The single most important columnist in America, Paul Krugman in the New York Times, raises an important issue today--how the gusher of profits in corporate America is not having the promised effect, namely increasing the amount those companies spend on research, production capacity, and God-forbid, their employees. Instead, it appears a disproportionate amount of those profits is being used to 'buy back' a company's stock from current shareholders. What this does, among other things, is increase the value of executive stock options.
At the same time, another feature article last week pointed out that the beleaguered Japanese giant, Sony, continues to suffer a 'crisis of the week', but still has seen its stock grow at a healthy pace. Buried in the report was the acknowledgement that most of the people buying that stock are Americans.
These two issues are related in this way: they both indicate how the richest of Americans simply have more money than they know what to do with. The deck has been stacked so heavily in their favor that they really have run out of safe and sound outposts for their wealth, so they artificially prop up troubled concerns like Sony.
For the last five years and more, our economy has run on two very powerful cylinders. The first was housing, which had the advantage of not only creating jobs, but also creating something tangible--even if we have now reached the point where we've built more Florida condos than can ever be used.
The second cylinder is more cynical--it's simply the transfer and handling of money. It requires very few jobs (even though those who have those jobs tend to be excessively well rewarded), and this part of the engine produces nothing. When a stock or a company is bought or sold, nothing really makes our economy or our nation inherently better.
With the decline of the new housing market, faux wealth is now even more reliant on just shifting money around. And when an economy relies on creating something out of nothing, a bad ending draws nearer.
The rich get richer, and the rest of us will be left again paying the price.
diderot
Monday, April 30, 2007
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Unity 08
If its backers have their way, you're going to be hearing a lot more about this organization over the next year and a half. It's a new political party, one supported entirely by online participation and donations, and one which aims to split the difference between the radical polarization and bitterness effected by both parties. The net will elect its presidential candidate, and he or she must only agree to name a running mate from the other party. Harmony, unity and common sense from the middle.
Sounds good, doesn't it?
It's not. And here's why.
While net power is here to stay, the idea of currently 'splitting the difference' between radical wings of both parties is a false remedy. Look at it this way.
Think about two teams pulling on a rope in a tug of war. Consider them on a football field, with the center of the rope right on the 50 yard line, and extending to the 25 yard line on either side. Each party has its moderate members more toward the middle, and its 'radical fringe' on either end.
When George W. Bush and his band of incompetent crooks were wrongfully granted power, they started tugging with all their might. 'Bipartisanship?', some asked. They just laughed and pulled harder. Before long, the 'radical left' found itself still at the end of its rope (pun intended), but now standing almost at midfield. The midterm elections stopped the pulling for the time being, but the left hasn't retaken any ground. So while Unity 08 is sweet talking Americans into splitting the difference, the middle of the country can read the hash marks.
They see that the center now stands at about the conservative 25 yard line--that's how much ground they've gained at the expense of the middle class, the military and the U.S. Constitution.
The moderates of America don' t like where they're at. They overwhelmingly oppose Bush, his policies and his folly in Iraq. They realize there are seven years of surrendered turf to be reclaimed. And if Unity 08 wants to lure and satisfy them, they're going to have to help move the middle back to the true center of our nation--legally, economically and morally.
To paraphrase Yeats, the center will not hold.
diderot
Sounds good, doesn't it?
It's not. And here's why.
While net power is here to stay, the idea of currently 'splitting the difference' between radical wings of both parties is a false remedy. Look at it this way.
Think about two teams pulling on a rope in a tug of war. Consider them on a football field, with the center of the rope right on the 50 yard line, and extending to the 25 yard line on either side. Each party has its moderate members more toward the middle, and its 'radical fringe' on either end.
When George W. Bush and his band of incompetent crooks were wrongfully granted power, they started tugging with all their might. 'Bipartisanship?', some asked. They just laughed and pulled harder. Before long, the 'radical left' found itself still at the end of its rope (pun intended), but now standing almost at midfield. The midterm elections stopped the pulling for the time being, but the left hasn't retaken any ground. So while Unity 08 is sweet talking Americans into splitting the difference, the middle of the country can read the hash marks.
They see that the center now stands at about the conservative 25 yard line--that's how much ground they've gained at the expense of the middle class, the military and the U.S. Constitution.
