Today, President Bush challenged Democrats on spending.
Well, there are certain areas where I would be all for a spending cut. Starting with the third of a trillion dollars we have dumped into Iraq since the war began. That is the first place where government spending should be slashed. Maybe we can get it to zero before the President leaves office-- wouldn't that be an accomplishment?
He claims he has a plan to balance the budget by 2012. Hmmm... Didn't he start with a balanced budget? No, actually he didn't. He actually started with a suplus well into the hundreds of billions of dollars. He also says he wants to preserve the Bush tax cuts (which would take a positive vote by Congress to extend; if Congress does nothing then they will expire on schedule and revert to the Clinton tax rates, which helped produce that surplus).
The President said he doesn't want 'politics as usual' and warned Congress against passing bills that are 'political statements.' Then he said that he wants a line-item veto. Um, excuse me Mr. President, you might recall that some years ago Congress did pass a line item veto. It was determined to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court after two Republican lawmakers sued when Bill Clinton actually used it to veto a couple of their pet projects. So, you are asking for something that has already been declared unconstitutional, apparently for appearances. What was that about bills that are 'political statements?'
"We need to reform Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid so future generations of Americans can benefit from these vital programs without bankrupting our country," he said.
I have an idea for reforming Medicare. How about scrapping the turkey of a drug bill that your party passed and you signed three years ago, Mr. President? You know, the one that gives away trillions of tax dollars to pharmaceutical companies and really hasn't made prescription drugs any cheaper for American seniors?
As for Social Security, that could be fixed by eliminating the $90,000 cap on Social Security wages subject to taxation. How about it, Mr. President? Obviously the American people didn't like your privatization plan last year, so how about something different?
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
America is better than this.
In the new news, which is the same as the old news, there are new allegations of prisoner abuse at Guantanimo, this time from an FBI report which stated that 26 FBI agents working in Cuba witnessed the abuse.
On several occasions witnesses saw detainees in interrogation rooms chained hand and foot in fetal position to floor with no chair/food/water; most urinated or defecated on selves and were left there 18, 24 hours or more," according to one FBI account made public.
One FBI witness saw a detainee "shaking with cold," while another noted a detainee in a sweltering unventilated room was "almost unconscious on a floor with a pile of hair next to him (he had apparently been pulling it out through the night)."
Another witness saw a detainee "with a full beard whose head was wrapped in duct tape."
One FBI statement said that an interrogator squatted over the Quran and that a German shepherd dog was ordered to "growl, bark and show his teeth to the prisoner."
Another detainee was draped in an Israeli flag.
Now, there are those who would like to say that if Islamicists were holding Americans, the treatment would likely be far worse. Point conceded.
They would also suggest that these techniques 'work,' presumably to extract information. That has been refuted, in particular since it turns out that one of the al-Qaeda Iraq links that was advertised as justification for the invasion was both false and coerced. When people are being tortured, they will say what they think the interrogator wants to hear, which may not be the same thing as the truth.
There are those who will wave the rhetoric "Sure, it's bad. But would you rather see a mushroom cloud over an American city than...?" However, that argument is pretty worn out by now. Considering by now the large number of these cases we've seen all over the world, it seems more likely that mistreatment of prisoners is an outgrowth of policy (though not necessarily of explicit policy.) Even if there were an urgent case to abuse one prisoner for information on an imminent attack, the numbers of cases we've heard about by now make it clear that this isn't about one specific case, but the general way we do things.
But whatever excuse, there is one basic fact about this and similar scandals elsewhere:
We are America, and we don't do these sorts of things to already restrained prisoners.
On several occasions witnesses saw detainees in interrogation rooms chained hand and foot in fetal position to floor with no chair/food/water; most urinated or defecated on selves and were left there 18, 24 hours or more," according to one FBI account made public.
One FBI witness saw a detainee "shaking with cold," while another noted a detainee in a sweltering unventilated room was "almost unconscious on a floor with a pile of hair next to him (he had apparently been pulling it out through the night)."
Another witness saw a detainee "with a full beard whose head was wrapped in duct tape."
One FBI statement said that an interrogator squatted over the Quran and that a German shepherd dog was ordered to "growl, bark and show his teeth to the prisoner."
Another detainee was draped in an Israeli flag.
Now, there are those who would like to say that if Islamicists were holding Americans, the treatment would likely be far worse. Point conceded.
They would also suggest that these techniques 'work,' presumably to extract information. That has been refuted, in particular since it turns out that one of the al-Qaeda Iraq links that was advertised as justification for the invasion was both false and coerced. When people are being tortured, they will say what they think the interrogator wants to hear, which may not be the same thing as the truth.
There are those who will wave the rhetoric "Sure, it's bad. But would you rather see a mushroom cloud over an American city than...?" However, that argument is pretty worn out by now. Considering by now the large number of these cases we've seen all over the world, it seems more likely that mistreatment of prisoners is an outgrowth of policy (though not necessarily of explicit policy.) Even if there were an urgent case to abuse one prisoner for information on an imminent attack, the numbers of cases we've heard about by now make it clear that this isn't about one specific case, but the general way we do things.
But whatever excuse, there is one basic fact about this and similar scandals elsewhere:
We are America, and we don't do these sorts of things to already restrained prisoners.
God will cause mass killings in America, says preacher Pat.
It's been a few months since the last time I had to report on Pat Robertson saying something stupid, so he was about due.
There will be mass killings in the U.S. in 2007, says preacher Pat.
He predicts a terrorist attack that will cause 'mass killings' in the U.S.
Now, that wouldn' bother me, except he is citing God as the source.
Of course, God never makes a mistake, so if Preacher Pat is right, then it is a certainty that it will happen.
He also has maybe a ten percent chance of being right anyway. From the first world trade center bombing until 9/11 was eight years. It has now been six years since 9/11, so just on the law of averages we are getting close to 'due,' (though hopefully all of that money we spent trying to terrorist-proof the country did extend this time frame.)
Consider what this entails. If it happens in 2007 (and there is about a ten percent chance it will just based on the law of averages) then Pat will claim it proves he really is getting revelation from the Lord. Well, even a broken clock is right twice a day. But if he is wrong, he will seize on something to claim he wasn't wrong-- for exmaple, last year he predicted a tsunami and massive seismic descruction would hit the U.S. Didn't happen, so he is now claiming that this years 'noreaster' was fulfillment.
Yeah.
There will be mass killings in the U.S. in 2007, says preacher Pat.
He predicts a terrorist attack that will cause 'mass killings' in the U.S.
Now, that wouldn' bother me, except he is citing God as the source.
Of course, God never makes a mistake, so if Preacher Pat is right, then it is a certainty that it will happen.
