The big 5-0 party went off without a hitch. It was a beautiful day and I think all 103 guests who RSVP'd came. My dad's cousin, who was the best man at my parents' wedding, gave a HILARIOUS toast and several other people made very nice ones.
My mom had a hard time getting around to just enjoying things. Even though she was involved in approving all of the big plans, she told a friend of my brother's that she was in the dark about everything. We surprised her with a slide-show of pictures, which I obtained one weekend when they were out of town. Her response? "If you would have asked I would have given them to you." But, she liked the M&M's with a picture of her and my dad from their engagement party. They came out surprisingly good.
I'll make the obligatory Ted Kennedy comment. The wife and I were in Boston when Romney ran against him for the senate in 1994. During the summer Romney spent a ton of money on ads, etc and appeared to be relatively close in the polls. Then, after Labor Day, Kennedy returned to Massachusetts as Santa Claus with federal money for a new jobs center here, road repair there, etc. He went to a GE plant in Lynn (north of Boston) where they make fighter jet engines. Basically he said, "Yeah, most of you guys probably don't like my social policies. But, as long as I'm chair of the armed services committee, you have job. Will you vote for me again?"
He didn't campaign as battler for liberal causes, fighting for the little guy, or any of that shit, though he busted a little bit of that out in the debates. Rather, he ran using all of our money to buy votes. Comforting, huh?
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Friday, August 28, 2009
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Budget Breakthrough?
Well, Ahnald and the CA legislative leaders have come up with a budget fix. Note that neither the state senate or assembly have voted on it yet.
Somehow, they've come up with $23b of cuts, raids on local government and accounting tricks to close the gap. Some of the proposals will be lasting while others merely push the problem into the future.
As a Libertarian, I like shrinking the state government and pushing services to the cities. This way the cities can implement the programs their citizens want and tax them appropriately. But, I hate the extra borrowing as that will hamstring the budget for the foreseeable future.
Of course now there is going to be tons of screaming and lawsuits about the cuts. Every government program has passionate sponsors who feel that life as we know it and modern civilization will collapse if it's cut or eliminated. However, right now the citizens of the state (or, at least the minority that elects republicans, who have outsized power over the state given their numbers) have proven unwilling to pay more for state services. This will change the reach of the state in terms of providing programs and subsidizing college education.
What will be interesting is how much individuals and the private sector will make up the difference. Will more parents volunteer at their kids' schools?; Boy Scout troops clean up state parks? Large companies develop more welfare-to-work opportunities?; People quit having kids they can't afford?
I know that we'll definitely keep the HB in private school. And I'll continue to tutor at the local public school.
Somehow, they've come up with $23b of cuts, raids on local government and accounting tricks to close the gap. Some of the proposals will be lasting while others merely push the problem into the future.
As a Libertarian, I like shrinking the state government and pushing services to the cities. This way the cities can implement the programs their citizens want and tax them appropriately. But, I hate the extra borrowing as that will hamstring the budget for the foreseeable future.
Of course now there is going to be tons of screaming and lawsuits about the cuts. Every government program has passionate sponsors who feel that life as we know it and modern civilization will collapse if it's cut or eliminated. However, right now the citizens of the state (or, at least the minority that elects republicans, who have outsized power over the state given their numbers) have proven unwilling to pay more for state services. This will change the reach of the state in terms of providing programs and subsidizing college education.
What will be interesting is how much individuals and the private sector will make up the difference. Will more parents volunteer at their kids' schools?; Boy Scout troops clean up state parks? Large companies develop more welfare-to-work opportunities?; People quit having kids they can't afford?
I know that we'll definitely keep the HB in private school. And I'll continue to tutor at the local public school.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
I Have to Quit in Order to Lead
I've never been a big Sara Palin fan. She's not book smart and appears to have a disdain for those who are. Oh, and she's a big fucking hypocrite when it comes to her family and she's not afraid to whore them out for her political career.
Listening to her rambling quitter speech yesterday was off the charts. It's like she's channeling Richard Nixon's paranoia. She's obviously made a lot of enemies in Alaska, or else there wouldn't be so many ethics charges against her. Now she's seeing them around every corner. I go the sense from her remarks that there's a big charge looming that she doesn't want to deal with.
Also, remember how she chided Obama for not being a decision maker? Now she's going to try and convince us (oh, yes, she is DEFINITELY going to run for prez--her PAC's website is begging for donations as I type this) that being mayor of a tiny town and governor of Alaska for less than two years qualifies her for the highest office in the land. I don't think so.
The worst part of her speech was it shows how much of a quitter she is. The people of Alaska voted for her to do a job and she's being pretty cavalier about blowing them off. I don't mind her deciding not to run in 2010 so that she can focus on 2012. But, this idea that she can't be effective as a lame duck is ridiculous. She could have used that freedom to push for things that are politically unpopular as she wouldn't have to run again. Her message? If you can't have things your way in the statehouse, just leave. I loved how she said that the service people she visited inspired her to do this. What, they're living in a hellhole and they inspired you to quit when things were tough? Hunh?
She also has a very inflated view of how seriously people take her. She says she can affect change on security and energy independence by not being in the governor's mansion. Really? And what are these ideas, cuz I missed them during the campaign. And, considering that her supporters in the lower 48 are anti-choice gun nuts, do they really care what she has to say about anything else? I don't think there are too many people who don't already support her who give a shit about what she has to say.
She obviously didn't consider that front runners did retty poorly in 2008. If I asked you a year before the election who'd be competing for it, you would probably have said Romney and Clinton. If she's doing this to make a ton of cash on the speaking circuit (which I think she is) and position herself in 2010 (which she definitely is). As usual, she needs to be careful what she's wishing for. Or, to put a more religious spin on things, if you want to see god laugh, tell him your plans.
Listening to her rambling quitter speech yesterday was off the charts. It's like she's channeling Richard Nixon's paranoia. She's obviously made a lot of enemies in Alaska, or else there wouldn't be so many ethics charges against her. Now she's seeing them around every corner. I go the sense from her remarks that there's a big charge looming that she doesn't want to deal with.
Also, remember how she chided Obama for not being a decision maker? Now she's going to try and convince us (oh, yes, she is DEFINITELY going to run for prez--her PAC's website is begging for donations as I type this) that being mayor of a tiny town and governor of Alaska for less than two years qualifies her for the highest office in the land. I don't think so.
