to contribute tax dollars towards public education: an educated and productive citizenry is advantageous for society as a whole.
Likewise, Medicare For All would neither destroy the private health insurance industry nor lead to fewer choices for consumers. People who can afford it and choose to do so could buy private plans. But people would come to realize funding Medicare For All benefits society for the same reason they support public education: a healthy and productive citizenry is also advantageous for society as a whole.
Finally, the cost issue. Most estimates are that it would cost about $1.86 trillion dollars per year, at least initially, to begin offering Medicare For All. Of this, the federal government already spends about %852 billion on Medicaid, Medicare and a host of other health care programs, so we need to find about a trillion dollars per year to institute Medicare For All. Eventually those costs would come down somewhat, provided the Federal Government was given the power to negotiate drug prices with the big pharmaceutical companies.
Also, the 43 million uninsured cost us proportionally more than they should because they often don't seek preventative treatment and, when they are treated, it's usually in an emergency room, which costs more. Still, most experts say premiums will be in the $90 to $120 per month range -- far less than most people currently pay for their private plans.
The group Physicians For a National Health Plan (PNHP) have come up with this plan to raise the money for Medicare For All. It involves employee contributions and employer contributions (albeit at a far lesser level than most employees and employers currently contribute under our for-profit system), and a variety of taxes, mostly on the top 5% of wage earners.
Having said this, I think I've come up with an alternative funding plan -- not just for Medicare For All but for a host of other programs I think we need to Fix America. I will detail that funding plan in Step 10 of my 10 Steps, but I'll give a hint: in also involves asking the rich to accept a much more progressive tax program than is currently in place. After all, the rich got rich primarily because of the vast infrastructure that is the American economy; it seems only fair they contribute proportionally greater sums back to that infrastructure.
Medicare For All is, above all, a moral imperative. Basic health care services should be a universal human right. The time has come for the most powerful economy on the face of the earth to cover the health care of its citizens.
Next: Exploding the anecdotal myths about single-payer in other industrialized nations.
The time has come for Congress and the President to initiate legislation making Medicare available to all citizens, young and old. Known as "single-payer health insurance," Medicare For All would instantly solve one of the worst problems our country faces: an almost unworkable health care system with spiralling costs that now sees over 43 million Americans with no health insurance at all.
This will be a two-part article. Part one rebuts the arguments made by pharmaceutical companies, health insurance companies and libertarians against Medicare For All. Part two rebuts anecdotal attacks against single-payer health plans in other nations.
Since Lyndon Johnson signed it into law in 1965, our nation's senior citizens have been covered by a phenomenally successful single-payer health plan called Medicare. Before then, only about 50% of citizens over age 65 were covered by health insurance; today about 97% of our older citizens have insurance. Almost from its inception Medicare has been efficient and reliable. Medicare represents the best our government can do, and the program is almost universally respected among the populace.
If Medicare works so well and almost everyone enrolled is happy with it, doesn't it make sense to make the program available to all citizens? After all, everyone agrees that having almost one-sixth of the citizenry uncovered by any health plan at all is a travesty.
Well, the health insurance industry and Big Pharma don't quite see it that way. The current system serves them just fine, thank you; health care is big business in this country, and business is good. Top health care executives garner multi-million dollar salaries and millions more in stock options. They fly in private jets and own multiple vacation homes. To say they have a vested interest in the status quo is a vast understatement.
Their arguments against Medicare For All almost always boil down to three issues: first, they claim Medicare isn't really more efficient than the current system. Second, that Medicare For All would result in fewer choices and a substandard health care system. Finally, they argue Medicare For All would be too expensive.
In 2006 the Council For Affordable Health Insurance (CAHI), an advocacy group comprised of most of the nation's health insurance providers, published a white paper by Dr. Merrill Mathews entitled Medicare's Hidden Administrative Costs (pdf. file here). This paper is based in part on a study published by Mark Litow of Milliman, Incorporated, a consulting firm that delivers health insurance plans, investing plans and employee benefits plans for businesses.
Leaving aside the fact that, given their financial interests, neither CAHI nor Milliman, Inc. can be expected to be impartial in their analysis, let's look at the claims in Dr. Mathews' white paper. One of the arguments often put forth by advocates of Medicare For All is the program's legendary efficiency; most claim that just two or three percent of all Medicare outlays are administrative, whereas for-profit insurance firms typically spend 20 to 30 percent for administration. Mr. Litow says that, contrary to popular belief, Medicare's legendary efficiency is overstated (he says it's 5.2%), and for-profit inefficiency is overstated (he says it's 16.7%). We'll come back to those numbers in a moment.
