Newt breaks it down. He doesn’t sound angry at Nancy Pelosi as much as he is flabbergasted that people still don’t take the terrorist threat against the U.S. seriously. However, he quite clearly outlines the pickle she’s got herself into: Do I lie to the American people about what I knew and when I knew it or do I admit that I’m stupid and never bothered to ask questions, raside objections and exercise the oversight that Congress has by law over the CIA?
POTEU to POTUS: You’re on the road to hell
Published March 26, 2009 Handbasket , Politics Leave a CommentWhile President Obama is busy passing the buck on our current economic woes back to President Bush (who certainly deserves some of the blame), continuously complaining that he inherited this problem, current EU President Mirek Topolanek points out the obvious:
“The US Treasury secretary talks about permanent action and we, at our spring council, were quite alarmed at that . . . The US is repeating mistakes from the 1930s, such as wide-ranging stimuluses, protectionist tendencies and appeals, the Buy American campaign, and so on,” he told a European parliament session in Strasbourg. “All these steps, their combination and their permanency, are the road to hell.”
Topolanek has ruffled a few feathers, but at least he has the balls to say what others won’t:
Other leaders of EU member states, including Angela Merkel, Germany’s chancellor, disagree with US calls for big fiscal stimuli to battle the recession. But they have couched their opposition in more diplomatic language than Mr Topolanek’s.
Unfortunately for him, he won’t have too much longer to voice these concerns as he has lost a no confidence vote. He’ll be resigning his presidency and going back to just being Prime Minister of the Czech Republic. Bye bye anti-missile shield.
Change, As Promised
Published March 25, 2009 Overseas Contingency Operation , Politics , War On Terror 1 Comment“Global War On Terror” now to be known as “Overseas Contingency Operation.”
Well, that feels better now, doesn’t it?
Barney Frank Chastises Code Pink “Protesters”
Published March 24, 2009 Handbasket , Politics , Protest 2 CommentsFor the past several years, it’s been an accepted practice of the left to disrupt Republican speeches by shouting at the speaker, holding up signs to distract TV cameras, wearing t-shirts bearing obnoxious statements. For Republicans, it seems to have become a part of doing business. For Democrats, it’s a valiant display of 1st amendment rights.
But now that his little witch hunt is the focus of Code Pink “protests”, Barney Frank won’t stand for it. Frank to Code Pink: “I do not know how you think you advance any cause to which you might be attached by this kind of silliness.” It’s about time.
Scott Ott of Scrappleface @ DCExaminer.com: Barney Frank bill would revoke bailouts, reward competence.
“When I said AIG bonuses reward incompetence, it suddenly occurred to me that these bailouts do the same thing,” said Rep. Frank. “Instead of giving hundreds of billions to the likes of AIG and to people who bought too much house, we’re going to invest in companies and individuals who have managed their money well. From now on, we are going to reward competence.”
Sure, it’s poor taste to give a collection of DVDs to the head of a visiting foreign state as a diplomatic gift. But it’s emblematic of how narrowminded we are and inconsiderate Obama’s administration is when no one bothers to think about getting DVDs for the correct region.
Especially when that leader gives you a proper and meaningful gift in return:
Brown, on the other hand, presented a rather more thoughtful gift to the American President in the form of a penholder carved from the timbers of an anti-slavery ship. The sister ship, in fact, of the one that was broken up and turned into the desk in the Oval Office.
Embarrassing.
Senator Frank demands to know exactly how many capitalists there are on Wall Street and what are their names? Let the witch hunt begin!
Same numbers + different perspective = different emotional response.
Originally appearing October 12, 2002, “The Numbers Game” continues to be played 6 years later. Congress trips over themselves adding $150Billion in pork to the $700Billion TARP bailout bill in order to make the staggering figure easier for taxpayers to stomach (still trying to figure out that logic.) And then they posture in front of cameras pretending to protect the taxpayers hard earned/easily confiscated dollars from being squandered on $34Billion of aid to automakers. But none of that did any good and we’re now on the verge of blowing ANOTHER $850Billion (is our collective memory that short?) on pork and paybacks. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that only 25% of the money will even be spent in 2009 – what kind of immediate stimulus is that?? If this is really the catastrophic crisis that our dear leaders say it is, shouldn’t they be putting together a stimulus package 100% of which will be spent this year? I’m beginning to think we’re as stupid as our leaders think we are.
…..
It’s funny how costs are compared. More often than not, the complaints we hear about the cost of one expenditure or another are not so much about “how much” as they are about “what for”. We gladly accept any amount spent on entitlements or programs that fall within our ideology, but balk at the thought of spending a fraction of the same amount on anything we have been indoctrinated to disapprove of.
In the days following the September 11th attacks, Congress acted swiftly in passing a bill providing for $190 Billion in aid. For farmers. The $190 Billion farm subsidy bill passed almost unnoticed since everyone’s attention was focused elsewhere. Even if it had been a week like any other and the media allowed proper attention to such a large expenditure, my guess is no one would have batted an eyelash. American farmers have had it rough since the Great Depression and we owe it to them to help keep their family businesses afloat.
The airlines ask for $15-20 Billion in aid to keep their businesses aloft after being grounded for 6 days by the federal government and the public seethes with outrage. Why? Because airlines are big, evil companies who will surely get however much money they desire because all corporations (all 5 million+) have politicians in their back pockets. Both farms and airlines are businesses in our capitalist society where the rule is supply and demand. The complaint against airlines is if they can’t keep their customers and balance their books properly, they should get out of the business and let other airlines that continue to make a profit supply the demand. The same argument should hold true for the farms.