The worst part of her speech was it shows how much of a quitter she is. The people of Alaska voted for her to do a job and she's being pretty cavalier about blowing them off. I don't mind her deciding not to run in 2010 so that she can focus on 2012. But, this idea that she can't be effective as a lame duck is ridiculous. She could have used that freedom to push for things that are politically unpopular as she wouldn't have to run again. Her message? If you can't have things your way in the statehouse, just leave. I loved how she said that the service people she visited inspired her to do this. What, they're living in a hellhole and they inspired you to quit when things were tough? Hunh?
She also has a very inflated view of how seriously people take her. She says she can affect change on security and energy independence by not being in the governor's mansion. Really? And what are these ideas, cuz I missed them during the campaign. And, considering that her supporters in the lower 48 are anti-choice gun nuts, do they really care what she has to say about anything else? I don't think there are too many people who don't already support her who give a shit about what she has to say.
She obviously didn't consider that front runners did retty poorly in 2008. If I asked you a year before the election who'd be competing for it, you would probably have said Romney and Clinton. If she's doing this to make a ton of cash on the speaking circuit (which I think she is) and position herself in 2010 (which she definitely is). As usual, she needs to be careful what she's wishing for. Or, to put a more religious spin on things, if you want to see god laugh, tell him your plans.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
HB and SC Drama?
Ugh...still have remnants of a cold I picked up on the trip last week. I think I'll be done with it by Thursday. Which will be good since I'm going to the (first place) Angels' game that night.
The HB's back in his theater group. They do two, four-week camps during the summer. The good thing about the camps is that they go from 9-5. The bad this is that they are cattle calls (40+ kids instead of the usual mid-20s). This means LOTS of kids in the chorus and more competition for the good parts. The HB said that for the part he was going for (and there are four versions of it) there were 15 kids. He's not nearly as emotionally wrapped up in the audition as he was last go around. He enjoys the drama thing, but he's just not that competitive to drive himself to do things better. So, he'll probably get a minor part with a few lines and be happy with it.
Speaking of drama, I've been sorta following the whole Mark Sanford thing. This guy is such a poor liar that it's amazing that he's gotten re-elected. First he met with his lover a few times, now it's seven. Now he says that he's been with other women, but hasn't crossed the sex line (his term). I'm thinking the next revelation is going to involve boys in Thailand. Someone's gotta tell him to hire a good divorce lawyer and shut the fuck up.
The HB's back in his theater group. They do two, four-week camps during the summer. The good thing about the camps is that they go from 9-5. The bad this is that they are cattle calls (40+ kids instead of the usual mid-20s). This means LOTS of kids in the chorus and more competition for the good parts. The HB said that for the part he was going for (and there are four versions of it) there were 15 kids. He's not nearly as emotionally wrapped up in the audition as he was last go around. He enjoys the drama thing, but he's just not that competitive to drive himself to do things better. So, he'll probably get a minor part with a few lines and be happy with it.
Speaking of drama, I've been sorta following the whole Mark Sanford thing. This guy is such a poor liar that it's amazing that he's gotten re-elected. First he met with his lover a few times, now it's seven. Now he says that he's been with other women, but hasn't crossed the sex line (his term). I'm thinking the next revelation is going to involve boys in Thailand. Someone's gotta tell him to hire a good divorce lawyer and shut the fuck up.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Action on the Court
OK, I'm not talking about the French Open here. But, obviously big doings in legal courts.
First, Obama appointed Sonia Sotomayor to sit on the Supreme Court. When I heard it, my first thought was, "Oh, she's the federal judge that ruled against the owners which led to the end of the baseball strike." Let's be clear about one thing: She is a lock to get through Senate confirmation. First, the elephants don't have the votes to filibuster. Even if Franken's not seated (denying the donks their 60th vote), I can't see the republican moderates, particularly Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, blocking a vote on her, even if they decide to vote against her.
There will be some picking at her speeches and maybe some rulings, but unless she hasn't paid nanny taxes or something she'll have a new work address by October. My concern about her, and all of the Supremes, isn't what she wrote about a particular case or mused in a law review article. Rather, does her interpretation of the constitution tend to give the federal government more or less power? Given how much power Obama has given to the federal government on economic matters (did you know that you and I will own about 70% of GM after its bankruptcy is final?), I fear that Ms. Sotomayor is cut from the same cloth.
Closer to home, the California supreme court decided to play Solomon, sort of, on the issue of homosexuals being allowed to marry. First, they decided that the Prop 8, which changed the CA constitution to disallow the practice of homosexuals getting married, was legit. At the same time, the court ruled that the 18,000 or so same sex couples that got married in the time between the court saying it was OK and the voters saying that it's not are still officially married. So, we have an island of gay/lesbian married couples insides a matrimonial fish bowl.
I think this goofy set of cirucumstances will be moot as I'm sure yet another initiative will be put on the ballot next go around. Demographics (older people tend not to support gay rights) and the public tide are against those who want to deny this right to others.
I have mixed feelings about the court's ruling. On one hand, a basic tenet of democracy is that the will of the people shall be followed. There was no fraud in the Prop 8 vote. Also, gay/lesbian couples in California have, as far as I know, every legal right as straight couples when it comes to property ownership, adoption, insurance, etc. So, in a sense it's a fight over semantics.
On the other hand, separate is never equal. Also, it sickens me that the state I love voted to take rights away from people. Shit, California used to lead the way in this department. I hope that I'm right about this being moot soon.
One more political note. I took the Political Irony link off of the side bar. When I first started reading it there was some balance to it. Now, all it does is take shots at republicans. As if there's no sickening political irony on the democratic side.
In family news, my m-i-l is on the 24-48 hour death watch. My wife tells me that her breathing is very slow (from the morphine). She also said that she looks 30 years younger without all of the worry lines in her face. Take that as you will.
First, Obama appointed Sonia Sotomayor to sit on the Supreme Court. When I heard it, my first thought was, "Oh, she's the federal judge that ruled against the owners which led to the end of the baseball strike." Let's be clear about one thing: She is a lock to get through Senate confirmation. First, the elephants don't have the votes to filibuster. Even if Franken's not seated (denying the donks their 60th vote), I can't see the republican moderates, particularly Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, blocking a vote on her, even if they decide to vote against her.
There will be some picking at her speeches and maybe some rulings, but unless she hasn't paid nanny taxes or something she'll have a new work address by October. My concern about her, and all of the Supremes, isn't what she wrote about a particular case or mused in a law review article. Rather, does her interpretation of the constitution tend to give the federal government more or less power? Given how much power Obama has given to the federal government on economic matters (did you know that you and I will own about 70% of GM after its bankruptcy is final?), I fear that Ms. Sotomayor is cut from the same cloth.