Dr. Mathews further claims that Medicare should appear more efficient because the average yearly claim amount for a Medicare recipient is $6,600, while a private insurance recipient receives just $2,700 per year. Thus the administrative costs per dollar paid should be lower for Medicare.
Dr. Mathews then goes on to make the bizarre claim that private insurance administrative costs actually add value for the consumer, because much of those costs involve a closer scrutinizing of claims and a subsequent denial of coverage (about how this helps health care consumers I haven't the foggiest notion).
Therein lies the rub: much of the higher administrative costs associated with for-profit health insurance involve the one thing most people hate about private health insurance: in their drive for profits, insurance companies consistently deny coverage to people that their own doctors think they need.
In addition, private insurance companies further enhance their profits by excluding patients with pre-existing conditions, shunting them to far more expensive plans, or off the rolls altogether. No wonder their administrative costs are higher: they reduce claims by only taking healthy people, and when those healthy people do happen to get sick, they deny them coverage.
O.K., let's get back to the numbers. The insurance industry's advocacy group claims the current system works just fine, even though, by their own numbers, administration of Medicare is 11.5% more efficient. In other words, if we had Medicare For All, we'd immediately save 11.5%. Maybe I'm crazy, that sounds like a compelling argument to throw out the entire for-profit system and make Medicare available to everyone.
The second argument, that consumers won't have any choice under Medicare For All, is patently ridiculous on its face.
Private schools didn't disappear with the advent of public education. People who can afford it and choose to do so still send their children to private school. But they also understand why it's important to contribute tax dollars towards public education: an educated and productive citizenry is advantageous for society as a whole.
Likewise, Medicare For All would neither destroy the private health insurance industry nor lead to fewer choices for consumers. People who can afford it and choose to do so could buy private plans. But people would come to realize funding Medicare For All benefits society for the same reason they support public education: a healthy and productive citizenry is also advantageous for society as a whole.
Finally, the cost issue. Most estimates are that it would cost about $1.86 trillion dollars per year, at least initially, to begin offering Medicare For All. Of this, the federal government already spends about %852 billion on Medicaid, Medicare and a host of other health care programs, so we need to find about a trillion dollars per year to institute Medicare For All. Eventually those costs would come down somewhat, provided the Federal Government was given the power to negotiate drug prices with the big pharmaceutical companies.
Also, the 43 million uninsured cost us proportionally more than they should because they often don't seek preventative treatment and, when they are treated, it's usually in an emergency room, which costs more. Still, most experts say premiums will be in the $90 to $120 per month range -- far less than most people currently pay for their private plans.
The group Physicians For a National Health Plan (PNHP) have come up with this plan to raise the money for Medicare For All. It involves employee contributions and employer contributions (albeit at a far lesser level than most employees and employers currently contribute under our for-profit system), and a variety of taxes, mostly on the top 5% of wage earners.
Having said this, I think I've come up with an alternative funding plan -- not just for Medicare For All but for a host of other programs I think we need to Fix America. I will detail that funding plan in Step 10 of my 10 Steps, but I'll give a hint: in also involves asking the rich to accept a much more progressive tax program than is currently in place. After all, the rich got rich primarily because of the vast infrastructure that is the American economy; it seems only fair they contribute proportionally greater sums back to that infrastructure.
Medicare For All is, above all, a moral imperative. Basic health care services should be a universal human right. The time has come for the most powerful economy on the face of the earth to cover the health care of its citizens.
Next: Exploding the anecdotal myths about single-payer in other industrialized nations.
Sunday, July 8, 2007
California's Burning
The fire season has just started here in California, and it seems as if half the state is already burning.
Most distressing to me is a series of fires in the Eastern Sierra known as the Inyo Complex fires. These fires are burning up my favorite stomping grounds, the places I go to hunt quail, hike into the High Sierra backcountry and just generally hang out in relative peace.
One, the Sage Fire, us burning up Big Pine Canyon, which just happens to be one of the most stunningly beautiful canyons in the Sierra. Another, known as the Seven Oaks fire, is burning on both sides of historic Highway 395 north and west of the quaint little town of Independence, consuming acres and acres of prime quail and tule elk habitat.