He also has maybe a ten percent chance of being right anyway. From the first world trade center bombing until 9/11 was eight years. It has now been six years since 9/11, so just on the law of averages we are getting close to 'due,' (though hopefully all of that money we spent trying to terrorist-proof the country did extend this time frame.)
Consider what this entails. If it happens in 2007 (and there is about a ten percent chance it will just based on the law of averages) then Pat will claim it proves he really is getting revelation from the Lord. Well, even a broken clock is right twice a day. But if he is wrong, he will seize on something to claim he wasn't wrong-- for exmaple, last year he predicted a tsunami and massive seismic descruction would hit the U.S. Didn't happen, so he is now claiming that this years 'noreaster' was fulfillment.
Yeah.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Life lessons learned from NCAA football
It is not often that I venture away from politics and into the sports arena here on Deep Thought, but I am doing so today. The occasion is that Boise State beat Oklahoma 43-42 in overtime. But in the end, there is a social commentary here that applies way beyond the football field.
What it means is that Boise State, of the Western Athletic Conference, is now the second non-BCS team (the BCS consists of six 'major' conferences, plus Notre Dame) to force its way into a BCS game and it has won (for a mid-major team to force its way in there it pretty much has to be undefeated and even then it has to depend on the polls and the computer geeks to make the cut.) Two years ago, Utah (of the Moutain West conference) blew away Pittsburgh 35-7 in a game that was probably not even as close as the score.
The question then becomes, why Florida (12-1) is playing in the national title game against undefeated and unanimous number 1 Ohio State rather than Boise State, and whether a playoff would fix this apparent inequity.
Naysayers will suggest that tonight's Fiesta result only proved that Boise State was slightly better than Oklahoma (which entered the game 11-2). However, Oklahoma should be 12-1 (remember that the Sooners began the season gunning for a national title and then had a game against Oregon stolen by several unexcusable calls that even the PAC-10 had no choice but to suspend the officials for.) So in reality, in a universe in which a win is really a win, Oklahoma should have had the same record going into the bowl games as Florida, and would likely still be rated ahead of the Gators after playing a brutally tough schedule this year. So if Oklahoma is really about as good as Florida and Boise State is just slightly better than Oklahoma... well, draw your own conclusion.
For that matter, two years ago, while Oklahoma and Southern California were both undefeated during the regular season, Utah (ironically coached by Urban Meyer, the current Florida coach) was clearly playing at that same caliber just by the way they completely destroyed Pittsburgh (which was 8-4 during the year but was in a BCS bowl anyway, not because there weren't some better teams available-- there were at least a dozen which more deserved to go, but because they won one of the six BCS conference titles in a down year for the Big East.)
Tonight's win by Boise State does make the mid-majors 2-0 in the rare occasions when they get a chance to go to a BCS bowl-- proving decisively that they are good enough to play with the big boys and win.
What this means is that while the addition of one more bowl has made it a little easier for mid-major teams to get into a bowl, they are still effectively locked out of a national championship game, not because they don't deserve to, but because the powers that be in College Football don't want to let them take that final step to the top.
Why is this? Easy enough. Division 1 College Football is divided neatly into two groups. The 'haves' (teams which are members of the six BCS conferences) and the 'have-nots' (so-called, 'mid-majors'-- teams which are members of another conference). There are a few teams with no conference affiliation-- of which Notre Dame is 'in the club' (because they are Notre Dame and everything that entails) and the rest are part of the 'have-nots.' And with BCS bowls paying a lot of money ($17 million per participant this year) plus all the extra TV exposure, merchandising revenue, etc. that goes along with it, that's a big pot of cash that the BCS conferences (i.e. the 'haves') have control over and don't want to share a dime they don't have to.
And the truth is, that a 'have-not' can do everything possible (after all, you have the schedule you've got at the start of the year, including all but three or four of your games being against other members of your conference-- and most schedules are decided years in advance) by winning every game, 1) in theory could still be locked out of a BCS bowl subject to the whims of geeks and poll voters, and 2) even if they get in, they won't get a chance (as they would in Division II or Division III football) to play for a national championship.
If they were lucky enough to start the season in a BCS conference, then a team like Boise State would have a chance to play for the national championship (well, still maybe not-- just ask Auburn), but being in a non-BCS conference the die is pretty much cast before the opening game kickoff that there is a ceiling on how high they can rise.
Why is this relevant? Simple. Because it's like the situation in America today, and even more so like the situation that conservatives want for America. There are the very rich (the 'achievers') and the poor (the 'non-achievers'). Now, in theory, 'achievement' is such that those who achieve deserve to be rich. And I have no problem with this concept, except that the way the system is set up there are those who are born on top (and hence have the advantage of going to the best schools, having the money to pay for college wherever they can get into, and having the social connections via their family to get wherever they want. Not that they all get there, but even the failures have enough money so that they can fail in venture after venture after venture and still not have to be worried about what long term impact this can have.
On the other end, there are those who are born into poverty, again because of their family background. They can in fact work hard, pull themselves up by their bootstraps and achieve. But to suggest that this makes the system fair is to be intentionally ignorant.
How we choose to address this problem is up to us. College Football needs a playoff but the social divisions in society don't have such an obvious answer. But to ignore them is to be morally bankrupt.
What it means is that Boise State, of the Western Athletic Conference, is now the second non-BCS team (the BCS consists of six 'major' conferences, plus Notre Dame) to force its way into a BCS game and it has won (for a mid-major team to force its way in there it pretty much has to be undefeated and even then it has to depend on the polls and the computer geeks to make the cut.) Two years ago, Utah (of the Moutain West conference) blew away Pittsburgh 35-7 in a game that was probably not even as close as the score.
The question then becomes, why Florida (12-1) is playing in the national title game against undefeated and unanimous number 1 Ohio State rather than Boise State, and whether a playoff would fix this apparent inequity.
Naysayers will suggest that tonight's Fiesta result only proved that Boise State was slightly better than Oklahoma (which entered the game 11-2). However, Oklahoma should be 12-1 (remember that the Sooners began the season gunning for a national title and then had a game against Oregon stolen by several unexcusable calls that even the PAC-10 had no choice but to suspend the officials for.) So in reality, in a universe in which a win is really a win, Oklahoma should have had the same record going into the bowl games as Florida, and would likely still be rated ahead of the Gators after playing a brutally tough schedule this year. So if Oklahoma is really about as good as Florida and Boise State is just slightly better than Oklahoma... well, draw your own conclusion.
For that matter, two years ago, while Oklahoma and Southern California were both undefeated during the regular season, Utah (ironically coached by Urban Meyer, the current Florida coach) was clearly playing at that same caliber just by the way they completely destroyed Pittsburgh (which was 8-4 during the year but was in a BCS bowl anyway, not because there weren't some better teams available-- there were at least a dozen which more deserved to go, but because they won one of the six BCS conference titles in a down year for the Big East.)