The moderates of America don' t like where they're at. They overwhelmingly oppose Bush, his policies and his folly in Iraq. They realize there are seven years of surrendered turf to be reclaimed. And if Unity 08 wants to lure and satisfy them, they're going to have to help move the middle back to the true center of our nation--legally, economically and morally.
To paraphrase Yeats, the center will not hold.
diderot
Friday, April 20, 2007
Roundtable: Virginia Tech
An email thread from the past couple of days:
diderot:
My following of the coverage so far has been almost exclusively the Today Show, and as is their history, they always go for the potentially most emotional interviews possible. Nothing communicates the sorrow of the moment like people being sorrowful on TV (which doesn't hurt their ratings, either, but that's another story). Anyway, I've seen about 6-10 classmates interviewed either live or on tape the past couple of days--and none of them--not one--showed any tears or real emotion. And this isn't a criticism--they were all clearly somber and concerned and caring and sad...but they didn't show emotions the way I would expect young people in that situation to.
Is this just a coincidence? Did the 'together' ones just happen to show up on camera? Maybe. But it also seems like maybe we've created a new generation of young people that are so used to shock and violence and tragedy that this stuff (kind of) rolls off their backs?
hortense:
I agree with your assessment on the lack of emotion, and it IS because they have been de-sensitized. Great observation and something I've been saying for years. Even in car accidents their response is, well, that's really bad but life goes on. Ask my wife, a high school counsellor, she has seen over the years a complete change when a death occurs to a fellow student. We had that kid die in an accident earlier in the year, the same kids when asked do they need some time to talk, reflect, console? Nope, life goes on. I'm gonna scream. I thought I was the only one who noticed that, glad I wasn't. We have created a bunch of "this happens everyday" children. Oprah had three people on yesterday and they were all great. See if you can't watch that show. The one kid from Columbine, who lost his sister in that tragedy was more insightful than anybody else. He goes around the country trying to talk to HS kids about the very stuff that puts some of them in those "places" from where there is no escape. He and his father have a massive program that reaches 50 - 60 thousand kids a week. Now that's doing something. The one administrator she had on was very good also pointing out all the legal hoops you have to go through before any pro active measures can be taken. What part does the media play? Scary to have to leave it in their hands.
oketo:
I just talked to (daughter in college) and she said a couple of things that may or may not reinforce. First she said that nothing has been obvious to make her campus safer. You would think that there would at least be a show of added security for a few days. She also said that in her Lit class the teacher said that the class needed to talk about VT. She said that she and another boy are the kids that talk the most in the class. She said no one spoke. The teacher asked her what she thought since she must have something to say---chip of the old block--she said that she did not know what to say. She did not know where to begin. So, are they numb from shock and fear or are they numb from overexposure to violence? I don't know.
I watched MSNBC for about 3 hours last night...reporters that I like. But I was discouraged that they spent so much time on the killer and his mailed pictures and text. Did that exposure make him into a media star? Was it necessary to keep showing the as--ole with his two guns? I don't know where you draw the line. What I kept saying is that I wanted to see them talk about the kids and teachers that were killed. They had been lumped into the "name" 32 killed. It is my belief that if we want to sensitize the culture we need to tell their stories. Dwell on their lives and what we are losing with their deaths. Many of the kids were wonderful kids who had already done wonderful things and their future was ahead of them. I think we need to put a face and a story to the number 32. That makes Americans sensitive! Instead we put a face on the killer and his ramblings. So there will now be thousands of kids who will have the killer's picture taped up in their school lockers but I bet no one will ever remember any of the dead students. The teacher who blocked the door so his students could jump out the window and was then killed, his name should be the household word not Cho.
hortense:
Now, where does it go from here? Cannot agree with Oketo more about the coverage and focus on the killer. I don’t care anymore, tell me about the families and how they cope with this grief, tell me about the teacher, tell me about how these kids came to be in college. There is a story, in fact there are 32 stories. The media is so full of shit because they believe we focus on the person responsible. The only people who are interested in the killer are the same people who watch Jerry Springer and professional wrestling. In other words, uneducated individuals who have no interest in anyone but their own. Profiling, you bet, cause that’s what’s true.