Altogether there are five major fire complexes burning in the state, with over 61,000 acres burned (although the Goldledge Fire north of Kernville is 96% contained). And that's not including the disastrous Angora Fire in South Lake Tahoe that burned over 3,100 acres and destroyed over 200 homes. Among the fires still out of control is the Zaca Fire in the Los Padres National Forest, which has consumed 7,800 acres in the Figueroa Mountain area, lands known for having some of the best spring wildflower viewing in the entire state.
California suffered through its driest rainy season in history last year, so things will probably only get worse. I fear that as I take to the field this summer and fall many of my favorite places will no longer be recognizable.
Most distressing to me is a series of fires in the Eastern Sierra known as the Inyo Complex fires. These fires are burning up my favorite stomping grounds, the places I go to hunt quail, hike into the High Sierra backcountry and just generally hang out in relative peace.
One, the Sage Fire, us burning up Big Pine Canyon, which just happens to be one of the most stunningly beautiful canyons in the Sierra. Another, known as the Seven Oaks fire, is burning on both sides of historic Highway 395 north and west of the quaint little town of Independence, consuming acres and acres of prime quail and tule elk habitat.
Altogether there are five major fire complexes burning in the state, with over 61,000 acres burned (although the Goldledge Fire north of Kernville is 96% contained). And that's not including the disastrous Angora Fire in South Lake Tahoe that burned over 3,100 acres and destroyed over 200 homes. Among the fires still out of control is the Zaca Fire in the Los Padres National Forest, which has consumed 7,800 acres in the Figueroa Mountain area, lands known for having some of the best spring wildflower viewing in the entire state.
California suffered through its driest rainy season in history last year, so things will probably only get worse. I fear that as I take to the field this summer and fall many of my favorite places will no longer be recognizable.
Saturday, July 7, 2007
"That's some catch, that Catch-22"
-- Joseph Heller, Catch-22
With a bit of circular logic that would have even Joseph Heller cringing, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals said yesterday, in a two to one decision, that plaintiffs who had challenged the Bush administration's domestic spying program did not have legal standing to do so because they could not prove the program had harmed them.
In other words, the group couldn't prove a secret program had affected them because, well, it's secret. As long as the Bush cabal maintains in secret any program it wants to operate, there's nothing anybody can do about it.
Needless to say, the two judges who ruled in favor of the administration, Alice M. Batcheider and Julia Smith Gibbons, were appointed by Republicans. Several days ago I called for the impeachment of Supreme Court justices Roberts and Alito. Perhaps I should amend my opinion to include the impeachment of any Republican-appointed federal judge since the Nixon administration.
Indeed, Richard Nixon, in whatever hell he inhabits, must today be slapping himself upside the head and exclaiming "why didn't I think of that?"
-- Joseph Heller, Catch-22
With a bit of circular logic that would have even Joseph Heller cringing, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals said yesterday, in a two to one decision, that plaintiffs who had challenged the Bush administration's domestic spying program did not have legal standing to do so because they could not prove the program had harmed them.
In other words, the group couldn't prove a secret program had affected them because, well, it's secret. As long as the Bush cabal maintains in secret any program it wants to operate, there's nothing anybody can do about it.
Needless to say, the two judges who ruled in favor of the administration, Alice M. Batcheider and Julia Smith Gibbons, were appointed by Republicans. Several days ago I called for the impeachment of Supreme Court justices Roberts and Alito. Perhaps I should amend my opinion to include the impeachment of any Republican-appointed federal judge since the Nixon administration.
Indeed, Richard Nixon, in whatever hell he inhabits, must today be slapping himself upside the head and exclaiming "why didn't I think of that?"
Thursday, July 5, 2007
More Random Thoughts On the Day's News
Spent the night of July 4th at the in laws. This morning, when I woke up, they informed me another celebrity had been busted for speeding and drugs, this time in Southern Orange County. My first impulse was to think: Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan or Nicolle Richey, but then that unholy triumvirate usually does its damage in L.A. County.
When told it was Al Gore's son, clocked at 100 miles per hour in his Toyota Prius, with marijuana and illegal prescription drugs in the car, my first response was: damn! I didn't know a Prius would go that fast! Seriously, anyone driving that fast at that time in the morning with illegal drugs in his car can't be too bright. Let's just say Al Gore's apple tree appears to be planted on a very, very steep incline.