Closer to home, the California supreme court decided to play Solomon, sort of, on the issue of homosexuals being allowed to marry. First, they decided that the Prop 8, which changed the CA constitution to disallow the practice of homosexuals getting married, was legit. At the same time, the court ruled that the 18,000 or so same sex couples that got married in the time between the court saying it was OK and the voters saying that it's not are still officially married. So, we have an island of gay/lesbian married couples insides a matrimonial fish bowl.
I think this goofy set of cirucumstances will be moot as I'm sure yet another initiative will be put on the ballot next go around. Demographics (older people tend not to support gay rights) and the public tide are against those who want to deny this right to others.
I have mixed feelings about the court's ruling. On one hand, a basic tenet of democracy is that the will of the people shall be followed. There was no fraud in the Prop 8 vote. Also, gay/lesbian couples in California have, as far as I know, every legal right as straight couples when it comes to property ownership, adoption, insurance, etc. So, in a sense it's a fight over semantics.
On the other hand, separate is never equal. Also, it sickens me that the state I love voted to take rights away from people. Shit, California used to lead the way in this department. I hope that I'm right about this being moot soon.
One more political note. I took the Political Irony link off of the side bar. When I first started reading it there was some balance to it. Now, all it does is take shots at republicans. As if there's no sickening political irony on the democratic side.
In family news, my m-i-l is on the 24-48 hour death watch. My wife tells me that her breathing is very slow (from the morphine). She also said that she looks 30 years younger without all of the worry lines in her face. Take that as you will.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Another Cali Election
Yesterday, we Californians went to the polls again. While there were some local elections, the bigger deal was a series of budget initiatives to alter either previous ones or change the state's constitution on spending issues. As I saw it, they were mostly stop-gap or smoke-and-mirrors schemes to paper over the state's financial problems, which are significant.
The long term issues, as I've written about before, is that CA is one of the few states that requires a 2/3 majority to pass a budget. So, a few ideologues (in this case, republicans) can stop a budget from passing. What leads to this problem is that the state assembly/house districts are so "safe" that there is a disincentive for anyone to compromise. Until this changes, CA will be stuck with shitty budgets.
Regardless, while Ahnald can use executive power to nibble at the edges of the problem, there's only so much he can do. I've got some other suggestions for him:
1) Release all non-violent drug offenders from state prison. Tell then that if they go through a rehab program and test clean for two years, the conviction will be expunged. They shouldn't be in prison in the first place and it's costing us a fortune.
2) CA has this stupid tax loophole for yacht purchases. Like any one thing, it's not going to close the entire budget gap, but it shows that the state is serious and that everyone's going to have to pitch in. Many people who rely on state services are going to lose them. In comparison, I think the well heeled won't be hurting from this too much.
3) Insist that the state funded health plan buys its drugs from Canadian providers. These drugs are safe and they are WAY cheaper. Note that health care is the biggest budget item in CA (and probably in your state, too). Also, if you don't think this will bring down drug costs across the country, you're crazy.
You're welcome, Guv.
Oh, Lakers in 6.
The long term issues, as I've written about before, is that CA is one of the few states that requires a 2/3 majority to pass a budget. So, a few ideologues (in this case, republicans) can stop a budget from passing. What leads to this problem is that the state assembly/house districts are so "safe" that there is a disincentive for anyone to compromise. Until this changes, CA will be stuck with shitty budgets.
Regardless, while Ahnald can use executive power to nibble at the edges of the problem, there's only so much he can do. I've got some other suggestions for him:
1) Release all non-violent drug offenders from state prison. Tell then that if they go through a rehab program and test clean for two years, the conviction will be expunged. They shouldn't be in prison in the first place and it's costing us a fortune.
2) CA has this stupid tax loophole for yacht purchases. Like any one thing, it's not going to close the entire budget gap, but it shows that the state is serious and that everyone's going to have to pitch in. Many people who rely on state services are going to lose them. In comparison, I think the well heeled won't be hurting from this too much.
3) Insist that the state funded health plan buys its drugs from Canadian providers. These drugs are safe and they are WAY cheaper. Note that health care is the biggest budget item in CA (and probably in your state, too). Also, if you don't think this will bring down drug costs across the country, you're crazy.
You're welcome, Guv.
Oh, Lakers in 6.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Doing the Obvious
In two unrelated (well, except in my mind) events yesterday, the inevitable happened. Brett Favre got released by the Jets and Alren Specter finally realized that there's no place for moderates in the republican party.
Favre claims he's retired and I tend to believe him (this time). But, I won't be completely convinced until September. On another football related note, I cannot believe how poorly the Raiders' drafted. Another piece of evidence that Al Davis has lost it.
Of course, the democrats are licking their chops over Specter's defection. Assuming that they can FINALLY get Al Franken seated in the senate, they would have a filibuster proof majority of 60 (assuming they all vote the same way). Knowing them, they'd abuse the power so much that they'd lose the majority in 2010, but that's not the point. It would give Obama a freerer hand on energy and health care policy as he'd has a solid majority in the house (and can lose some votes from moderate democrats) and could do as he pleases in the senate at least until January of 2011. People can talk all they want about the first 100 days of his presidency, but this would make the first 18 months far more significant.
Favre claims he's retired and I tend to believe him (this time). But, I won't be completely convinced until September. On another football related note, I cannot believe how poorly the Raiders' drafted. Another piece of evidence that Al Davis has lost it.
Of course, the democrats are licking their chops over Specter's defection. Assuming that they can FINALLY get Al Franken seated in the senate, they would have a filibuster proof majority of 60 (assuming they all vote the same way). Knowing them, they'd abuse the power so much that they'd lose the majority in 2010, but that's not the point. It would give Obama a freerer hand on energy and health care policy as he'd has a solid majority in the house (and can lose some votes from moderate democrats) and could do as he pleases in the senate at least until January of 2011. People can talk all they want about the first 100 days of his presidency, but this would make the first 18 months far more significant.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Hatin' on the Haters
Oh, where to start...
I know. You remember those pond scum who protest at military funerals saying that the soldiers had it coming because American tolerates (sorta) gays and lesbians? No, I'm not going to link to them. Well, they're still at it, and spreading their message of love...and by that I mean, the opposite of love.
There's a high school near me that's going to put on a production of RENT (be happy, Jen). This school is in the middle of VERY republican country, so we're talking about a bunch of relatively conservative rich kids. But, our friends from the midwest can't let this stand, so they are on their way to protest. What, I don't know (freedom of speech? operas being turned into popular plays?). Silver lining? You know they're gonna sell far more tickets than they would have otherwise. Maybe then the school will have enough money to hire a gay drama teacher.
