A night on the town
T says "Woo-hoo"
A bite to eat
Maybe the Bijou
Excuse the rhyme
I'll give it a rest
Have a good time
I wish you the best.
Friday, April 14, 2006
Good Friday and Passover Slackers
I know this is an extreme example of Pot/Kettle/Black but there is a dearth of commentary out there today.
Thursday, April 13, 2006
Re: Liberal vs. Conservative
It was Reagan who made "liberal" a dirty word. When he won, with the support of the Reagan Dems (Labor being a huge part of that), the liberals became "progressives."
My gripe is that the conservatives are really the liberals in the classic sense of the word.
I know I'm a wordie; I hate that words have become so, so malleable. This drives me nuts.
Now I have to go watch Ann on TV.
My gripe is that the conservatives are really the liberals in the classic sense of the word.
I know I'm a wordie; I hate that words have become so, so malleable. This drives me nuts.
Now I have to go watch Ann on TV.
Two-fer
Lee R. Raymond retired last year after many years as chairman of Exxon. Like all ex-Exxon employees, he got a generous compensation package. In his case, $398 million.
Two-fer? Big fat "begs the question" in paragraph four.
Two-fer? Big fat "begs the question" in paragraph four.
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
The "1984" analogies
I knew it was only a matter of time before all the "1984", "newspeak", "Big Brother", etc. rhetoric would start making appearences. This from Thom Hartmann (he waits until the 2nd paragraph):
"In the novel 1984 by George Orwell, the way a seemingly democratic president kept his nation in a continual state of repression was by keeping the nation in a constant state of war. Cynics suggest the lesson wasn’t lost on Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon, who both, they say, extended the Vietnam war so it coincidentally ran over election cycles, knowing that a wartime President’s party is more likely to be reelected and has more power than a President in peacetime..."
Now, what I love about this article isn't just the whole GWB = 1984 anlaogy or the mention of...drum roll please.....the "military-industrial complex". No, the joy for me is the introduction of a whole new CONSPIRACY THEORY. One that I haven't heard before. And here is the jist of it:
"Four years later, there can be no doubt that Bush/Cheney/Rove and the Republican cabal lied us into invading Iraq. Ginning it up just before the 2002 midterm elections was largely done so Republicans could take back the Senate in 2002 after losing it because of Jim Jeffords' defection. The 2003 attack was timed, we now can see, so Bush would improve his chances to win the White House in the election of 2004.
So, too, it appears that Bush is now ginning up a new war just in time for the 2006 midterm elections, and Karl Rove probably has a 2007 continuing war in mind to help swing the 2008 elections (or postpone them)."
Wow, this is just TOO good.
The linked article makes a reference to the ghost-writer for the Bush autobiography "A Charge to Keep", Mickey Herskowitz and some comments GWB made to him in interviews. For a more detailed look at some very interesting insights of our Dear Leader, read this from Russ Baker. Some juicy tidbits:
* In 2003, Bush's father indicated to him that he disagreed with his son's invasion of Iraq.
* Bush admitted that he failed to fulfill his Vietnam-era domestic National Guard service obligation, but claimed that he had been "excused."
* Bush revealed that after he left his Texas National Guard unit in 1972 under murky circumstances, he never piloted a plane again. That casts doubt on the carefully-choreographed moment of Bush emerging in pilot's garb from a jet on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln in 2003 to celebrate "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq. The image, instantly telegraphed around the globe, and subsequent hazy White House statements about his capacity in the cockpit, created the impression that a heroic Bush had played a role in landing the craft.
* Bush described his own business ventures as "floundering" before campaign officials insisted on recasting them in a positive light.
Just more fodder for us on the left. But I'm sure that even if the MSM try to run with this, the neocon spin masters will be out in force.
"In the novel 1984 by George Orwell, the way a seemingly democratic president kept his nation in a continual state of repression was by keeping the nation in a constant state of war. Cynics suggest the lesson wasn’t lost on Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon, who both, they say, extended the Vietnam war so it coincidentally ran over election cycles, knowing that a wartime President’s party is more likely to be reelected and has more power than a President in peacetime..."