The latest CBS poll puts George Bush's approval rating at 27%. At this point, Mr. Bush is plumbing truly Nixonian levels. Moreover, and pollsters differ on this, but most say that between 10% and 20% of poll respondents will always say "yes" to the approval question because, well, he is the president and we should always support him (think Britney Spears). This means that, at best, only 17% of the people in this country who possess a brain still support this guy.
My informal research indicates the 17% is comprised entirely of: A) managers and executives of the fifty largest multi-national corporations in the country, including Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Banking and Walmart; and B) extremely rich people who own significant shares in the fifty largest multi-national corporations in the country, including Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Banking and Walmart. For everyone else Bush has pretty much been a disaster.
Lost in the celebration of removing the bald eagle from the endangered species list is this: according to the L.A. Times, the Bush administration has added just 58 species to the endangered species list, and 54 of them were in response to litigation by various environmental groups. By contrast, Bush's father, in just four years, added 231 species to the list. And there is no truth to the rumor the Bush administration favors adding "fiscal conservatives" to the endangered species list because, in the words of a Bush spokesman, "it's too late, they're already extinct."
When told it was Al Gore's son, clocked at 100 miles per hour in his Toyota Prius, with marijuana and illegal prescription drugs in the car, my first response was: damn! I didn't know a Prius would go that fast! Seriously, anyone driving that fast at that time in the morning with illegal drugs in his car can't be too bright. Let's just say Al Gore's apple tree appears to be planted on a very, very steep incline.
The latest CBS poll puts George Bush's approval rating at 27%. At this point, Mr. Bush is plumbing truly Nixonian levels. Moreover, and pollsters differ on this, but most say that between 10% and 20% of poll respondents will always say "yes" to the approval question because, well, he is the president and we should always support him (think Britney Spears). This means that, at best, only 17% of the people in this country who possess a brain still support this guy.
My informal research indicates the 17% is comprised entirely of: A) managers and executives of the fifty largest multi-national corporations in the country, including Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Banking and Walmart; and B) extremely rich people who own significant shares in the fifty largest multi-national corporations in the country, including Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Banking and Walmart. For everyone else Bush has pretty much been a disaster.
Lost in the celebration of removing the bald eagle from the endangered species list is this: according to the L.A. Times, the Bush administration has added just 58 species to the endangered species list, and 54 of them were in response to litigation by various environmental groups. By contrast, Bush's father, in just four years, added 231 species to the list. And there is no truth to the rumor the Bush administration favors adding "fiscal conservatives" to the endangered species list because, in the words of a Bush spokesman, "it's too late, they're already extinct."
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Praying For Al Gore, or Where Do We Go From Here?
With the commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence, there is much angst on the liberal blogosphere and liberal message boards about why the Democrats need to impeach President Bush. I want to go on record as suggesting that yes, I believe Bush has committed high crimes and misdemeanors. Still, I would suggest that to impeach would be both futile and a waste of time. There is simply no way we can get the 66 votes in the Senate to convict and remove. Independent voters would see it as political grandstanding with no hope of succeeding, hurting Democratic candidates in 2008. So what should be do? O.K., here's my suggestion on how we should proceed from here.
First, we need to understand that sometime next spring Bush will declare victory and bring our boys and girls home, hoping to take away our strongest issue. There is no way the Republicans will allow Iraq to dominate the 2008 elections. Democrats need to start focusing now on other issues, particularly the issues that most citizens really care about.
So we need to pass bill after bill on real issues: health care, energy independence, repeal NAFTA, repeal tax breaks for big oil, repeal Bush's tax breaks for the rich, repeal the bankruptcy bill, repeal the Medicaid scam, make illegal the use of electronic voting machines. Sure, he'll veto every one, and we don't yet have the votes to override, but it will put both the Democrats and the Republicans on record. It will give our candidates in 2008 something to run for -- we can't just be against Republicans, we need to be for a better America.
We also need to investigate, investigate, investigate. Continue to investigate the prosecutor firings. Continue to investigate the Plame scandal. Continue to investigate war profiteering and privatization. Continue to investigate the administration's handling of Katrina. Continue to hammer on the Libby commutation. Continue to investigate illegal wiretapping. Expose the Bush cabal for what it really is: an affront not only to average Americans but to the Constitution as well. Then, in 2008, any Republican who continued to support this bunch can be roasted over the fire-pit of public revulsion.