I don't know about where you live, but out here the animal rights groups are starting to take on a terrorist vibe. I believe that as the top dog in the land food chain we have some responsibilities towards other critters and, let's face it, animal research isn't pretty (nor is farming, for that matter). Sure, most of the animals are bred to be killed during the research, but that's not the point. But, we tolerate it to support product and medical research (some of which saves other animals' lives, I suppose).
If these people want to protest to make conditions more humane for animals and minimize the amount of research done on them, I willing to listen. But, I'm not for getting rid of it entirely and firebombing houses and cars undercuts their non-violent message.
Now that Bush the C-Student is out, some UCLA researchers grew a pair (hm...perhaps cloned a pair?) and protested against the intimidation. This is not the most extroverted group of people on the planet, so they must really be pissed. And I don't blame them. I'm thinking the FBI's going to be a bit more sympathetic towards them now that there are two people who can read in the White House.
I know. You remember those pond scum who protest at military funerals saying that the soldiers had it coming because American tolerates (sorta) gays and lesbians? No, I'm not going to link to them. Well, they're still at it, and spreading their message of love...and by that I mean, the opposite of love.
There's a high school near me that's going to put on a production of RENT (be happy, Jen). This school is in the middle of VERY republican country, so we're talking about a bunch of relatively conservative rich kids. But, our friends from the midwest can't let this stand, so they are on their way to protest. What, I don't know (freedom of speech? operas being turned into popular plays?). Silver lining? You know they're gonna sell far more tickets than they would have otherwise. Maybe then the school will have enough money to hire a gay drama teacher.
I don't know about where you live, but out here the animal rights groups are starting to take on a terrorist vibe. I believe that as the top dog in the land food chain we have some responsibilities towards other critters and, let's face it, animal research isn't pretty (nor is farming, for that matter). Sure, most of the animals are bred to be killed during the research, but that's not the point. But, we tolerate it to support product and medical research (some of which saves other animals' lives, I suppose).
If these people want to protest to make conditions more humane for animals and minimize the amount of research done on them, I willing to listen. But, I'm not for getting rid of it entirely and firebombing houses and cars undercuts their non-violent message.
Now that Bush the C-Student is out, some UCLA researchers grew a pair (hm...perhaps cloned a pair?) and protested against the intimidation. This is not the most extroverted group of people on the planet, so they must really be pissed. And I don't blame them. I'm thinking the FBI's going to be a bit more sympathetic towards them now that there are two people who can read in the White House.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Catch-Up and Taxes
I think I'm FINALLY caught up at work. Of course, I should say that in a stage whisper or else who knows what else if going to flood my inbox. I've got a proposal due tomorrow and I need to decide if I want to do more work for a new client (they don't pay particularly well).
Monday I sent off our taxes. The good news is that we're getting a refund from the State and Feds. The bad news is that we gave them an interest free loan last year. Sigh.
As a Libertarian, April 15th is a black holiday. It's the one time that you can get people to ask, "Exactly what am I getting for my money here?" What kills me is the republicrats faux anger at the situation. It would be one thing if Reagan, Bush I and Bush II shrunk government, but they didn't. The fact is that there are no serious "small government" republicrats with any power in the party. Shit, these guys spent money in Iraq and Afganistan and wouldn't even put it in the budget.
Both parties want big governement. They just disagree on what they want to blow our money on. It's either matriarchical local programs or patriarchical weapons programs. And, of course, anything that sends federal money into their district.
So, as you look with sadness at your check register, or wait in anticipation at the mail box, spend a few minutes thinking about how well your money's been spent. Once you stop crying, you can go register as a Libertarian (see link at the right).
Monday I sent off our taxes. The good news is that we're getting a refund from the State and Feds. The bad news is that we gave them an interest free loan last year. Sigh.
As a Libertarian, April 15th is a black holiday. It's the one time that you can get people to ask, "Exactly what am I getting for my money here?" What kills me is the republicrats faux anger at the situation. It would be one thing if Reagan, Bush I and Bush II shrunk government, but they didn't. The fact is that there are no serious "small government" republicrats with any power in the party. Shit, these guys spent money in Iraq and Afganistan and wouldn't even put it in the budget.
Both parties want big governement. They just disagree on what they want to blow our money on. It's either matriarchical local programs or patriarchical weapons programs. And, of course, anything that sends federal money into their district.
So, as you look with sadness at your check register, or wait in anticipation at the mail box, spend a few minutes thinking about how well your money's been spent. Once you stop crying, you can go register as a Libertarian (see link at the right).
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Fair Election
Remember how it was such a big deal last year when a republican justice department indicted republican senator Ted Stevens of Alaska? Steven, convinced of his innocence requested, and got, a speedy trial hoping that his name would be cleared by election day. Wrong. He was convicted four days before the election and lost to a democrat by less than 2% of the votes. During the trial the justice department got their wrists slapped a few time for withholding evidence and the like.
Now, Obama's justice department has determined through an internal investigation that there was other prosecutorial misconduct and has asked that the charges be dropped (Stevens appealed the original verdict).
As a practical matter, all of the bigwig republicans in Alaska are calling for a special election hypothesizing that without the conviction Stevens would have won. On that point, they are probably right. Never mind that they all asked for Stevens to resign while on trial.
Whether Stevens is innocent is another matter. Eric Holder, the Attorney General, probably figured that he had a no-risk way to send a message to the department. The 85 year-old Stevens' political career is toast (thanks to Bush) and he can say that he's cleaning things up by pulling out of the case. While the prosecutors clearly over-played a good hand, they probably would have gotten a conviction without the shenanigans. But, we'll never know.
The special election argument is an interesting one. We vote within a specific time period (remember absentee ballots and voting by mail) and nothing that happens after election day matters. If the Alaska republicans get their way, what's the criteria for saying, "Hey, our candidate got screwed"? Over-turned convictions? Being shown to be right for a political decision? New dirt being dug up about the winner?
Good timing is important when running for office (I'll be McCain wishes the economy was better off last summer and fall). But, I think Stevens was a victim of his own associations, bad timing and a new tide in the country.
Now, Obama's justice department has determined through an internal investigation that there was other prosecutorial misconduct and has asked that the charges be dropped (Stevens appealed the original verdict).
As a practical matter, all of the bigwig republicans in Alaska are calling for a special election hypothesizing that without the conviction Stevens would have won. On that point, they are probably right. Never mind that they all asked for Stevens to resign while on trial.