Now, what I love about this article isn't just the whole GWB = 1984 anlaogy or the mention of...drum roll please.....the "military-industrial complex". No, the joy for me is the introduction of a whole new CONSPIRACY THEORY. One that I haven't heard before. And here is the jist of it:
"Four years later, there can be no doubt that Bush/Cheney/Rove and the Republican cabal lied us into invading Iraq. Ginning it up just before the 2002 midterm elections was largely done so Republicans could take back the Senate in 2002 after losing it because of Jim Jeffords' defection. The 2003 attack was timed, we now can see, so Bush would improve his chances to win the White House in the election of 2004.
So, too, it appears that Bush is now ginning up a new war just in time for the 2006 midterm elections, and Karl Rove probably has a 2007 continuing war in mind to help swing the 2008 elections (or postpone them)."
Wow, this is just TOO good.
The linked article makes a reference to the ghost-writer for the Bush autobiography "A Charge to Keep", Mickey Herskowitz and some comments GWB made to him in interviews. For a more detailed look at some very interesting insights of our Dear Leader, read this from Russ Baker. Some juicy tidbits:
* In 2003, Bush's father indicated to him that he disagreed with his son's invasion of Iraq.
* Bush admitted that he failed to fulfill his Vietnam-era domestic National Guard service obligation, but claimed that he had been "excused."
* Bush revealed that after he left his Texas National Guard unit in 1972 under murky circumstances, he never piloted a plane again. That casts doubt on the carefully-choreographed moment of Bush emerging in pilot's garb from a jet on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln in 2003 to celebrate "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq. The image, instantly telegraphed around the globe, and subsequent hazy White House statements about his capacity in the cockpit, created the impression that a heroic Bush had played a role in landing the craft.
* Bush described his own business ventures as "floundering" before campaign officials insisted on recasting them in a positive light.
Just more fodder for us on the left. But I'm sure that even if the MSM try to run with this, the neocon spin masters will be out in force.
Btw, LJ (useless Masters comment follows)
Congrats to your favorite golfer. I was rooting for the 46 y.o. Couples but Lefty played a splendid round Sunday.
Re: Loneliness and Yesterday's Economic News
Been trying to figure out how to respond to your Econ post. I honestly believe that economics is NOT difficult. The difficulty arises in all the convoluted ways it is addressed. I honestly think that some economists (and certainly some economics journalists) make it more difficult than need be to show off their smarts. Certainly my professors at UT did so. Some journalists simply may not have the wherewithal to address the issues simply.
I think my best approach will be to just address the issues raised rather than try to address them in the context of the DMN article. (I don't know who the author was and I generally love the DMN but that article was certainly all over the place without much in the way of explanations.)
It's really just about cause and effect. I need to figure out how to express it.
I think my best approach will be to just address the issues raised rather than try to address them in the context of the DMN article. (I don't know who the author was and I generally love the DMN but that article was certainly all over the place without much in the way of explanations.)
It's really just about cause and effect. I need to figure out how to express it.
More begging the question
From writers who ought to know better: Cal Thomas, Robert Scheer, and (this one hurts) Peggy Noonan.
Is loneliness just a word?
Do you sometimes get the feeling that you're all alone out there? Wondering where everyone went, where everyone is?
Sometimes I do.....
Sometimes I do.....
Liberal vs. Conservative
Since I am on the cutting edge, I was all over this several months ago. Here is another perspective from Democractic Underground. A small sample:
"Liberalism" Then and Now
Consider, for example, what the word-meisters of The Right have done to the word "liberal."Webster's Dictionary gives us this traditional definition of "liberal:"
"From the latin, liberalis - of or pertaining to a freeman. Favoring reform
or progress, as in religion, education, etc.; specifically, favoring political
reforms tending toward democracy and personal freedom for the individual.
Progressive."
However, the right-wing screech merchants of AM radio and cable TV have turned the word "liberal" into an epithet, like a piece of rotten fruit to be hurled at the candidate or political commentator willing to be called a "liberal."