We have to win the presidency in 2008, people. If we don't we may be doomed as a free nation. I can't stress enough how important this next election will be. If we lose, the Supreme Court will be lost for at least a generation. An election process already rigged to elect Republicans will be so ingrained in the system we won't be able to dig out. Corporations will be further enriched at the expense of an ever shrinking middle class. We have to focus on this election, because it may be our last chance to save the nation. Concentrating on a futile effort to impeach only takes our eyes off the ball.
The reason Republicans have been so successful the past two decades is because all they care about is winning. We have to have a strategy to win first -- then we can go about the business of actually governing the country out of this mess the Republicans have made.
And that is why I am beseeching Al Gore to throw his hat in the ring. As sad as it is to write today, in the year 2007, both racism and sexism are alive and well in America. Quite simply, I don't believe either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton are electable. Sure, the polls and focus groups suggest we, as a nation, are ready for a black man or a woman to be president. And I would like to believe the people responding to these polls are not lying; I just think, in their heart of hearts, many of these people, in the privacy of the voting booth, won't be able to pull the lever for a black man or a white woman.
That is why I think Al Gore must be our nominee. Failing that, we must support John Edwards, who I believe is the only other candidate running on the Democratic side who is electable. Because winning is of such paramount importance this time around, in 2008 ideology must wait.
First, we need to understand that sometime next spring Bush will declare victory and bring our boys and girls home, hoping to take away our strongest issue. There is no way the Republicans will allow Iraq to dominate the 2008 elections. Democrats need to start focusing now on other issues, particularly the issues that most citizens really care about.
So we need to pass bill after bill on real issues: health care, energy independence, repeal NAFTA, repeal tax breaks for big oil, repeal Bush's tax breaks for the rich, repeal the bankruptcy bill, repeal the Medicaid scam, make illegal the use of electronic voting machines. Sure, he'll veto every one, and we don't yet have the votes to override, but it will put both the Democrats and the Republicans on record. It will give our candidates in 2008 something to run for -- we can't just be against Republicans, we need to be for a better America.
We also need to investigate, investigate, investigate. Continue to investigate the prosecutor firings. Continue to investigate the Plame scandal. Continue to investigate war profiteering and privatization. Continue to investigate the administration's handling of Katrina. Continue to hammer on the Libby commutation. Continue to investigate illegal wiretapping. Expose the Bush cabal for what it really is: an affront not only to average Americans but to the Constitution as well. Then, in 2008, any Republican who continued to support this bunch can be roasted over the fire-pit of public revulsion.
We have to win the presidency in 2008, people. If we don't we may be doomed as a free nation. I can't stress enough how important this next election will be. If we lose, the Supreme Court will be lost for at least a generation. An election process already rigged to elect Republicans will be so ingrained in the system we won't be able to dig out. Corporations will be further enriched at the expense of an ever shrinking middle class. We have to focus on this election, because it may be our last chance to save the nation. Concentrating on a futile effort to impeach only takes our eyes off the ball.
The reason Republicans have been so successful the past two decades is because all they care about is winning. We have to have a strategy to win first -- then we can go about the business of actually governing the country out of this mess the Republicans have made.
And that is why I am beseeching Al Gore to throw his hat in the ring. As sad as it is to write today, in the year 2007, both racism and sexism are alive and well in America. Quite simply, I don't believe either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton are electable. Sure, the polls and focus groups suggest we, as a nation, are ready for a black man or a woman to be president. And I would like to believe the people responding to these polls are not lying; I just think, in their heart of hearts, many of these people, in the privacy of the voting booth, won't be able to pull the lever for a black man or a white woman.
That is why I think Al Gore must be our nominee. Failing that, we must support John Edwards, who I believe is the only other candidate running on the Democratic side who is electable. Because winning is of such paramount importance this time around, in 2008 ideology must wait.
Monday, July 2, 2007
Corrupt To the Core
I just had the pleasure of hearing an interview with Ambassador Joe Wilson on the local radio station, KTLK AM1150, on this day President Bush commuted the sentence of one Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Wilson said, more than once, that he believes the Bush administration is "corrupt to the core." Today's decision is indeed more proof of that, if we needed it.