Whether Stevens is innocent is another matter. Eric Holder, the Attorney General, probably figured that he had a no-risk way to send a message to the department. The 85 year-old Stevens' political career is toast (thanks to Bush) and he can say that he's cleaning things up by pulling out of the case. While the prosecutors clearly over-played a good hand, they probably would have gotten a conviction without the shenanigans. But, we'll never know.
The special election argument is an interesting one. We vote within a specific time period (remember absentee ballots and voting by mail) and nothing that happens after election day matters. If the Alaska republicans get their way, what's the criteria for saying, "Hey, our candidate got screwed"? Over-turned convictions? Being shown to be right for a political decision? New dirt being dug up about the winner?
Good timing is important when running for office (I'll be McCain wishes the economy was better off last summer and fall). But, I think Stevens was a victim of his own associations, bad timing and a new tide in the country.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
I'm From Your Government and I'm Here to Run Your Business
I don't know about you, but my mail delivery generally sucks. It's unreliable as some stuff from crosstown can get here in a day or a week. A friend tried to send me something from another part of the city and it keeps getting sent back due to a bad address, even though it's correct. WTF? And getting a magazine the week it comes out is completely out of the question.
Note that the postal service was created by the Continental Congress. That's right, we had postal service in the US before we had independence. So, they've had 233 years to perfect it. I guess they are counting on another 233.
In the meantime, the Obama administration has decided that they know how to run car companies. Which isn't to say the the car companies do it well. But, this is the double-edged sword of the bailouts. As a taxpayer, I don't want to be giving these assholes my money without more accountability and having a say in things. As the receiver of abysmal government services, I don't think there are people in Washington who have a clue on how to run General Motors.
I also don't like the government picking and choosing who stays or who gets fired at a company. Who is to say that GM's CEO was more/less incompetent that Chrysler's, but Waggoner was the one who got the boot. I don't think it's a stretch to say that other factors besides performance (e.g., politics) could cost an executive a job in the future if the Feds keep giving money to failing businesses.
In times of emergency, Bush didn't have confidence in our consitution and as a result we've lost rights and we're less safe. Now in times of emergency, Obama has lost faith in our economic system. Don't bet on us coming out better in the end.
Note that the postal service was created by the Continental Congress. That's right, we had postal service in the US before we had independence. So, they've had 233 years to perfect it. I guess they are counting on another 233.
In the meantime, the Obama administration has decided that they know how to run car companies. Which isn't to say the the car companies do it well. But, this is the double-edged sword of the bailouts. As a taxpayer, I don't want to be giving these assholes my money without more accountability and having a say in things. As the receiver of abysmal government services, I don't think there are people in Washington who have a clue on how to run General Motors.
I also don't like the government picking and choosing who stays or who gets fired at a company. Who is to say that GM's CEO was more/less incompetent that Chrysler's, but Waggoner was the one who got the boot. I don't think it's a stretch to say that other factors besides performance (e.g., politics) could cost an executive a job in the future if the Feds keep giving money to failing businesses.
In times of emergency, Bush didn't have confidence in our consitution and as a result we've lost rights and we're less safe. Now in times of emergency, Obama has lost faith in our economic system. Don't bet on us coming out better in the end.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
State O'the Union
OK, to pick up on yesterday's rant...
1) The root cause is the mortgage problem with the banks. Let's fix that first before we throw a TRILLION a the problem. It kills me how first Bush, now Obama, took their eyes off of this ball. If they get the banks on their feet and the economy is still in the shitter, then let's talk about stimulus. But if credit is tight because the banks still are carrying bad paper, how are businesses going to get the money to start on these projects (and, no, I'd rather not give them their money upfront)? Besides, all of this federal money is a disincentive for local/state governments to have their financial act together. This isn't the end of days that those petulant republicans think it is, but we are clearly putting the cart before the horse. Remember, we're not really throwing a trillion at it, it's TWO trillion because of the interest. I think by then government checks should just be written by China.
2) If Bobby Jindal is the next best thing for the Republicans, they are fucked. He's got nothing and he's a hypocrite. What a fucking embarrassment. First, considering how serious the republicans were about Bush's photo-ops (y'know, great lighting with backgrounds with the four words he was supposed to repeat) they screwed the pooch on this one having Jindal walk in through a dark room at the guv's mansion in Baton Rouge. If he's so popular, why not have him in front of a large (and loudly drunk) crowd in Jackson Square? Especially on Fat Tuesday? His sing-song delivery and 5 word sentences made it sound like his speech was written to only be heard by Bush.
Second, when he said that New Orleans was being rebuilt using private money I just about spit my dinner on the TV. More than $127 billion has been spent there. I'm not saying it's been spent wisely, but still. I look forward to his next budget that has the fine citizens of Louisiana rebuilding their levees instead of the Army Corps of Engineers.
Third, he had the balls to say, "In recent years, these distinctions in philosophy became less clear because our party got away from its principles. You elected Republicans to champion limited government, fiscal discipline and personal responsibility. Instead, Republicans went along with earmarks and big government spending in Washington. Republicans lost your trust -- and rightly so." This was immediately followed by, "Tonight, on behalf of our leaders in Congress and my fellow Republican governors, I say: Our party is determined to regain your trust. We will do so by standing up for the principles that we share -- the principles you elected us to fight for -- the principles that built this into the greatest, most prosperous country on Earth." What are those principles? If they were so great, why couldn't you follow them in the first place? Eight years wasn't enough to correct your course? Like any kid, he's not apologizing for what they did (and isn't 3 months a bit short to keep those dumbasses out of office?), but for getting caught.
3) If Obama wants to get the budget balanced he needs to get us out of Iraq and forget this folly in Afghanistan. Also, and I realize that as a percentage of the budget it is tiny, he's got to keep the earmarks out of future bills as he did with the stimulus legislation. It will restore people's faith in government and get some of the McCain voters off of his ass. I'm torn on this idea of having a budget that projects 10 years out. On one hand, clearly the government needs to plan that way, but it seems goofy that a budget would be based on the behavior (partially) of at least the next president, and maybe the next two.
One health care, he's pushing an idea that calls for evidenced-based reimbursements. What this means is that the government will only pay docs and hospitals for performing procedures that have been clinically proven to be the most effective (for instance, using post heart attack drugs instead of stents). So, the republicans who are (supposedly) in favor of streamlined government would be all for this, right? Uh, no. See, even if the government insists on the most effective treatment, the republicans think that this is feds interferring with your health care? WTF? See, it's not just Bush who was anti-science. I'm sure that all the pharma and medical device money they get has nothing to do with it.