Remember the 2004 GOP ads? "Brie-eating, chardonnay-drinking, latte-sipping, French-speaking, Volvo-driving, New York Times reading, elite liberals." The word connotes "tax and spend," "welfare cheats," bureaucratic interference in "free enterprise," and a weak military. To Ann Coulter, it means nothing less than "treason."
Thus it is no surprise that when pollsters ask the ordinary citizens to describe their political orientation, "conservative" comes out ahead, followed by "moderate," with "liberal" a poor third.And yet, when the same citizens are asked their opinions on Social Security, Medicare, environmental protection, public education, economic justice, racial tolerance, and the separation of church and state, by substantial majorities they endorse the traditional liberal agenda. In short, the American public remains liberal, even though it has been persuaded to despise and reject the word "liberal." And that should be regarded as good news by The Left, for it is the ideology and the program that matter. "Liberal" is merely a word...."
"Liberalism" Then and Now
Consider, for example, what the word-meisters of The Right have done to the word "liberal."Webster's Dictionary gives us this traditional definition of "liberal:"
"From the latin, liberalis - of or pertaining to a freeman. Favoring reform
or progress, as in religion, education, etc.; specifically, favoring political
reforms tending toward democracy and personal freedom for the individual.
Progressive."
However, the right-wing screech merchants of AM radio and cable TV have turned the word "liberal" into an epithet, like a piece of rotten fruit to be hurled at the candidate or political commentator willing to be called a "liberal."
Remember the 2004 GOP ads? "Brie-eating, chardonnay-drinking, latte-sipping, French-speaking, Volvo-driving, New York Times reading, elite liberals." The word connotes "tax and spend," "welfare cheats," bureaucratic interference in "free enterprise," and a weak military. To Ann Coulter, it means nothing less than "treason."
Thus it is no surprise that when pollsters ask the ordinary citizens to describe their political orientation, "conservative" comes out ahead, followed by "moderate," with "liberal" a poor third.And yet, when the same citizens are asked their opinions on Social Security, Medicare, environmental protection, public education, economic justice, racial tolerance, and the separation of church and state, by substantial majorities they endorse the traditional liberal agenda. In short, the American public remains liberal, even though it has been persuaded to despise and reject the word "liberal." And that should be regarded as good news by The Left, for it is the ideology and the program that matter. "Liberal" is merely a word...."
Saturday, April 08, 2006
Yesterdays economic news - good news or bad news?
I will admit, I don't understand economics. Especially when it concerns what is or isn't good for the average American. So an article in today's business section of the DMN has me even more confused. My comments are in red...
U.S. companies add 211,00 jobs (this sounds like good news)
Unemployment dips again, (more good news I think); strong report triggers worries on Wall Street (uh oh, that doesn't sound good - must be bad news)
"American employers added 211,00 workers in March, and the unemployment rate matched a four-year low, capping the best first quarter for hiring of any year since 2000 (this is obviously good news). The unemployment rate dipped to 4.7 percent, from 4.8 percent in February, the Labor Department reported Friday (confirmation of good news). 'Let's face it, 211,000 jobs at this stage of the employment cycle is pretty darn good,' said David Wyss, chief economist of Standard and Poor's (an expert agrees that this is good news). The strong employment data triggered a decline in the stock and bond markets (uh oh, I guess it was bad news) as investors fretted that businesses' growing appetite for workers might drive up wages (good news for workers) - and inflation (never good news) - and make it more likely the Federal Reserve will keep raising interest rates (ok, I KNOW that high interest rates are not good for anyone, correct?)."
After reading just this part of the article, I have no idea if the news was good or bad. Maybe good for workers (more jobs, growing business, higher wages) but bad for investors (growing business, higher wages, higher inflation). The bottom line appears to be that what is good for investors isn't good for average American. Or, stated another way, low unemployment and more jobs created is bad for Wall Street but good for average Americans. My head is spinning.....I don't know what is good or bad, what economic news I should be happy about or sad about.