oketo:
The talking heads were so predictably into that attack mode minutes after the killings were announced. Who are the "they" that everybody assumes is keeping watch over all of America? It usually falls on teachers, counselors, social workers--any counsellor can verify how hard it is to get parents to accept that their kid has issues, then try to find open beds in psych wards or hospital programs for young people and then try to get insurance companies to accept diagnosis and pay for hospitalization and then have a 3-5 day limit for hospitalization. It is almost impossible to get insurance companies to pay. Parents that do accept responsibility and have their kid hospitalized many times go broke trying to pay for all the things the insurance company will not. Cho was hospitalized while at VT, but I also heard that he was released after a day or two. Insurance??
diderot:
Could this guy have killed 32 people, even with a machete? No way. He was that lethal because he had guns. The media and politicians are so cowered by the NRA and the gun culture that they won't even bring up this subject anymore. In England, a smaller country but a pretty similar society, they ban handguns. I don't remember the government there suddenly turning England into a forced police state, as the gun nuts claim would happen here. Rifles and shotguns remain there for hunting, but no handguns are legal. The last full year on record, they recorded 163 deaths nationally from firearms (including suicides). A total of 12 policemen were wounded by firearms (including their own), none fatal. The same year, there were 993 gun deaths--JUST IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS! Overall, 30,000 Americans a year die from guns. That's like 10 different 9/11 attacks put together. Twelve times all the people we've lost to date in Iraq. Every year. And no one even talks about it anymore.
oketo:
Guns. Yeah. Where is the debate? I read in the Trib yesterday that Americans have 90 guns for every 100 people in the country. The most in the Western world. A typical number is 15, 18 etc. Some are higher, but the teens is a typical number. A gun story. After the polls closed on Tuesday a Repub-lick-an Poll watcher arrives. He is entitled to our unofficial results once we are done. Well it takes about an hour to finalize the precinct results so he is hanging out. Now remember there are two Dems and two Pub heads at each precinct. So this guy, and he looked pub, starts ranting on how the "stupid Democrats are trying to make an issue about automatic weapons due to VT". (Which had happened hours before. He was, as with most pubs, not concerned about the people affected but about the politics.) Well he then realizes there are two Dems in his forced audience and he backtracks that it is, "not all Dems". So I was not about to let this go and if I did not speak I would have had to hurt him. So I asked him if HE thought it was OK for "this guy" to be able to obtain two guns and then kill 32 people? Was that a good thing? These kids are just a trade off? He walked to a different corner of the gym. This is a side point but I get so tired of the arrogance of the right. They feel very free to vent at any moment, in any audience as if no one could possibly disagree with them unless that person is sooo stupid.
diderot:
My following of the coverage so far has been almost exclusively the Today Show, and as is their history, they always go for the potentially most emotional interviews possible. Nothing communicates the sorrow of the moment like people being sorrowful on TV (which doesn't hurt their ratings, either, but that's another story). Anyway, I've seen about 6-10 classmates interviewed either live or on tape the past couple of days--and none of them--not one--showed any tears or real emotion. And this isn't a criticism--they were all clearly somber and concerned and caring and sad...but they didn't show emotions the way I would expect young people in that situation to.
Is this just a coincidence? Did the 'together' ones just happen to show up on camera? Maybe. But it also seems like maybe we've created a new generation of young people that are so used to shock and violence and tragedy that this stuff (kind of) rolls off their backs?
hortense:
I agree with your assessment on the lack of emotion, and it IS because they have been de-sensitized. Great observation and something I've been saying for years. Even in car accidents their response is, well, that's really bad but life goes on. Ask my wife, a high school counsellor, she has seen over the years a complete change when a death occurs to a fellow student. We had that kid die in an accident earlier in the year, the same kids when asked do they need some time to talk, reflect, console? Nope, life goes on. I'm gonna scream. I thought I was the only one who noticed that, glad I wasn't. We have created a bunch of "this happens everyday" children. Oprah had three people on yesterday and they were all great. See if you can't watch that show. The one kid from Columbine, who lost his sister in that tragedy was more insightful than anybody else. He goes around the country trying to talk to HS kids about the very stuff that puts some of them in those "places" from where there is no escape. He and his father have a massive program that reaches 50 - 60 thousand kids a week. Now that's doing something. The one administrator she had on was very good also pointing out all the legal hoops you have to go through before any pro active measures can be taken. What part does the media play? Scary to have to leave it in their hands.
oketo:
I just talked to (daughter in college) and she said a couple of things that may or may not reinforce. First she said that nothing has been obvious to make her campus safer. You would think that there would at least be a show of added security for a few days. She also said that in her Lit class the teacher said that the class needed to talk about VT. She said that she and another boy are the kids that talk the most in the class. She said no one spoke. The teacher asked her what she thought since she must have something to say---chip of the old block--she said that she did not know what to say. She did not know where to begin. So, are they numb from shock and fear or are they numb from overexposure to violence? I don't know.