1) The root cause is the mortgage problem with the banks. Let's fix that first before we throw a TRILLION a the problem. It kills me how first Bush, now Obama, took their eyes off of this ball. If they get the banks on their feet and the economy is still in the shitter, then let's talk about stimulus. But if credit is tight because the banks still are carrying bad paper, how are businesses going to get the money to start on these projects (and, no, I'd rather not give them their money upfront)? Besides, all of this federal money is a disincentive for local/state governments to have their financial act together. This isn't the end of days that those petulant republicans think it is, but we are clearly putting the cart before the horse. Remember, we're not really throwing a trillion at it, it's TWO trillion because of the interest. I think by then government checks should just be written by China.
2) If Bobby Jindal is the next best thing for the Republicans, they are fucked. He's got nothing and he's a hypocrite. What a fucking embarrassment. First, considering how serious the republicans were about Bush's photo-ops (y'know, great lighting with backgrounds with the four words he was supposed to repeat) they screwed the pooch on this one having Jindal walk in through a dark room at the guv's mansion in Baton Rouge. If he's so popular, why not have him in front of a large (and loudly drunk) crowd in Jackson Square? Especially on Fat Tuesday? His sing-song delivery and 5 word sentences made it sound like his speech was written to only be heard by Bush.
Second, when he said that New Orleans was being rebuilt using private money I just about spit my dinner on the TV. More than $127 billion has been spent there. I'm not saying it's been spent wisely, but still. I look forward to his next budget that has the fine citizens of Louisiana rebuilding their levees instead of the Army Corps of Engineers.
Third, he had the balls to say, "In recent years, these distinctions in philosophy became less clear because our party got away from its principles. You elected Republicans to champion limited government, fiscal discipline and personal responsibility. Instead, Republicans went along with earmarks and big government spending in Washington. Republicans lost your trust -- and rightly so." This was immediately followed by, "Tonight, on behalf of our leaders in Congress and my fellow Republican governors, I say: Our party is determined to regain your trust. We will do so by standing up for the principles that we share -- the principles you elected us to fight for -- the principles that built this into the greatest, most prosperous country on Earth." What are those principles? If they were so great, why couldn't you follow them in the first place? Eight years wasn't enough to correct your course? Like any kid, he's not apologizing for what they did (and isn't 3 months a bit short to keep those dumbasses out of office?), but for getting caught.
3) If Obama wants to get the budget balanced he needs to get us out of Iraq and forget this folly in Afghanistan. Also, and I realize that as a percentage of the budget it is tiny, he's got to keep the earmarks out of future bills as he did with the stimulus legislation. It will restore people's faith in government and get some of the McCain voters off of his ass. I'm torn on this idea of having a budget that projects 10 years out. On one hand, clearly the government needs to plan that way, but it seems goofy that a budget would be based on the behavior (partially) of at least the next president, and maybe the next two.
One health care, he's pushing an idea that calls for evidenced-based reimbursements. What this means is that the government will only pay docs and hospitals for performing procedures that have been clinically proven to be the most effective (for instance, using post heart attack drugs instead of stents). So, the republicans who are (supposedly) in favor of streamlined government would be all for this, right? Uh, no. See, even if the government insists on the most effective treatment, the republicans think that this is feds interferring with your health care? WTF? See, it's not just Bush who was anti-science. I'm sure that all the pharma and medical device money they get has nothing to do with it.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Obama's Big Speech
I really want to write more about this, but it's late, I'm tired and I know I haven't posted in a few days. Here's the Cliff's Notes version:
1) The root cause is the mortgage problem with the banks. Let's fix that first before we throw a TRILLION a the problem.
2) If Bobby Jindal is the next best thing for the Republicans, they are fucked. He's got nothing and he's a hypocrite. More on that in another post.
3) If Obama wants to get the budget balanced he needs to get us out of Iraq and forget this folly in Afghanistan. Also, and I realize that as a percentage of the budget it is tiny, he's got to keep the earmarks out of future bills as he did with the stimulus legislation. It will restore people's faith in government and get some of the McCain voters off of his ass.
NZS2, the HB and I are doing the bachelor thing. Salmon tonight, shrimp and pasta tomorrow. Woot!
1) The root cause is the mortgage problem with the banks. Let's fix that first before we throw a TRILLION a the problem.
2) If Bobby Jindal is the next best thing for the Republicans, they are fucked. He's got nothing and he's a hypocrite. More on that in another post.
3) If Obama wants to get the budget balanced he needs to get us out of Iraq and forget this folly in Afghanistan. Also, and I realize that as a percentage of the budget it is tiny, he's got to keep the earmarks out of future bills as he did with the stimulus legislation. It will restore people's faith in government and get some of the McCain voters off of his ass.
NZS2, the HB and I are doing the bachelor thing. Salmon tonight, shrimp and pasta tomorrow. Woot!
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Measure B
No, this isn't what you do after Measure A doesn't work out. Rather, Measure B is an initiative on the ballot in LA on March 3rd. It's fairly ambitious in that it proposes to increase the amount of solar power generated in the city by 400 megawatts by 2014 by installing solar panels, well, pretty much everywhere.
The good thing about the initiative is that it proposes gathering solar energy from rooftops, as opposed to building large solar farms in the desert. Obviously, there's plenty of solar energy to be harvested out there. However, it's getting it to the city that's a problem. Currently, large transmission towers and lines need to be installed which generally degrade the environment. In a sunny place like LA, it makes sense to gather the energy where it doesn't need to be transmitted. Getting all of these things purchased and installed in the near term would also kick start the economy.
The bad thing about the measure is the implementation. It states that the solar panels can only be bought by the LA department of water and power (DWP) and they must be installed by their electrician's union (IBEW). As such, DWP has not come forward with how much this will cost (e.g., how much rates will go up). My guess is that the price tag will be in the billions. I understand why the measure would want DWP to set standards for installation, but why give them a monopoly which will cost more? People in LA get solar panels put on their houses every day without blowing up the power grid, so it's not a competence issue. Rather, it's politics. Everyone on the city council wants the IBEW's (and other city unions') support when the run for re-election. Funny, the mayor's name is on the ballot in March also. What a coincidence.
I'm thinking that I'm going to vote No. It could be done for probably 2/3 the cost and without building up a huge beauracracy if the DWP opened the process up. If it goes down to defeat we'll see if they are interested in keeping the IBEW happy or increasing green power in the city.