Tonight's win by Boise State does make the mid-majors 2-0 in the rare occasions when they get a chance to go to a BCS bowl-- proving decisively that they are good enough to play with the big boys and win.
What this means is that while the addition of one more bowl has made it a little easier for mid-major teams to get into a bowl, they are still effectively locked out of a national championship game, not because they don't deserve to, but because the powers that be in College Football don't want to let them take that final step to the top.
Why is this? Easy enough. Division 1 College Football is divided neatly into two groups. The 'haves' (teams which are members of the six BCS conferences) and the 'have-nots' (so-called, 'mid-majors'-- teams which are members of another conference). There are a few teams with no conference affiliation-- of which Notre Dame is 'in the club' (because they are Notre Dame and everything that entails) and the rest are part of the 'have-nots.' And with BCS bowls paying a lot of money ($17 million per participant this year) plus all the extra TV exposure, merchandising revenue, etc. that goes along with it, that's a big pot of cash that the BCS conferences (i.e. the 'haves') have control over and don't want to share a dime they don't have to.
And the truth is, that a 'have-not' can do everything possible (after all, you have the schedule you've got at the start of the year, including all but three or four of your games being against other members of your conference-- and most schedules are decided years in advance) by winning every game, 1) in theory could still be locked out of a BCS bowl subject to the whims of geeks and poll voters, and 2) even if they get in, they won't get a chance (as they would in Division II or Division III football) to play for a national championship.
If they were lucky enough to start the season in a BCS conference, then a team like Boise State would have a chance to play for the national championship (well, still maybe not-- just ask Auburn), but being in a non-BCS conference the die is pretty much cast before the opening game kickoff that there is a ceiling on how high they can rise.
Why is this relevant? Simple. Because it's like the situation in America today, and even more so like the situation that conservatives want for America. There are the very rich (the 'achievers') and the poor (the 'non-achievers'). Now, in theory, 'achievement' is such that those who achieve deserve to be rich. And I have no problem with this concept, except that the way the system is set up there are those who are born on top (and hence have the advantage of going to the best schools, having the money to pay for college wherever they can get into, and having the social connections via their family to get wherever they want. Not that they all get there, but even the failures have enough money so that they can fail in venture after venture after venture and still not have to be worried about what long term impact this can have.
On the other end, there are those who are born into poverty, again because of their family background. They can in fact work hard, pull themselves up by their bootstraps and achieve. But to suggest that this makes the system fair is to be intentionally ignorant.
How we choose to address this problem is up to us. College Football needs a playoff but the social divisions in society don't have such an obvious answer. But to ignore them is to be morally bankrupt.
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Don't buy into George Bush's Iraq trap
The American people have had enough of Iraq. The polls show it.
Many Democrats who won this year had endorsed the Murtha plan for a staged withdrawl from Iraq.
The Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group released its recommendations and also called for a withdrawl.
Yet, just two weeks ago it began to be reported that the President wanted to propose a 'surge' in troop strength, and was opposed by Generals.
So now, the Generals appear to have flip-flopped and back Bush (well, the last General to publically oppose the President on troop levels, Eric Shinseki before the war started, was forced to leave the army. The lesson clearly has not been lost.)
To start with, his proposal to increase troop strength by 20,000 troops is stupid. But I actually don't think he is planning to. More on that later.
If we increased troops by 20,000 it would make no difference. Shinseki's recommendation in 2002 (based on a 1999 exercise which quantified it) was that 400,000 troops total (265,000 more than are there now) would be needed to prevent an insurgency. Adding what amounts to a spit in the bucket of 20,000 today won't stop it, because it would be hundreds of thousands too little, and several years too late.
And George Bush knows that. So do the generals. But that isn't really his plan.
He will say it is because he is shifting the frame of the debate. Instead of it being between 'stay the course' (his position) and 'withdraw' (the progressive position) which he would certainly lose, what he plans to do is try and get people debating the 'surge' (i.e. ratcheting up the war.) Those opposed are then debating against increasing troops, and as such are by default arguing only to not increase them (i.e. maintaining current levels-- 'staying the course.') He knows he doesn't have the votes in the new Congress to win, but what he is trying to do is play the Democrats for chumps, and get people to forget that we were talking about how to get out. Then he can lose the vote in Congress but still end up 'staying the course' (what he wants anyway). Only then that will become the the Democratic position (because it was in opposition to his 'new' position), and then if Iraq continues to deteriorate (as it will) and we continue to lose American troops (which we will) then it becomes the fault of Democrats.
In other words, he is trying to unload his lemon onto us.
If we fall for that, then we really are stupid. But unfortunately, based on what I've heard, there are some on the left who seem ready to take up this no-win debate. For example, in today's radio address Congressman-elect Jerry McNerney said that Democrats will oppose deploying any new troops there. Nothing at all about plans to withdraw or seek a political solution. So it appears, despite his line about seeking a 'new direction' (a politically meaningless catchword that can be applied to almost anything) that the good Congressman-elect is being roped into a plan to in effect debate in favor of continuing the President's current policy and stay in Iraq indefinitely.
We as Democrats should be firm on this:
1. The voters want us to get troops out of Iraq, not leave them there.
2. The Murtha plan is a militarily sound plan that spells out a path to withdrawl of U.S. forces from Iraq.
3. The bipartisan Baker-Hamilton commission (I.S.G.) studied all the problems of Iraq and concluded that withdrawl is the only realistic military option for the United States.
4. The United States and other countries in the region, as well as factions within Iraq need to work to find a political, not a military solution. Iraq's problems can only be solved by a political solution, not a solution imposed by military force.
Many Democrats who won this year had endorsed the Murtha plan for a staged withdrawl from Iraq.
The Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group released its recommendations and also called for a withdrawl.
Yet, just two weeks ago it began to be reported that the President wanted to propose a 'surge' in troop strength, and was opposed by Generals.
So now, the Generals appear to have flip-flopped and back Bush (well, the last General to publically oppose the President on troop levels, Eric Shinseki before the war started, was forced to leave the army. The lesson clearly has not been lost.)
To start with, his proposal to increase troop strength by 20,000 troops is stupid. But I actually don't think he is planning to. More on that later.
If we increased troops by 20,000 it would make no difference. Shinseki's recommendation in 2002 (based on a 1999 exercise which quantified it) was that 400,000 troops total (265,000 more than are there now) would be needed to prevent an insurgency. Adding what amounts to a spit in the bucket of 20,000 today won't stop it, because it would be hundreds of thousands too little, and several years too late.
And George Bush knows that. So do the generals. But that isn't really his plan.