Maybe I should just skip the business section from now on and concentrate on easier subjects, such as immigration.
U.S. companies add 211,00 jobs (this sounds like good news)
Unemployment dips again, (more good news I think); strong report triggers worries on Wall Street (uh oh, that doesn't sound good - must be bad news)
"American employers added 211,00 workers in March, and the unemployment rate matched a four-year low, capping the best first quarter for hiring of any year since 2000 (this is obviously good news). The unemployment rate dipped to 4.7 percent, from 4.8 percent in February, the Labor Department reported Friday (confirmation of good news). 'Let's face it, 211,000 jobs at this stage of the employment cycle is pretty darn good,' said David Wyss, chief economist of Standard and Poor's (an expert agrees that this is good news). The strong employment data triggered a decline in the stock and bond markets (uh oh, I guess it was bad news) as investors fretted that businesses' growing appetite for workers might drive up wages (good news for workers) - and inflation (never good news) - and make it more likely the Federal Reserve will keep raising interest rates (ok, I KNOW that high interest rates are not good for anyone, correct?)."
After reading just this part of the article, I have no idea if the news was good or bad. Maybe good for workers (more jobs, growing business, higher wages) but bad for investors (growing business, higher wages, higher inflation). The bottom line appears to be that what is good for investors isn't good for average American. Or, stated another way, low unemployment and more jobs created is bad for Wall Street but good for average Americans. My head is spinning.....I don't know what is good or bad, what economic news I should be happy about or sad about.
Maybe I should just skip the business section from now on and concentrate on easier subjects, such as immigration.
Friday, April 07, 2006
Last of the Argentina memory road pictures
Damn, I want to go back.
This is looking down the street that the first hotel we stayed at was on. It was in the Palermo Hollywood neighborhood. The name of the hotel was Hotel Bobo. Had a great continental breakfast (all homemade pastries).
One of the many glaciers at the Parque Nacional los Glaciares. The little white speck in the lower middle is one of the tour boats. The park is on the Argentina - Chile border. The mountains with snow-covered peaks are in Chile - the ones without are in Argentina..jpg)
Looking down the Avenida 9 de Julio, the largest street in the world. 11 lanes each way (there is a median on each side which divides the lanes after the 3rd lane). When the lights changed to cross the street, the furthest we ever made it was to the median on the other side. Lanes, however, don't mean much to drivers in Buenos Aires. We were amazed that there didn't seem to be many traffic accidents, though every time you came to an intersection, you just waited to be hit.
Amen corner
One of the features (I think it is new this year) at the Masters website is "amen corner live". You get to see every shot of just these 3 holes. It's awesome. I've been watching it today. Lots of carnage at #12. Phil (my favorite golfer) is coming up.
Re: Más recordando el pasado acerca de Argentina
The more I look at those pics, especially the Casa Rosada, the more I want to go.
Otoh, if I'd been Juan, I'm not sure how I'd have felt living in The Pink House.
Otoh, if I'd been Juan, I'm not sure how I'd have felt living in The Pink House.
Re: Bush interaction [yesterday] at a Townhall Meeting
For those of you who can't see LJ's video, here is some of the dialogue between the president and Mr. Taylor, courtesy of the Seattle Times:
"While I listen to you talk about freedom, I see you assert your right to tap my telephone, to arrest me and hold me without charges, to try to preclude me from breathing clean air and drinking clean water," real-estate broker Harry Taylor told Bush at a town-hall meeting.
"I have never felt more ashamed of nor more frightened by my leadership in Washington."
"I'm not your favorite guy," the president said. "What's your question?"
Taylor didn't have one, but he wasn't finished.
"I feel like, despite your rhetoric, that compassion and common sense have been left far behind during your administration," he told Bush. "And I would hope, from time to time, that you have the humility and the grace to be ashamed of yourself [emph. mine]."
For all their differences, Bush and Taylor agreed on at least one thing.
"I really appreciate the courtesy of allowing me to speak what I'm saying to you right now," Taylor said near the conclusion of his reprimand. "That is part of what this country's about."
"It is," Bush agreed.