I watched MSNBC for about 3 hours last night...reporters that I like. But I was discouraged that they spent so much time on the killer and his mailed pictures and text. Did that exposure make him into a media star? Was it necessary to keep showing the as--ole with his two guns? I don't know where you draw the line. What I kept saying is that I wanted to see them talk about the kids and teachers that were killed. They had been lumped into the "name" 32 killed. It is my belief that if we want to sensitize the culture we need to tell their stories. Dwell on their lives and what we are losing with their deaths. Many of the kids were wonderful kids who had already done wonderful things and their future was ahead of them. I think we need to put a face and a story to the number 32. That makes Americans sensitive! Instead we put a face on the killer and his ramblings. So there will now be thousands of kids who will have the killer's picture taped up in their school lockers but I bet no one will ever remember any of the dead students. The teacher who blocked the door so his students could jump out the window and was then killed, his name should be the household word not Cho.
hortense:
Now, where does it go from here? Cannot agree with Oketo more about the coverage and focus on the killer. I don’t care anymore, tell me about the families and how they cope with this grief, tell me about the teacher, tell me about how these kids came to be in college. There is a story, in fact there are 32 stories. The media is so full of shit because they believe we focus on the person responsible. The only people who are interested in the killer are the same people who watch Jerry Springer and professional wrestling. In other words, uneducated individuals who have no interest in anyone but their own. Profiling, you bet, cause that’s what’s true.
oketo:
The talking heads were so predictably into that attack mode minutes after the killings were announced. Who are the "they" that everybody assumes is keeping watch over all of America? It usually falls on teachers, counselors, social workers--any counsellor can verify how hard it is to get parents to accept that their kid has issues, then try to find open beds in psych wards or hospital programs for young people and then try to get insurance companies to accept diagnosis and pay for hospitalization and then have a 3-5 day limit for hospitalization. It is almost impossible to get insurance companies to pay. Parents that do accept responsibility and have their kid hospitalized many times go broke trying to pay for all the things the insurance company will not. Cho was hospitalized while at VT, but I also heard that he was released after a day or two. Insurance??
diderot:
Could this guy have killed 32 people, even with a machete? No way. He was that lethal because he had guns. The media and politicians are so cowered by the NRA and the gun culture that they won't even bring up this subject anymore. In England, a smaller country but a pretty similar society, they ban handguns. I don't remember the government there suddenly turning England into a forced police state, as the gun nuts claim would happen here. Rifles and shotguns remain there for hunting, but no handguns are legal. The last full year on record, they recorded 163 deaths nationally from firearms (including suicides). A total of 12 policemen were wounded by firearms (including their own), none fatal. The same year, there were 993 gun deaths--JUST IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS! Overall, 30,000 Americans a year die from guns. That's like 10 different 9/11 attacks put together. Twelve times all the people we've lost to date in Iraq. Every year. And no one even talks about it anymore.
oketo:
Guns. Yeah. Where is the debate? I read in the Trib yesterday that Americans have 90 guns for every 100 people in the country. The most in the Western world. A typical number is 15, 18 etc. Some are higher, but the teens is a typical number. A gun story. After the polls closed on Tuesday a Repub-lick-an Poll watcher arrives. He is entitled to our unofficial results once we are done. Well it takes about an hour to finalize the precinct results so he is hanging out. Now remember there are two Dems and two Pub heads at each precinct. So this guy, and he looked pub, starts ranting on how the "stupid Democrats are trying to make an issue about automatic weapons due to VT". (Which had happened hours before. He was, as with most pubs, not concerned about the people affected but about the politics.) Well he then realizes there are two Dems in his forced audience and he backtracks that it is, "not all Dems". So I was not about to let this go and if I did not speak I would have had to hurt him. So I asked him if HE thought it was OK for "this guy" to be able to obtain two guns and then kill 32 people? Was that a good thing? These kids are just a trade off? He walked to a different corner of the gym. This is a side point but I get so tired of the arrogance of the right. They feel very free to vent at any moment, in any audience as if no one could possibly disagree with them unless that person is sooo stupid.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Sanctity of Life
Nice to see that George Bush could take time out from his busy schedule destroying America to comment positively on the Supreme Court's legal back flip (defying both existing law and lower court rulings) to uphold a ban on the charmingly titled 'partial birth abortion'. He called it a victory for the 'sanctity of life'.