He will say it is because he is shifting the frame of the debate. Instead of it being between 'stay the course' (his position) and 'withdraw' (the progressive position) which he would certainly lose, what he plans to do is try and get people debating the 'surge' (i.e. ratcheting up the war.) Those opposed are then debating against increasing troops, and as such are by default arguing only to not increase them (i.e. maintaining current levels-- 'staying the course.') He knows he doesn't have the votes in the new Congress to win, but what he is trying to do is play the Democrats for chumps, and get people to forget that we were talking about how to get out. Then he can lose the vote in Congress but still end up 'staying the course' (what he wants anyway). Only then that will become the the Democratic position (because it was in opposition to his 'new' position), and then if Iraq continues to deteriorate (as it will) and we continue to lose American troops (which we will) then it becomes the fault of Democrats.
In other words, he is trying to unload his lemon onto us.
If we fall for that, then we really are stupid. But unfortunately, based on what I've heard, there are some on the left who seem ready to take up this no-win debate. For example, in today's radio address Congressman-elect Jerry McNerney said that Democrats will oppose deploying any new troops there. Nothing at all about plans to withdraw or seek a political solution. So it appears, despite his line about seeking a 'new direction' (a politically meaningless catchword that can be applied to almost anything) that the good Congressman-elect is being roped into a plan to in effect debate in favor of continuing the President's current policy and stay in Iraq indefinitely.
We as Democrats should be firm on this:
1. The voters want us to get troops out of Iraq, not leave them there.
2. The Murtha plan is a militarily sound plan that spells out a path to withdrawl of U.S. forces from Iraq.
3. The bipartisan Baker-Hamilton commission (I.S.G.) studied all the problems of Iraq and concluded that withdrawl is the only realistic military option for the United States.
4. The United States and other countries in the region, as well as factions within Iraq need to work to find a political, not a military solution. Iraq's problems can only be solved by a political solution, not a solution imposed by military force.
A day of funerals.
I've been watching two funerals today. Gerald Ford's, which began this morning and will conclude tonight (I went out at about 11:50 and watched the plane carrying his casket-- usually it is one of two planes designated as Air Force 1 when the president uses it, but today it is called, 'special air mission 29000,') and James Brown's.
Ford's funeral (at least the departure from California) was as dignified as one would expect. Betty Ford was a picture of class. I've always wondered how the widows of some of our presidents are able to stand and watch through all the ceremony of a state funeral. But she did. And Betty Ford was certainly the classy lady that we've always seen, since she first came out and used her own trials with substance abuse and later with breast cancer to draw all of us into the discussions of those important topics.
James Brown's funeral, well, for most of it, it was like going to a James Brown concert. There were a number of performers and they got the whole room hopping. Watching M.C. Hammer dance (which to be honest I'd never seen him dance before) evoked Brown.
There was one moment which was poignant but in which someone made the wrong statement at the wrong time. Tomie Rae Brown (remember earlier this week I called her a Golddigger and my opinion of that hasn't changed) took a moment to look at him in the casket, then broke a flower off of one of the bouquets and threw it in there. Staged? Maybe, in fact probably. But then it was sad that some in the crowd began booing and yelling at her to get off the stage. To be honest, that was unnecessary. The legal case will go as it does. But James Brown was a classy man, whatever his problems may have been, and I don't think he would want anyone saying anything like that to the mother of his son, at his funeral.
There was another poignant moment a bit after that. Al Sharpton was speaking (and yes, it was a great speech.) At one point (and I am as directly as I can, quoting reverend Sharpton here-- and he is a man who I greatly admire) he said that he had a talk with James Brown, his friend of thirty-five years, just last week, the last time he saw him. And he said that James Brown told him to tell people, 'What happened to I'm black and I'm proud? Now we call each other ni****s and who***s and bit***s. Why? James Brown wants us to clean up the music.' Probably everyone who is anyone in the African-American music community was in that room, so it was a good message. And then he named Michael by name and invited him up to the stage, and Michael Jackson came up and spoke about how James Brown inspired him-- they still love him there (and let's remember that the jury in his trial a couple of years ago did vote to acquit him-- so he is no more a felon than you or I, and it seems that the people there recognize that and are more willing to forgive people for whatever their perceived tresspasses may have been.)
Now, I have a question for people reading this blog. Why is it that a few weeks ago we all admired how well the Amish were willing to forgive a man who was guilty (and it is admirable that they forgave him) but you probably won't hear anyone praising the black community for their willingness to accept someone like Michael Jackson who was tried and found not guilty? Is it a double standard?
And oh, yeah. Saddam Hussein was executed and will be buried tonight. And compared to Gerald Ford and James Brown his funeral is down at the bottom of the list.
Ford's funeral (at least the departure from California) was as dignified as one would expect. Betty Ford was a picture of class. I've always wondered how the widows of some of our presidents are able to stand and watch through all the ceremony of a state funeral. But she did. And Betty Ford was certainly the classy lady that we've always seen, since she first came out and used her own trials with substance abuse and later with breast cancer to draw all of us into the discussions of those important topics.
James Brown's funeral, well, for most of it, it was like going to a James Brown concert. There were a number of performers and they got the whole room hopping. Watching M.C. Hammer dance (which to be honest I'd never seen him dance before) evoked Brown.
There was one moment which was poignant but in which someone made the wrong statement at the wrong time. Tomie Rae Brown (remember earlier this week I called her a Golddigger and my opinion of that hasn't changed) took a moment to look at him in the casket, then broke a flower off of one of the bouquets and threw it in there. Staged? Maybe, in fact probably. But then it was sad that some in the crowd began booing and yelling at her to get off the stage. To be honest, that was unnecessary. The legal case will go as it does. But James Brown was a classy man, whatever his problems may have been, and I don't think he would want anyone saying anything like that to the mother of his son, at his funeral.
There was another poignant moment a bit after that. Al Sharpton was speaking (and yes, it was a great speech.) At one point (and I am as directly as I can, quoting reverend Sharpton here-- and he is a man who I greatly admire) he said that he had a talk with James Brown, his friend of thirty-five years, just last week, the last time he saw him. And he said that James Brown told him to tell people, 'What happened to I'm black and I'm proud? Now we call each other ni****s and who***s and bit***s. Why? James Brown wants us to clean up the music.' Probably everyone who is anyone in the African-American music community was in that room, so it was a good message. And then he named Michael by name and invited him up to the stage, and Michael Jackson came up and spoke about how James Brown inspired him-- they still love him there (and let's remember that the jury in his trial a couple of years ago did vote to acquit him-- so he is no more a felon than you or I, and it seems that the people there recognize that and are more willing to forgive people for whatever their perceived tresspasses may have been.)