The good thing about the initiative is that it proposes gathering solar energy from rooftops, as opposed to building large solar farms in the desert. Obviously, there's plenty of solar energy to be harvested out there. However, it's getting it to the city that's a problem. Currently, large transmission towers and lines need to be installed which generally degrade the environment. In a sunny place like LA, it makes sense to gather the energy where it doesn't need to be transmitted. Getting all of these things purchased and installed in the near term would also kick start the economy.
The bad thing about the measure is the implementation. It states that the solar panels can only be bought by the LA department of water and power (DWP) and they must be installed by their electrician's union (IBEW). As such, DWP has not come forward with how much this will cost (e.g., how much rates will go up). My guess is that the price tag will be in the billions. I understand why the measure would want DWP to set standards for installation, but why give them a monopoly which will cost more? People in LA get solar panels put on their houses every day without blowing up the power grid, so it's not a competence issue. Rather, it's politics. Everyone on the city council wants the IBEW's (and other city unions') support when the run for re-election. Funny, the mayor's name is on the ballot in March also. What a coincidence.
I'm thinking that I'm going to vote No. It could be done for probably 2/3 the cost and without building up a huge beauracracy if the DWP opened the process up. If it goes down to defeat we'll see if they are interested in keeping the IBEW happy or increasing green power in the city.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
The Ethics of Change
It's amazing to me how many of Obama's appointees have tax problems. Ok, let me rephrase that--amazing how many STILL have tax problems after they've been contacted about being one of his appointees and how they try to hide them, as if no one is going to find out.
Worse is Obama's teetering on his promise of not having lobbyists in his government. First he hires William Lynn for whom he had to explicitly grant a waiver from his brand new ethics policy. Then Daschle's ties to the health care industry became apparent. Obama could only know about the tax problems had Daschle mentioned them. However, taking tons of green from health care "stakeholders" does not make one an honest broker when setting health policy. The funny thing is that he didn't need the money, but was (willfully?) blind to the potential conflict of interest. With those kinds of ethical blinders makes you wonder if anyone with Washington experience should be asked to be in the cabinet.
So, Daschle (and others) lied to Obama about his taxes, Obama didn't think his paid speeches were a conflict of interest, one of his first appointees needed an ethics waiver . One more time, how is this going to clean up Washington? To his credit, Obama did sign an executive order about people working in his administration coming back and lobbying while was president. But this idea that only people who are living in the swamp can clean it up is ridiculous. He needs to look outside of DC to staff the government.
Worse is Obama's teetering on his promise of not having lobbyists in his government. First he hires William Lynn for whom he had to explicitly grant a waiver from his brand new ethics policy. Then Daschle's ties to the health care industry became apparent. Obama could only know about the tax problems had Daschle mentioned them. However, taking tons of green from health care "stakeholders" does not make one an honest broker when setting health policy. The funny thing is that he didn't need the money, but was (willfully?) blind to the potential conflict of interest. With those kinds of ethical blinders makes you wonder if anyone with Washington experience should be asked to be in the cabinet.
So, Daschle (and others) lied to Obama about his taxes, Obama didn't think his paid speeches were a conflict of interest, one of his first appointees needed an ethics waiver . One more time, how is this going to clean up Washington? To his credit, Obama did sign an executive order about people working in his administration coming back and lobbying while was president. But this idea that only people who are living in the swamp can clean it up is ridiculous. He needs to look outside of DC to staff the government.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Crying Over Your Own Spilled Milk
The outgoing administration and their apologists are obviously having a hard time letting go. I understand that power is intoxicating and that it's a bitter pill to swallow when the guy who just won the election did so by repudiating your policies. But, sheesh, what a bunch of crybabies.
To their credit, the Bushies played nice during the transition. However, I don't think being decent earns you a pat on the back. They seem to think that being nice trumps the reality of the people voting against them and wanting a new way of running the government.
The thing that gets me the most was that the problems and issues Obama mentioned in his inaugural speech were things of Bush's making, not any natural disaster. To listen to these whiners, nothing's there fault and/or everything they did was right. That makes you wonder how they got their asses handed to them in the election.
To their credit, the Bushies played nice during the transition. However, I don't think being decent earns you a pat on the back. They seem to think that being nice trumps the reality of the people voting against them and wanting a new way of running the government.
The thing that gets me the most was that the problems and issues Obama mentioned in his inaugural speech were things of Bush's making, not any natural disaster. To listen to these whiners, nothing's there fault and/or everything they did was right. That makes you wonder how they got their asses handed to them in the election.
Monday, January 19, 2009
MLK Day and the Inauguration
I had the HB yesterday morning and we drove around running some errands and talked about MLK Day and President Obama. He knew that Obama spoke from where King did on the Mall yesterday and has a reasonable idea (for a 9 year old) who King was and what he stood for.
It's going to be hard to gauge the meaning of today's inauguration. On one hand, having an African-American sworn in as president is something many people of my generation did not think we'd see. Considering that no other Western democracy has sworn in a racial or religious minority as president/prime minister, it shows our country's capacity to (somewhat) look past race. Yes, Hillz supporters, I know that many of them have elected a woman to the highest office in the land. Just try to imagine if a Jew or Muslim was elected prime minister in Europe. Or someone of African descent leading France. Fat fucking chance.
But, Obama's swearing in isn't going to cause rainbows to appear and unicorns to prance in Lafayette Park. Will it melt away some cynicism and partisianship in DC? One can only hope. Last November the electorate demanded something different in our politics, but more importantly, in our country's culture. Hell, if the Cardinals can make the Super Bowl, I guess anything is possible.
It's going to be hard to gauge the meaning of today's inauguration. On one hand, having an African-American sworn in as president is something many people of my generation did not think we'd see. Considering that no other Western democracy has sworn in a racial or religious minority as president/prime minister, it shows our country's capacity to (somewhat) look past race. Yes, Hillz supporters, I know that many of them have elected a woman to the highest office in the land. Just try to imagine if a Jew or Muslim was elected prime minister in Europe. Or someone of African descent leading France. Fat fucking chance.
But, Obama's swearing in isn't going to cause rainbows to appear and unicorns to prance in Lafayette Park. Will it melt away some cynicism and partisianship in DC? One can only hope. Last November the electorate demanded something different in our politics, but more importantly, in our country's culture. Hell, if the Cardinals can make the Super Bowl, I guess anything is possible.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
More Reading
I'm glad that Lola commented on yesterday's post because there was more I wanted to write on the topic. Specifically, the emphasis on what should be read versus what is read.