This is the same man who has sent more than two thousand Americans...and somewhere between 30,000 and 100,000 Iraqis...to needless deaths because of his insane cowboy diplomacy. The same puppet-in-the-pocket of the NRA, whose reckless disregard for public safety results in the accidental gun deaths of another 30,000 Americans every year. The same dimwitted former governor who laughed while sending one of his record-setting number of inmates to the death chamber.
This is a man who knows as little about the sanctity of life as he does running the United States of America.
diderot
This is the same man who has sent more than two thousand Americans...and somewhere between 30,000 and 100,000 Iraqis...to needless deaths because of his insane cowboy diplomacy. The same puppet-in-the-pocket of the NRA, whose reckless disregard for public safety results in the accidental gun deaths of another 30,000 Americans every year. The same dimwitted former governor who laughed while sending one of his record-setting number of inmates to the death chamber.
This is a man who knows as little about the sanctity of life as he does running the United States of America.
diderot
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
God Is In the Derails
Maybe you believe in the separation of church and state.
Maybe you believe the state would be a much better place with a healthy dose of some religion.
If you're among the latter, I offer Bill Maher's closing comment last week on Real Time:
"Whenever there's a Bush Administration scandal, it always traces back to some incompetent political hack appointment, and you think to yourself, where are they getting these screw-ups from? Well, now we know. From Pat Robertson. I'm not kidding.
"Take Monica Goodling, who, before she resigned last week, because she's smack in the middle of the U.S. Attorneys scandal, was the third-ranking official in the Justice Department of the United States. She's 33 years old. And though she never even worked as a prosecutor, she was tasked with overseeing the job performance of all 93 U.S. Attorneys.
"How do you get to the top that fast? Harvard? Princeton? No, Goodling did her undergraduate work at Messiah College. You know, Messiah, home of the Fighting Christ-ies? And then went on to attend Pat Robertson's law school. Yes, Pat Robertson, the man who said that the presence of gay people at Disney World would cause earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor, has a law school.
"And what kid wouldn't want to attend? It's three years, and you only have to read one book. U.S. News & World Report, which does the definitive ranking of colleges, lists Regent as a Tier Four school, which is the lowest score it gives. It's not a hard school to get into. You have to renounce Satan and draw a pirate on a matchbook.
"This is for people who couldn't get into the University of Phoenix.
"Now, would you care to guess how many graduates of this televangelist's diploma mill work in the Bush Administration? 150. And you wonder why things are so messed up. We're talking about a top Justice Department official who went to a college funded by a TV host. Would you send your daughter to Maury Povich U.? And if you did, would you expect her to get a job at the White House?
"In 200 years, we've gone from "We, the people," to "Up With People." From "the best and the brightest" to "dumb and dumber." And where better to find people dumb enough to believe in George Bush than Pat Robertson's law school?
"The problem here in America isn't that the country is being run by "elites." It's that it's being run by a bunch of hayseeds. And, by the way, the lawyer Monica Goodling just hired to keep her a$$ out of jail, went to a real law school."
diderot
Maybe you believe the state would be a much better place with a healthy dose of some religion.
If you're among the latter, I offer Bill Maher's closing comment last week on Real Time:
"Whenever there's a Bush Administration scandal, it always traces back to some incompetent political hack appointment, and you think to yourself, where are they getting these screw-ups from? Well, now we know. From Pat Robertson. I'm not kidding.
"Take Monica Goodling, who, before she resigned last week, because she's smack in the middle of the U.S. Attorneys scandal, was the third-ranking official in the Justice Department of the United States. She's 33 years old. And though she never even worked as a prosecutor, she was tasked with overseeing the job performance of all 93 U.S. Attorneys.
"How do you get to the top that fast? Harvard? Princeton? No, Goodling did her undergraduate work at Messiah College. You know, Messiah, home of the Fighting Christ-ies? And then went on to attend Pat Robertson's law school. Yes, Pat Robertson, the man who said that the presence of gay people at Disney World would cause earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor, has a law school.