Now, I have a question for people reading this blog. Why is it that a few weeks ago we all admired how well the Amish were willing to forgive a man who was guilty (and it is admirable that they forgave him) but you probably won't hear anyone praising the black community for their willingness to accept someone like Michael Jackson who was tried and found not guilty? Is it a double standard?
And oh, yeah. Saddam Hussein was executed and will be buried tonight. And compared to Gerald Ford and James Brown his funeral is down at the bottom of the list.
Friday, December 29, 2006
Spaghetti fundraiser highlights an injustice.
In a story out today, Ohio State concludes there was no NCAA violation involved when the families of four players who are traveling to the BCS national championship game in Glendale held a spaghetti dinner to raise funds so that family members could attend the game.
The players could have been suspended if they were found in violation of rules that prohibit athletes from receiving special benefits.
Starting tailback Antonio Pittman and his backup, Chris Wells were at the Dec. 23 spaghetti dinner but left midway through after Paulette Wells, Chris Wells' mother, called Ohio State offensive coordinator Jim Bollman to ask whether it might violate NCAA bylaws. Bollman advised her to have the Buckeyes players leave the event, which they did...
Dawn Stigger-Ferguson, a friend of one player's family and the fundraiser organizer, said previously the money would go instead to local youth football organizations. But in a statement Thursday, she said the event lost money because of the cost of food and supplies.
This really bothers me. Who has been there through the whole life of the players amd supported them when no one else would? Their families. But let's face it, for most of today's college football players (often from very poor families), a trip to watch them compete in the biggest games of their lives is pretty much out of the question and unaffordable.
Consider that for the cost of a college scholarship, room and board (depending on the insutitutions, about $25,000 per year,) the BCS, NCAA and player's institution can make tens of millions of dollars. This year the payout for teams in BCS bowls is $17 million. That is without even taking into account the benefits to the schools involved and to the NCAA and BCS from things like merchandising, television revenues and advertising. I don't know if the players on both teams will be weearing shirts with the Nike swish on them or some other logo, but you can be sure that they will have a logo there.
And add to that, if the player sustains a career ending or life altering injury, he will get short term medical care. And that's probably all.
But they can't even afford to help the player's families watch them in the biggest games of their lives? This is exploitive, and the NCAA is sooner or later going to have to address this issue. And yes, I do as a matter of fact believe that you can't just do something for football, you have to do it for other sports; but let's also be honest-- it's a lot cheaper to go to the Lacrosse finals than to the BCS championship game.
The players could have been suspended if they were found in violation of rules that prohibit athletes from receiving special benefits.
Starting tailback Antonio Pittman and his backup, Chris Wells were at the Dec. 23 spaghetti dinner but left midway through after Paulette Wells, Chris Wells' mother, called Ohio State offensive coordinator Jim Bollman to ask whether it might violate NCAA bylaws. Bollman advised her to have the Buckeyes players leave the event, which they did...
Dawn Stigger-Ferguson, a friend of one player's family and the fundraiser organizer, said previously the money would go instead to local youth football organizations. But in a statement Thursday, she said the event lost money because of the cost of food and supplies.
This really bothers me. Who has been there through the whole life of the players amd supported them when no one else would? Their families. But let's face it, for most of today's college football players (often from very poor families), a trip to watch them compete in the biggest games of their lives is pretty much out of the question and unaffordable.
Consider that for the cost of a college scholarship, room and board (depending on the insutitutions, about $25,000 per year,) the BCS, NCAA and player's institution can make tens of millions of dollars. This year the payout for teams in BCS bowls is $17 million. That is without even taking into account the benefits to the schools involved and to the NCAA and BCS from things like merchandising, television revenues and advertising. I don't know if the players on both teams will be weearing shirts with the Nike swish on them or some other logo, but you can be sure that they will have a logo there.
And add to that, if the player sustains a career ending or life altering injury, he will get short term medical care. And that's probably all.
But they can't even afford to help the player's families watch them in the biggest games of their lives? This is exploitive, and the NCAA is sooner or later going to have to address this issue. And yes, I do as a matter of fact believe that you can't just do something for football, you have to do it for other sports; but let's also be honest-- it's a lot cheaper to go to the Lacrosse finals than to the BCS championship game.
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Why it makes sense in Arizona (and elsewhere) to support Bill Richardson
Preface: This post is part of a series started by Andrea, on her challenge to write about why a Bill Richardson Presidency would be good for your state.
I just posted a link to an online poll. You may want to know who I voted for. I voted for Bill Richardson.
There are a lot of reasons for this. One reason is because I've actually had the chance to watch Governor Richardson for more than twenty years, since he was my Congressman while I was living in Socorro, New Mexico. In fact I've met him at least a couple of times (though I doubt if he remembers the meetings because they were very brief) but I do remember a town-hall type of meeting that he held there on the end of the Rural Electrification Administration (which was announced by the Reagan administration in 1986, claiming that the job was '99% complete'). Governor Richardson was against ending it until the job was 100% done, as the original promise had been when the REA was created in 1935. And that's the way he is. Where I live now, in northeastern Arizona, I have met a lot of people living on the Navajo reservation who don't have electricity; despite the objections of Bill Richardson and a few others, the Reagan administration unfortunately won that battle-- so millions of Americans in hundreds of communities still are not on the electric grid (even though it really would not take all that big an investment to finish it). But Bill Richardson stood out to me then as a thoughtful man who was willing to take on even battles that didn't make headlines, like that one.
Another reason is that living in Arizona, I'd have to say that Bill Richardson understands our issues in a way much different from all the other candidates in the race. There is more to the term 'neighbor' than just living next door. Your neighbor has pretty much the same perspective as you do on a lot of things in life; the view from your neighbor's house is much the same as it is from yours. If the street needs to be fixed or it snows or a stray dog is getting into people's garbage, it is something that you go through and deal with together with your neighbor. Governor Richardson, to begin with, understands the unique issues involved with matters like tribal sovereignty, water issues and the border much more than, say, a Clinton of New York, an Obama of Illinois or an Edwards of North Carolina. In fact, of all the announced or likely major Democratic candidates, only Clark (of Arkansas-- right on the Mississippi river) and Richardson are from anywhere west of the Mississippi at all-- and Governor Richardson is the only one who is from a place where water generally even is an issue.