The president and his minions obviously are not interested in the American people finding out the ultimate truth in this matter, because the only leverage to force Libby to talk was jail time. Even more obvious is the president pointedly didn't want Libby singing, fearful of what might come to light. Now Libby can remain quiet, like the good mobster he is, and make millions on the speaking and book circuits.
The president also plainly doesn't care if the American people approve of this commutation; he's a lame duck and he knows it, and doesn't care if his approval ratings plummet into the teens. He knows there aren't the votes to convict in the Senate, regardless of what comes to light in the coming months, and that he's destined to serve out his term.
Anybody who's paying attention knows this bunch is the most corrupt and vile in our nation's history. I suspect even most Republicans know it, but are still more interested in pure power than in what would be best for the country. These are sad times indeed.
The president and his minions obviously are not interested in the American people finding out the ultimate truth in this matter, because the only leverage to force Libby to talk was jail time. Even more obvious is the president pointedly didn't want Libby singing, fearful of what might come to light. Now Libby can remain quiet, like the good mobster he is, and make millions on the speaking and book circuits.
The president also plainly doesn't care if the American people approve of this commutation; he's a lame duck and he knows it, and doesn't care if his approval ratings plummet into the teens. He knows there aren't the votes to convict in the Senate, regardless of what comes to light in the coming months, and that he's destined to serve out his term.
Anybody who's paying attention knows this bunch is the most corrupt and vile in our nation's history. I suspect even most Republicans know it, but are still more interested in pure power than in what would be best for the country. These are sad times indeed.
More Random Thoughts On the Day's News
The London "bomb scare" is looking more and more like amateur hour. These were not car bombs, but more like giant Molotov cocktails. This isn't Hollywood people; cars do not explode, even if filled with barrels of gasoline with nails in them.
Yet the blowhards on the right are on the T.V., breathlessly telling us there could have been "significant loss of life, blah blah blah." At this point I think most Americans realize they're just trying to scare us.
Giuliani was on the T.V. last week telling us 9/11 was Clinton's fault (isn't everything?) and that liberals are weak on terrorism because they want to treat it like a police action instead of a "war." Note to Republicans: this doesn't work anymore. Find something new to lie about.
Now that Lewis "Scooter" Libby has exhausted his appeals, expect the Republican noise machine to go into overdrive as Limbaugh et al decry that Libby is going to prison for "a minor offense for which no underlying crime was found." Funny, they didn't think Bill Clinton's perjury and obstruction were so minor.
Of course, look at the "underlying crime" in each case. Clinton was lying to cover up the fact he was getting a hummer from someone not his wife. Libby was lying to cover up the outing of a CIA operative who worked on nuclear nonproliferation. Yeah, now I think I see the difference.
Mark my words: by next spring Bush will declare victory and bring our boys and girls home, depriving the Democratic nominee of his or her best issue. The Dems better get busy talking about energy independence, health care and the environment or they'll be seen as out of touch.
Is it just me, or is Paris Hilton on the cover of every magazine in existence? If she shows up on the cover of The Nation I'm going to run screaming into the night -- right after I cancel my subscription.
Yet the blowhards on the right are on the T.V., breathlessly telling us there could have been "significant loss of life, blah blah blah." At this point I think most Americans realize they're just trying to scare us.
Giuliani was on the T.V. last week telling us 9/11 was Clinton's fault (isn't everything?) and that liberals are weak on terrorism because they want to treat it like a police action instead of a "war." Note to Republicans: this doesn't work anymore. Find something new to lie about.
Now that Lewis "Scooter" Libby has exhausted his appeals, expect the Republican noise machine to go into overdrive as Limbaugh et al decry that Libby is going to prison for "a minor offense for which no underlying crime was found." Funny, they didn't think Bill Clinton's perjury and obstruction were so minor.
Of course, look at the "underlying crime" in each case. Clinton was lying to cover up the fact he was getting a hummer from someone not his wife. Libby was lying to cover up the outing of a CIA operative who worked on nuclear nonproliferation. Yeah, now I think I see the difference.
Mark my words: by next spring Bush will declare victory and bring our boys and girls home, depriving the Democratic nominee of his or her best issue. The Dems better get busy talking about energy independence, health care and the environment or they'll be seen as out of touch.
Is it just me, or is Paris Hilton on the cover of every magazine in existence? If she shows up on the cover of The Nation I'm going to run screaming into the night -- right after I cancel my subscription.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