"While I listen to you talk about freedom, I see you assert your right to tap my telephone, to arrest me and hold me without charges, to try to preclude me from breathing clean air and drinking clean water," real-estate broker Harry Taylor told Bush at a town-hall meeting.
"I have never felt more ashamed of nor more frightened by my leadership in Washington."
"I'm not your favorite guy," the president said. "What's your question?"
Taylor didn't have one, but he wasn't finished.
"I feel like, despite your rhetoric, that compassion and common sense have been left far behind during your administration," he told Bush. "And I would hope, from time to time, that you have the humility and the grace to be ashamed of yourself [emph. mine]."
For all their differences, Bush and Taylor agreed on at least one thing.
"I really appreciate the courtesy of allowing me to speak what I'm saying to you right now," Taylor said near the conclusion of his reprimand. "That is part of what this country's about."
"It is," Bush agreed.
That exchange just astounds me. Now, I've never "hated" a president, especially a sitting president so maybe that is why I don't get this. If LJ or Michael were elected president and sought my advice over an issue I thought either had botched badly, I'd tell him so behind closed doors. To tell him he should be ashamed, though, and in public, that I could not do.
As Hugh Hewitt pointed out yesterday in his coversation with James Lileks (you can read it at Radioblogger), the lovely irony here is that he is so frightened by his leadership that he can say this face to face to der Fuhrer himself without fear:
HH: But there's a lot to say about that exchange. I'm just mulling it over, and isn't it wonderful that we live in a country where someone can get up and slag the President, and then pronounce himself fearful of the times in which we live?
JL: Well, you don't know whether or not he was taken out in the parking lot.
HH: We don't. He might never have gotten home.
JL: No, he's gone to that secret camp where Susan Sarandon's been for the last 18 months.
Finally, I would not take James' bet:
JL: ...I will bet you $1,000 dollars that that man has at least 16 bumper stickers on the back of his car.
This can't possibly be true, can it?
From Tony Snow in today's JWR:
Since the immigration "reforms" of 1986, the number of jobs in the United States has risen a net total of 44 million. The standard of living in the nation has grown to the point that the average welfare recipient has more creature comforts (homes, computers, televisions, cars, air conditioners, etc.) than the average citizen of France.
I wish he'd cited his source. I do think his overall point, if not all his arguments, is correct. Seems like every 20 years or so this blows up, we realize there is not much we can do, and then it goes away. The difference this time, of course, is 9/11.
Since the immigration "reforms" of 1986, the number of jobs in the United States has risen a net total of 44 million. The standard of living in the nation has grown to the point that the average welfare recipient has more creature comforts (homes, computers, televisions, cars, air conditioners, etc.) than the average citizen of France.
I wish he'd cited his source. I do think his overall point, if not all his arguments, is correct. Seems like every 20 years or so this blows up, we realize there is not much we can do, and then it goes away. The difference this time, of course, is 9/11.
Thursday, April 06, 2006
Re: Bush interaction today at a Townhall Meeting
Courtesy of CNN, HERE is the video that Scooter references.
Bush interaction today at a Townhall Meeting
Just heard an amazing exchange between the president and an audience member in which the audience member lambasted (admittedly very politely seemingly sincerely) the administration in general and the president in particular. At one point he said something to the effect of never being more ashamed and more frightened by an administration.
Bush took it all in stride and with his usual good wit and grace. Jovial at first and then turning very serious in refusing to apologize for the phone tapping procedures and offering the best, most succinct, justification of the procedures I've heard to date.
I'll try to poke around and find the sound somewhere and post a link. I'm sure it can't be too hard to find...but for now I'm off to my favorite local music venue: The Cactus Cafe.
Bush took it all in stride and with his usual good wit and grace. Jovial at first and then turning very serious in refusing to apologize for the phone tapping procedures and offering the best, most succinct, justification of the procedures I've heard to date.
I'll try to poke around and find the sound somewhere and post a link. I'm sure it can't be too hard to find...but for now I'm off to my favorite local music venue: The Cactus Cafe.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