Governor Richardson has also taken a balanced approach to the border, of the type that is favored by most Arizonans. At a time when most national politicians-- of both parties-- are struggling to find themselves on the issue, Bill Richardson seems to have a good handle on it. Last year, together with our own Governor, Janet Napolitano, Governor Richardson announced a state of emergency along the border which allowed for the stationing of the National Guard along the border in order to enhance border security. At the same time he has opposed building a wall along the border. That fits the views of most Arizonans. The Arizonans who took the hardest lines on immigration-- Gubernatorial nominee Len Munsil, Attorney General nominee Bill Montgomery, Congressional candidate Randy Graf, and Congressman J.D. Hayworth, all lost in their election bids this year. The reason is plain-- other than the Minutemen and a few other loonies out there, people don't want a wall around the country. In Arizona, as in New Mexico, the ability of people and goods to pass over the border easily helps the economy and keeps thousands of people employed. Many businesses near the border make their money from trade with, through and in Mexico. Former Republican congressman Jim Kolbe understood this, as does Republican congressman Jeff Flake. So do Democrats like Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords, who beat Graf handily and will succeed Kolbe. They understand that Mexico is a partner, not an enemy. And Bill Richardson also understands this.
Further, what a lot of politicians don't understand about immigration is that the whole border issue is tied up with family. Many families run the gamut, with family members who are U.S. citizens, family members living happily in Latin America, and perhaps with family members who are here legally or illegally as aliens. So when people talk about building a wall or making being here without documents a felony, it is a personal issue that strikes to the core of family values. I know this is true in my own family. My father's family has been here since 1630 (in fact I had an ancestor who was a ship's chandler in Southampton who rented the Mayflower to the pilgrims, and himself came over ten years later.) My mother's parents were both Ellis Island immigrants during the early part of the last century. I have a cousin (on my father's side) who is today married to a Latin American man (he is a legal resident) and they go back every couple of years to visit his parents and other family members still living there. I know he has other family members living in the United States, and I haven't asked what their immigration status is (because it doesn't matter to me-- if I meet one of them then they are my family by marriage, and whether they have a green card or not won't change the family relation.) Bill Richardson's mother was from Mexico, so he certainly understands the family issues like no one else who is running. And further, whether we like it or not, the relations the U.S. has with Mexico are more important than the relations the U.S. has right now with probably any other country in the world. Geography, history and family have made it that way. Both Bill Richardson's knowledge of issues, his knowledge of Mexico and his negotiation skills would make him the best choice for someone who could work out a plan with Mexico that would secure the border, get a handle on who is going in and out and allow the free flow of trade and legal immigrants across the border. Stopping terrorists, criminals, drugs and maybe even WMD at the border won't work unless we have cooperation with Mexico, and Bill Richardson is a guy who I think can get it.
Water is another critical issue in the Southwest. We have a rapidly expanding population in Arizona (in fact Arizona just recently outpaced Nevada in this category to become the fastest growing state in the nation), and the limit on how far it can expand is dependent on one thing more than anything else: the water supply. New Mexico is also experiencing rapid growth (I went back with my wife a couple of years ago to visit Moriarty and Los Lunas, communities where we used to live, and was amazed at the growth that has occurred in both places.) The water issues in New Mexico, if less stressing than they are in Arizona, are very much the same. In 2003, a dry year, Governor Richardson was willing to endure the heat from outraged boaters and others when he released 122,500 acre feet instead of the expected 217,000 from Elephant Butte reservoir. While he has since visited the area and funded classes on boating safety and other issues, his decision then showed that 1) he understands water limitations, and 2) he is willing to make an unpopular decision that he thinks is right even when it costs him political support; that's a rarity in a politician these days.
Bill Richardson has always respected the Native American tribes in New Mexico. He hasn't tried to interfere with the free exercise of tribal soverignty, and (as I mentioned earlier) he is aware of the fact that on some reservations the electric grid was never completed, and felt that it should have. I am involved right now with a project to bring electricity to a community that has been waiting for decades to receive it, and my belief is that if Bill Richardson becomes President this issue, and others on reservations (such as the high numbers of meth labs) will be addressed, but in a way that respects and works with, rather than dictates to the sovereign governments that exist on the reservations.
Those are some reasons specific to Arizona that I support Bill Richardson, and believe that if it came to it he is the one Democrat who might be able to force John McCain, if he is the GOP nominee, to campaign at home (particularly with the McCain-mafia connection that is likely to come up sooner or later). There are some other reasons as well, that would apply no matter where I lived. The biggest one, now that we see the disastrous consequences in Iraq of our policy of unilateralism and the doctrine of 'pre-emptive war,' is that Bill Richardson's foreign policy (and he has extensive experience in the area) is based on diplomacy and peaceful resolution of conflict. That doesn't mean that he couldn't make a hard decision if he had to-- for example, in a speech to the U.N. in Stockholm in 1998 then-U.N. ambassador Richardson, speaking on behalf of the Clinton administration policy, said that it was possible that use of force might be needed to get Iraq to comply with U.N. sanctions (which the threat of did in fact get Saddam Hussein to let the inspectors back in before President Bush decided that he would rather just unilaterally ignore that the Iraqis had done what he asked and invade anyway.) Bill Richardson is a man of peace though and I know from having watched him for twenty years (during which time he has engaged in successful hostage negotiations and other negotiations with some pretty dangerous and unsavory characters) that he would consider war as a last resort only, and only if all other options for resolving a situation have failed. Further, he brings something that is sorely needed at this time-- a voice that is respected in the world and would begin to return the U.S. to a position of leadership in the world. No other candidate, of either party has the credentials and respect around the world that Bill Richardson has that will enable him to do the long, hard job of repairing America's reputation in the world and re-establishing America's moral authority to lead.
Bill Richardson also is innovative and willing to use the Government to help ordinary people. One example of this was his landmark initiative for providing a quarter million dollars of life insurance for each member of the New Mexico National Guard, including those deployed in Iraq. The effect of this was to eliminate one of the main concerns that our soldiers have-- worrying about how their loved ones will get along if they don't come back, and allow them to focus on the task at hand. The innovation by Richardson eventually embarrassed President Bush into doing the same thing on a national level.
New Mexico has also always been a very poor state with thousands of people in grinding poverty. It's still a poor state, but with Richardson's leadership as governor it is starting to grow and inch up on all those lists where it has been at or near the bottom for decades. New Mexico is blessed with a budget surplus again this year-- largely because of Richardson's willingness to resist the urge to throw money at problems while still increasing funding for specific areas to address specific and well-defined deficiencies. He has cut a few taxes in New Mexico, but the taxes he has cut-- like sales tax on things like groceries and medical care-- really are targetted towards everyone, not just the wealthy.
I just posted a link to an online poll. You may want to know who I voted for. I voted for Bill Richardson.
There are a lot of reasons for this. One reason is because I've actually had the chance to watch Governor Richardson for more than twenty years, since he was my Congressman while I was living in Socorro, New Mexico. In fact I've met him at least a couple of times (though I doubt if he remembers the meetings because they were very brief) but I do remember a town-hall type of meeting that he held there on the end of the Rural Electrification Administration (which was announced by the Reagan administration in 1986, claiming that the job was '99% complete'). Governor Richardson was against ending it until the job was 100% done, as the original promise had been when the REA was created in 1935. And that's the way he is. Where I live now, in northeastern Arizona, I have met a lot of people living on the Navajo reservation who don't have electricity; despite the objections of Bill Richardson and a few others, the Reagan administration unfortunately won that battle-- so millions of Americans in hundreds of communities still are not on the electric grid (even though it really would not take all that big an investment to finish it). But Bill Richardson stood out to me then as a thoughtful man who was willing to take on even battles that didn't make headlines, like that one.