"And what kid wouldn't want to attend? It's three years, and you only have to read one book. U.S. News & World Report, which does the definitive ranking of colleges, lists Regent as a Tier Four school, which is the lowest score it gives. It's not a hard school to get into. You have to renounce Satan and draw a pirate on a matchbook.
"This is for people who couldn't get into the University of Phoenix.
"Now, would you care to guess how many graduates of this televangelist's diploma mill work in the Bush Administration? 150. And you wonder why things are so messed up. We're talking about a top Justice Department official who went to a college funded by a TV host. Would you send your daughter to Maury Povich U.? And if you did, would you expect her to get a job at the White House?
"In 200 years, we've gone from "We, the people," to "Up With People." From "the best and the brightest" to "dumb and dumber." And where better to find people dumb enough to believe in George Bush than Pat Robertson's law school?
"The problem here in America isn't that the country is being run by "elites." It's that it's being run by a bunch of hayseeds. And, by the way, the lawyer Monica Goodling just hired to keep her a$$ out of jail, went to a real law school."
diderot
Virginia Tech
Someone close to me has been a hunter and meticulous gun owner all his life. He gladly joined the NRA because he pictured it as an organization populated and led by people just like himself.
But in 2004 he quit his membership, when he found it impossible to support that organization's effort to prevent renewal of the ban on semi-automatic assault rifles. In this case, the NRA parted company with the vast majority of law enforcement officials who wanted the ban maintained. My friend could not reconcile the disparity.
My career as a journalist demonstrated to me that the NRA is both the most rabidly aggressive special interest group in promoting its interests, and the most paranoid in the face of any opposition or criticism.
Today, most of the rest of the world is asking, again, 'what the hell is wrong with America?' They properly cite the psychotic gun culture that permeates much of our country. John Howard, prime minister of Australia (and no screaming liberal), said, "“We took action to limit the availability of guns and we showed a national resolve that the gun culture that is such a negative in the United States would never become a negative in our country."
In England, the Times of London editorialized, "“Why, we ask, do Americans continue to tolerate gun laws and a culture that seems to condemn thousands of innocents to death every year, when presumably, tougher restrictions, such as those in force in European countries, could at least reduce the number?”
Indeed.
In our media, you won't even see the gun issue debated seriously anymore. They cower in fear of the gun nuts. It doesn't matter how many die. It doesn't matter how many survivors and relatives are scarred for life. It doesn't matter that the blood is on the hands of the NRA.
This is a happy day for the NRA. They have won.
diderot
But in 2004 he quit his membership, when he found it impossible to support that organization's effort to prevent renewal of the ban on semi-automatic assault rifles. In this case, the NRA parted company with the vast majority of law enforcement officials who wanted the ban maintained. My friend could not reconcile the disparity.
My career as a journalist demonstrated to me that the NRA is both the most rabidly aggressive special interest group in promoting its interests, and the most paranoid in the face of any opposition or criticism.
Today, most of the rest of the world is asking, again, 'what the hell is wrong with America?' They properly cite the psychotic gun culture that permeates much of our country. John Howard, prime minister of Australia (and no screaming liberal), said, "“We took action to limit the availability of guns and we showed a national resolve that the gun culture that is such a negative in the United States would never become a negative in our country."
In England, the Times of London editorialized, "“Why, we ask, do Americans continue to tolerate gun laws and a culture that seems to condemn thousands of innocents to death every year, when presumably, tougher restrictions, such as those in force in European countries, could at least reduce the number?”
Indeed.
In our media, you won't even see the gun issue debated seriously anymore. They cower in fear of the gun nuts. It doesn't matter how many die. It doesn't matter how many survivors and relatives are scarred for life. It doesn't matter that the blood is on the hands of the NRA.
This is a happy day for the NRA. They have won.
diderot
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Friday, April 13, 2007
Imus
Why was it that this one single comment, among all the others, brought down Imus' kingdom? I really don't know. It doesn't seem so different from what he and his fellow broadcasting hate-mongers have been doing for years.