There's nothing magic in reading. The letters are arbitrary and the human brain can decode just about any set as long as they follow certain rules. It provides us with two things: An expedient way to communicate (you don't have to hear everything from a person's mouth) and the opportunity to be exposed to knowledge an ideas. If you could travel and hear great minds lecture you would have access to the same amount of information.
If you are reading ANYTHING you are being exposed to something, whether it's news, comics, literature, or porn. The NEA seems to think that some reading (e.g.,"literature") is better for you than other kinds. I think that's bullshit.
First, "literature" is arbitrary. The NEA includes poetry under this heading. So, that means a dirty limerick is the same as Angelou, right? Also, tastes and criticism change, so today's literature is tomorrow's racist drivel from old white dudes, and vice versa.
Second, to say that reading "literature" is better for you is crap. Where's the data that demonstrates that freely reading "literature" causes any positive outcome. The Bible is said to be great literature, but it's read by scoundrels and kings. It's an argument based on class: upper class people are exposed to this kind of writing, therefore it must be good for you.
As a society, we should want people to be exposed to ideas as this makes us better thinkers and decision makers. Whether that's done by the written word on a page (and I believe that will fade once someone gets the electronic book thing right) or watching writers on YouTube doesn't matter. It's the exposure that counts and when you read anything you are making your mind think.
The next go around, the NEA should keep their "eat your vegetables because they are good for you" approach to reading on the shelf. They should spend more time capturing how and how much we read than what we read. They can then sell the results to book companies and help the budget deficit.
There's nothing magic in reading. The letters are arbitrary and the human brain can decode just about any set as long as they follow certain rules. It provides us with two things: An expedient way to communicate (you don't have to hear everything from a person's mouth) and the opportunity to be exposed to knowledge an ideas. If you could travel and hear great minds lecture you would have access to the same amount of information.
If you are reading ANYTHING you are being exposed to something, whether it's news, comics, literature, or porn. The NEA seems to think that some reading (e.g.,"literature") is better for you than other kinds. I think that's bullshit.
First, "literature" is arbitrary. The NEA includes poetry under this heading. So, that means a dirty limerick is the same as Angelou, right? Also, tastes and criticism change, so today's literature is tomorrow's racist drivel from old white dudes, and vice versa.
Second, to say that reading "literature" is better for you is crap. Where's the data that demonstrates that freely reading "literature" causes any positive outcome. The Bible is said to be great literature, but it's read by scoundrels and kings. It's an argument based on class: upper class people are exposed to this kind of writing, therefore it must be good for you.
As a society, we should want people to be exposed to ideas as this makes us better thinkers and decision makers. Whether that's done by the written word on a page (and I believe that will fade once someone gets the electronic book thing right) or watching writers on YouTube doesn't matter. It's the exposure that counts and when you read anything you are making your mind think.
The next go around, the NEA should keep their "eat your vegetables because they are good for you" approach to reading on the shelf. They should spend more time capturing how and how much we read than what we read. They can then sell the results to book companies and help the budget deficit.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Orwell on the Rise
As the seconds tick away on the Bush II presidency, it's good to know that his administration's Alice in Wonderland interpretation of facts hasn't given up the ghost. The latest example is the NEA's report Reading on the Rise.
The report trumpets the increases in number of people who read in the US (the First Lady wouldn't have it any other way). However, a closer look at the data makes me wonder.
For instance, they separate readers based on whether they read "literature" or not. Huh? Who gets to decide what's "literature"? And, what does it matter what people read (more about that in a minute). In fact, if you go to page 10 of the link above, you'll see that book readers (book reading defined in the survey as something not required by work or school) have actually declined since the last survey. Funny how that's not the headline of the report.
The report occasionally mentions online reading, but I doubt that they have the longitudinal data to draw any conclusions. Good luck to the researchers in classifying what people read online.
The snobbishness of the study kills me. Why differentiate between "literature" and book reading? Maybe the books being read today will be considered tomorrows literature? I think they found the one positive result (people are reading more fiction in school!) and cherry picked it to make themselves look good. Like all other Shrub departments, don't let the facts get in the way of your agenda.
The report trumpets the increases in number of people who read in the US (the First Lady wouldn't have it any other way). However, a closer look at the data makes me wonder.
For instance, they separate readers based on whether they read "literature" or not. Huh? Who gets to decide what's "literature"? And, what does it matter what people read (more about that in a minute). In fact, if you go to page 10 of the link above, you'll see that book readers (book reading defined in the survey as something not required by work or school) have actually declined since the last survey. Funny how that's not the headline of the report.
The report occasionally mentions online reading, but I doubt that they have the longitudinal data to draw any conclusions. Good luck to the researchers in classifying what people read online.
The snobbishness of the study kills me. Why differentiate between "literature" and book reading? Maybe the books being read today will be considered tomorrows literature? I think they found the one positive result (people are reading more fiction in school!) and cherry picked it to make themselves look good. Like all other Shrub departments, don't let the facts get in the way of your agenda.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
When Intentions Become Clear
I always thought that Hillary Clinton was a carpetbagging opportunist who REALLY just wanted to be president and made this a primary consideration in all of her public actions. If she was that interested in serving constituents in the Senate (as opposed to using it as a springboard to the White House) she would have run in a state where she actually lived, like Arkansas or Illinois (now THAT would have been irony). Instead, she ran in New York because of its higher profile.
Now that it's become clear that she doesn't think that being in the Senate will get her elected president in 2016 and that she thinks what torpedoed her candidacy was her lack of foreign policy experience. So, she's looking to be secretary of state so she can get her overseas bona fides in place in case Obama doesn't get re-elected. My guess is that New Yorkers knew that this kind of big FUCK YOU was coming and won't be too upset about it.
What happened to her passion for health care and women's issues? Wouldn't being secretary of Health and Human Services make more sense? Ah, that position lacks prestige and is less presidential (though no one has gone from the cabinent to president in the last two hundred years). And being Sec of State would make her #4 in succession.
Now that it's become clear that she doesn't think that being in the Senate will get her elected president in 2016 and that she thinks what torpedoed her candidacy was her lack of foreign policy experience. So, she's looking to be secretary of state so she can get her overseas bona fides in place in case Obama doesn't get re-elected. My guess is that New Yorkers knew that this kind of big FUCK YOU was coming and won't be too upset about it.
What happened to her passion for health care and women's issues? Wouldn't being secretary of Health and Human Services make more sense? Ah, that position lacks prestige and is less presidential (though no one has gone from the cabinent to president in the last two hundred years). And being Sec of State would make her #4 in succession.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