Another reason is that living in Arizona, I'd have to say that Bill Richardson understands our issues in a way much different from all the other candidates in the race. There is more to the term 'neighbor' than just living next door. Your neighbor has pretty much the same perspective as you do on a lot of things in life; the view from your neighbor's house is much the same as it is from yours. If the street needs to be fixed or it snows or a stray dog is getting into people's garbage, it is something that you go through and deal with together with your neighbor. Governor Richardson, to begin with, understands the unique issues involved with matters like tribal sovereignty, water issues and the border much more than, say, a Clinton of New York, an Obama of Illinois or an Edwards of North Carolina. In fact, of all the announced or likely major Democratic candidates, only Clark (of Arkansas-- right on the Mississippi river) and Richardson are from anywhere west of the Mississippi at all-- and Governor Richardson is the only one who is from a place where water generally even is an issue.
Governor Richardson has also taken a balanced approach to the border, of the type that is favored by most Arizonans. At a time when most national politicians-- of both parties-- are struggling to find themselves on the issue, Bill Richardson seems to have a good handle on it. Last year, together with our own Governor, Janet Napolitano, Governor Richardson announced a state of emergency along the border which allowed for the stationing of the National Guard along the border in order to enhance border security. At the same time he has opposed building a wall along the border. That fits the views of most Arizonans. The Arizonans who took the hardest lines on immigration-- Gubernatorial nominee Len Munsil, Attorney General nominee Bill Montgomery, Congressional candidate Randy Graf, and Congressman J.D. Hayworth, all lost in their election bids this year. The reason is plain-- other than the Minutemen and a few other loonies out there, people don't want a wall around the country. In Arizona, as in New Mexico, the ability of people and goods to pass over the border easily helps the economy and keeps thousands of people employed. Many businesses near the border make their money from trade with, through and in Mexico. Former Republican congressman Jim Kolbe understood this, as does Republican congressman Jeff Flake. So do Democrats like Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords, who beat Graf handily and will succeed Kolbe. They understand that Mexico is a partner, not an enemy. And Bill Richardson also understands this.
Further, what a lot of politicians don't understand about immigration is that the whole border issue is tied up with family. Many families run the gamut, with family members who are U.S. citizens, family members living happily in Latin America, and perhaps with family members who are here legally or illegally as aliens. So when people talk about building a wall or making being here without documents a felony, it is a personal issue that strikes to the core of family values. I know this is true in my own family. My father's family has been here since 1630 (in fact I had an ancestor who was a ship's chandler in Southampton who rented the Mayflower to the pilgrims, and himself came over ten years later.) My mother's parents were both Ellis Island immigrants during the early part of the last century. I have a cousin (on my father's side) who is today married to a Latin American man (he is a legal resident) and they go back every couple of years to visit his parents and other family members still living there. I know he has other family members living in the United States, and I haven't asked what their immigration status is (because it doesn't matter to me-- if I meet one of them then they are my family by marriage, and whether they have a green card or not won't change the family relation.) Bill Richardson's mother was from Mexico, so he certainly understands the family issues like no one else who is running. And further, whether we like it or not, the relations the U.S. has with Mexico are more important than the relations the U.S. has right now with probably any other country in the world. Geography, history and family have made it that way. Both Bill Richardson's knowledge of issues, his knowledge of Mexico and his negotiation skills would make him the best choice for someone who could work out a plan with Mexico that would secure the border, get a handle on who is going in and out and allow the free flow of trade and legal immigrants across the border. Stopping terrorists, criminals, drugs and maybe even WMD at the border won't work unless we have cooperation with Mexico, and Bill Richardson is a guy who I think can get it.
Water is another critical issue in the Southwest. We have a rapidly expanding population in Arizona (in fact Arizona just recently outpaced Nevada in this category to become the fastest growing state in the nation), and the limit on how far it can expand is dependent on one thing more than anything else: the water supply. New Mexico is also experiencing rapid growth (I went back with my wife a couple of years ago to visit Moriarty and Los Lunas, communities where we used to live, and was amazed at the growth that has occurred in both places.) The water issues in New Mexico, if less stressing than they are in Arizona, are very much the same. In 2003, a dry year, Governor Richardson was willing to endure the heat from outraged boaters and others when he released 122,500 acre feet instead of the expected 217,000 from Elephant Butte reservoir. While he has since visited the area and funded classes on boating safety and other issues, his decision then showed that 1) he understands water limitations, and 2) he is willing to make an unpopular decision that he thinks is right even when it costs him political support; that's a rarity in a politician these days.
Bill Richardson has always respected the Native American tribes in New Mexico. He hasn't tried to interfere with the free exercise of tribal soverignty, and (as I mentioned earlier) he is aware of the fact that on some reservations the electric grid was never completed, and felt that it should have. I am involved right now with a project to bring electricity to a community that has been waiting for decades to receive it, and my belief is that if Bill Richardson becomes President this issue, and others on reservations (such as the high numbers of meth labs) will be addressed, but in a way that respects and works with, rather than dictates to the sovereign governments that exist on the reservations.
Those are some reasons specific to Arizona that I support Bill Richardson, and believe that if it came to it he is the one Democrat who might be able to force John McCain, if he is the GOP nominee, to campaign at home (particularly with the McCain-mafia connection that is likely to come up sooner or later). There are some other reasons as well, that would apply no matter where I lived. The biggest one, now that we see the disastrous consequences in Iraq of our policy of unilateralism and the doctrine of 'pre-emptive war,' is that Bill Richardson's foreign policy (and he has extensive experience in the area) is based on diplomacy and peaceful resolution of conflict. That doesn't mean that he couldn't make a hard decision if he had to-- for example, in a speech to the U.N. in Stockholm in 1998 then-U.N. ambassador Richardson, speaking on behalf of the Clinton administration policy, said that it was possible that use of force might be needed to get Iraq to comply with U.N. sanctions (which the threat of did in fact get Saddam Hussein to let the inspectors back in before President Bush decided that he would rather just unilaterally ignore that the Iraqis had done what he asked and invade anyway.) Bill Richardson is a man of peace though and I know from having watched him for twenty years (during which time he has engaged in successful hostage negotiations and other negotiations with some pretty dangerous and unsavory characters) that he would consider war as a last resort only, and only if all other options for resolving a situation have failed. Further, he brings something that is sorely needed at this time-- a voice that is respected in the world and would begin to return the U.S. to a position of leadership in the world. No other candidate, of either party has the credentials and respect around the world that Bill Richardson has that will enable him to do the long, hard job of repairing America's reputation in the world and re-establishing America's moral authority to lead.