More recently, one of the loudest arguments made by today’s “anti-war protesters” is that a war in Iraq will be too expensive, costing $9 Billion a month. And that’s just too much money, especially for that part time evil genius, part time village idiot President Bush to spend on a war for oil that’s only going to benefit his family. (By the way, if anyone can explain exactly how that works, please let me know.) However, there were no protests at all this month when the entire western seaboard was closed to cargo ships for 10 days.
The Pacific Maritime Association (PMA) locked out the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) after the Longshoremen apparently staged a work slow down. Estimated cost to the American public for those 10 days: $19 Billion. And the longshoremen still didn’t want to go back to work once President Bush invoked the Taft-Hartley act. If the longshoremen had their way and spent an indefinite amount of time standing idle on the docks, the cost to the American public would have been $50-60 Billion a month.
That’s a considerable amount more than the $9 Billion a month a war in Iraq might cost. But why is one offensive and another not? Because one is supposedly about the rich getting richer by greedily grabbing up a field of black gold from a beloved and trustworthy leader of a peaceful nation and the other is about the blue collar workers of this country just trying to get a fair shake.
But let’s take a closer look. According to both the PMA and the ILWU, the blue collar workers who are just trying to get a fair shake make an average of $106,000-$114,000 a year, not including overtime. A respectable income for a blue collar worker. In fact, that’s a very respectable income considering it puts them in the top 10% tax bracket ($74,981 and above according to Investors Business Daily). Once they agree to their new contract, the average longshoreman’s salary will increase to $124,000-$137,000 a year, not including overtime. This will put them in the top 5% tax bracket ($120,846 and above according to AP). Some would say that anyone in the top 5% tax bracket should be considered “rich”. Others apparently consider those in the top 5% tax bracket “blue collar”. And while they are still a contract or two away from being in the scorned top 1% ($293,415 and above according to AP — shame on all of you!), I’m surprised more people aren’t wondering what they’re bitching about.
In the end, it’s really not about the numbers. It’s about the perspective. A lawyer who earns $120,000 a year should be thrown to the sharks for being such a fat cat, stepping on the poor and downtrodden sleeping in the gutter as they climb into their limousine. As for the longshoremen who make $120,000 a year, if Bruce Springsteen would only write a ballad about them, that would be a start.
A July 4, 2003 post about the run up to the California recall of Gray Davis and special election of The Gubernator. There’s talk of Dianne Feinstein running for Governor after Arnold’s term is up.
….
Senator Dianne Feinstein’s name is one of a few being bandied about as a replacement for California Gov. Gray Davis in the upcoming recall. Other names include former Los Angeles mayor Richard Riordan and actor cum self-parody Arnold Schwarzennegger.
Feinstein tops the list of replacements according to a recent LA Times poll. She has served the state of California for many years both as mayor of San Francisco and as a long time US Senator.
Yes, she certainly has experience, but should we judge her on that alone? Or should we not factor in additional criteria, the same additional criteria Feinstein herself uses when deciding whether a federal appeals court nominee is worthy of the appointment?
Senator Feinstein took an active role in the filibuster of Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen’s nomination to the federal appeals bench. According to an article in the LA Weekly by Lou Dubose, Feinstein was apprehensive about blocking the nomination of a woman to the court. In this regard, Feinstein states on her website that she has never voted against a female nominee, which itself reeks of bias. But, she was convinced to do so upon learning of the case of Willie Searcy.
As Dubose writes in his article, Willie Searcy was the unfortunate victim of an auto accident which left him a ventilator-dependent quadriplegic. Searcy sued Ford over a faulty seat belt and was awarded $40 million in damages. The case was appealed to Owen’s bench and a retrial was ordered by a split decision. Tragically, after another trial and another appeal, Searcy died before recieving his due justice.
During the seven years of legal wrangling, Searcy’s family had pieced together a network of friends, family and night nurses to care for him in leu of the proper care he would have been afforded courtesy of the damages paid from Ford. On July 3, 2001, sometime between 4am when the night nurse left and 5am when his mother checked in on him, Searcy’s ventilator stopped working, leaving him to suffocate to death alone in his room.
And this is why they have filibustered Owen’s nomination. Feinstein, along with Senators Mary Landrieu of Lousiana, Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas and others blame Owen for Searcy’s death. Why? Because they feel the two years Searcy’s case spent in her court was two years too long.
If Senator Feinstein wants to judge Owen’s career by Willie Searcy, if it pleases the court, I submit California should judge Feinstein’s career by William Carns and Carole Smith.
These are the victims of Richard “The Nightstalker” Ramirez, attacked after Feinstein, then mayor of San Francisco, discussed the details of a dragnet designed to catch the serial rapist and killer in a press conference. Feinstein told the listening public, including Ramirez, about, among other information, the unique Avia sneakers the Nightstalker was known to wear, a crucial piece of evidence which Detectives Gil Carrillo and Frank Salerno had worked hard to keep secret in order to aid in capturing and positively identifying the killer. Ramirez promptly threw the sneakers into San Francisco Bay and took the necessary steps to avoid the dragnet.
After evading authorities in San Francisco, Ramirez returned to Los Angeles, crept into a bedroom and shot Carns three times in the head before raping and sodomizing Smith. Miraculously, Carns survived the shooting, though was left with permanent brain damage.
If Feinstein wants to use Searcy as a reason to block Owen’s ascent to a higher court, it would only be fair that we use Carns and Smith as a reason to block Feisntein’s own ascent to the Governorship.