His defense was that he did a comedy show--he wasn't a journalist. But that leaves the central question not only unanswered, but not even addressed--why would anyone think that was funny?
diderot
His defense was that he did a comedy show--he wasn't a journalist. But that leaves the central question not only unanswered, but not even addressed--why would anyone think that was funny?
diderot
Thursday, April 12, 2007
The Dog Ate My Homework
Yes, they're incredibly incompetent. Yes, they've always gone to great extremes to cover up that incompetence and deflect blame. But at some point, doesn't stuff like this rise to the level of obstruction of justice?
diderot
diderot
Mexico
"Oh, Mexico, I've never really been, so I don't really know..."
So wrote James Taylor in a lyric years ago. Until last week, that applied to me, as well. I've seen a lot of the world, but never been across the border to the south. A kind invitation from my wife's brother to visit his vacation home on the beach at Puerto Penasco changed that. And life there definitely begins on that beautiful beach. Unfortunately, it pretty much ends there as well. Days are pretty much spent waiting for that first Margarita.
By coincidence, we were waiting in an endless line to cross back over only few hours in advance of Bush's visit to the border at Yuma, an hour's drive or so to the west. On the illegal immigration issue, I really can't figure out a coherent position. And reading through the latest proposed legislation, I can see that I'm not alone.
My sister-in-law is a nurse in Arizona, and she informed me how the illegals work the system in order to become eligible for the state's low-income free health care program. It's this kind of stuff that drives the locals nuts. But on the other hand, having now seen life in Mexico, I have to say that if I had been born in their position, I'd be doing exactly what the illegals are. Who doesn't want a better life for their families?
My smart brother-in-law says that the only way to really fix the problem is to improve the Mexican economy so they won't need to flee here. But he's also smart enough to know there's no logical path to doing that.
So for now, while many Americans wish they could snap their fingers and make all the illegals disappear back to where they came from, others privately dread that possibility. The degree to which these people support the lower levels of our economy is probably impossible to calculate. And for every vote in Congress representing beleaguered border communities, there's another backed by U.S. businesses who rely on the cheap, benefit-free labor those workers provide.
So I think we're doomed to a permanent war of words, but no solutions.
Pass me another Margarita...
diderot
So wrote James Taylor in a lyric years ago. Until last week, that applied to me, as well. I've seen a lot of the world, but never been across the border to the south. A kind invitation from my wife's brother to visit his vacation home on the beach at Puerto Penasco changed that. And life there definitely begins on that beautiful beach. Unfortunately, it pretty much ends there as well. Days are pretty much spent waiting for that first Margarita.
By coincidence, we were waiting in an endless line to cross back over only few hours in advance of Bush's visit to the border at Yuma, an hour's drive or so to the west. On the illegal immigration issue, I really can't figure out a coherent position. And reading through the latest proposed legislation, I can see that I'm not alone.
My sister-in-law is a nurse in Arizona, and she informed me how the illegals work the system in order to become eligible for the state's low-income free health care program. It's this kind of stuff that drives the locals nuts. But on the other hand, having now seen life in Mexico, I have to say that if I had been born in their position, I'd be doing exactly what the illegals are. Who doesn't want a better life for their families?
My smart brother-in-law says that the only way to really fix the problem is to improve the Mexican economy so they won't need to flee here. But he's also smart enough to know there's no logical path to doing that.
So for now, while many Americans wish they could snap their fingers and make all the illegals disappear back to where they came from, others privately dread that possibility. The degree to which these people support the lower levels of our economy is probably impossible to calculate. And for every vote in Congress representing beleaguered border communities, there's another backed by U.S. businesses who rely on the cheap, benefit-free labor those workers provide.
So I think we're doomed to a permanent war of words, but no solutions.
Pass me another Margarita...
diderot
King Felix and Dice-K
If you don't understand the title of this post, don't bother reading on.
If you do, I wish every fan could have seen that ballgame. The Fenway Faithful literally rocked their house in anticipation...but King Felix 'reigned' on their parade. A one hit masterpiece. He's now gone 17 innings, 18 strikeouts, four hits, four walks, no runs, and only five balls hit out of the infield. He's not Koufax--but right now he looks exactly like Bob Gibson.
diderot
If you do, I wish every fan could have seen that ballgame. The Fenway Faithful literally rocked their house in anticipation...but King Felix 'reigned' on their parade. A one hit masterpiece. He's now gone 17 innings, 18 strikeouts, four hits, four walks, no runs, and only five balls hit out of the infield. He's not Koufax--but right now he looks exactly like Bob Gibson.
diderot
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)