Bill Richardson also is innovative and willing to use the Government to help ordinary people. One example of this was his landmark initiative for providing a quarter million dollars of life insurance for each member of the New Mexico National Guard, including those deployed in Iraq. The effect of this was to eliminate one of the main concerns that our soldiers have-- worrying about how their loved ones will get along if they don't come back, and allow them to focus on the task at hand. The innovation by Richardson eventually embarrassed President Bush into doing the same thing on a national level.
New Mexico has also always been a very poor state with thousands of people in grinding poverty. It's still a poor state, but with Richardson's leadership as governor it is starting to grow and inch up on all those lists where it has been at or near the bottom for decades. New Mexico is blessed with a budget surplus again this year-- largely because of Richardson's willingness to resist the urge to throw money at problems while still increasing funding for specific areas to address specific and well-defined deficiencies. He has cut a few taxes in New Mexico, but the taxes he has cut-- like sales tax on things like groceries and medical care-- really are targetted towards everyone, not just the wealthy.
Primary poll
I just tried something new.
I put up a link to an ongoing poll on Poll: Who will you vote for in the 2008 Democratic primary?
and View Results.
The links are from my left sidebar (or the hotlinks above in this post).
This isn't a scientific poll, of course. If it is then we better just hand the nomination to Dennis Kucinich (at least looking at the present results). And yeah-- I know-- it's 2006. But have fun voting.
I put up a link to an ongoing poll on Poll: Who will you vote for in the 2008 Democratic primary?
and View Results.
The links are from my left sidebar (or the hotlinks above in this post).
This isn't a scientific poll, of course. If it is then we better just hand the nomination to Dennis Kucinich (at least looking at the present results). And yeah-- I know-- it's 2006. But have fun voting.
Ford thought Iraq war was a mistake.
Caught up in all the Gerald Ford retrospectives this week, let's remember what he said about George Bush's decision to invade Iraq.
Ford said the justifications were inadequate to justify the war.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In an interview never before published, former President Gerald Ford said President Bush and his chief advisers "made a big mistake" with their justifications for the Iraq war.
Ford made the comments in a four-hour interview in 2004 with Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward....
"I don't think, if I had been president -- on the basis of the facts as I saw them publicly -- I don't think I would have ordered the Iraqi war," Ford said in a part of the interview broadcast on CNN's "Larry King Live" Wednesday.
"I would have maximized our efforts through sanctions, through restrictions, whatever, to find another answer," the former president said.
Too bad he wasn't still the President in that case. What we had instead was a bunch of chicken hawks who had managed to avoid combat themselves, apparently making decisions to send other people off to war without adequately thinking through what the cost of war could be, and more importantly what the cost of failure might be. And backed up by the neo-con crowd whose idea of warfare and military strategy is mostly derived from late nights playing Risk.
Ford said the justifications were inadequate to justify the war.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In an interview never before published, former President Gerald Ford said President Bush and his chief advisers "made a big mistake" with their justifications for the Iraq war.
Ford made the comments in a four-hour interview in 2004 with Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward....
"I don't think, if I had been president -- on the basis of the facts as I saw them publicly -- I don't think I would have ordered the Iraqi war," Ford said in a part of the interview broadcast on CNN's "Larry King Live" Wednesday.
"I would have maximized our efforts through sanctions, through restrictions, whatever, to find another answer," the former president said.
Too bad he wasn't still the President in that case. What we had instead was a bunch of chicken hawks who had managed to avoid combat themselves, apparently making decisions to send other people off to war without adequately thinking through what the cost of war could be, and more importantly what the cost of failure might be. And backed up by the neo-con crowd whose idea of warfare and military strategy is mostly derived from late nights playing Risk.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Yes, someone is from Cuckooland. It's the author judge
This is standing on principle: Wait until you are retained as a judge, and only then come out with a liberal bashing book entitled, "The Tyranny of Tolerance: A Sitting Judge Breaks the Code of Silence to Expose the Liberal Judicial Assault.
Last month, 70% of the voters in St. Louis, a heavily Democratic city, voted to retain Circuit Judge Robert H. Dierker Jr.
This month, Dierker came out with his book:
Chapter 1 of Circuit Judge Robert H. Dierker Jr.'s book, "The Tyranny of Tolerance: A Sitting Judge Breaks the Code of Silence to Expose the Liberal Judicial Assault," has circulated via e-mail since last month and been widely read in legal circles, lawyers and judges say.
The sentiments expressed in that chapter, which frequently uses the term "femifascists" and is titled "The Cloud Cuckooland of Radical Feminism," have already prompted a complaint with the state body that can reprimand or remove judges.
The actual unveiling of the book is to be on conservative talk-show host Bill O'Reilly's show next month. Literacy level aside, one would at least think that a Circuit Judge would have enough of a knowlege base to move above juvenile name-calling. But then it is clear from his language that the Judge is getting some of his information from right wing talk shows. Scary thought in itself.
The good news is that there is a loophole that can be used to remove him from the bench if O'Reilly or anyone else references his official position as a judge.
Other judges and lawyers have said that Dierker may have violated a state rule against a judge using his or her position for personal profit. One judge said it would be surprising if Dierker was not removed, calling the book "professional suicide."
Of course he is going to be introduced sooner or later as a judge; in fact the title itself says so. If that fact can be shown to cause even a single person to buy the book who would not have, then Dierker has made money on it and can then be removed from the bench. As I said, the best way would have been to let the voters decide, but he waited until after the election precisely so the voters can't have a say until 2012. A brave man of principle, that Robert Dierker, to wait until after the election.
But the book raises other concerns. In matters of law, the modern feminist movement has spearheaded legal changes needed to deal with matters like gender discrimination, family leave, equal pay and sexual harrassment, to name a few. One has to wonder, despite the judge's disclaimer at the end of the book, whether he would be able to rule impartially on a case involving any of these matters, if he thought that the law came straight from "Cuckooland."
Maybe Judge Dierker wants the controversy-- hoping he can parlay it into a run for higher office, as former Alabama Judge Roy Moore did (you remember Moore, don't you? The 'ten commandments' judge?) Dierker is known to be frustrated at being passed over for higher judgeships (obviously a good call though.) Memo to Dierker: Moore lost his run in the GOP primary for Governor, even running against a Republican governor who had broken a pledge not to raise taxes.
Last month, 70% of the voters in St. Louis, a heavily Democratic city, voted to retain Circuit Judge Robert H. Dierker Jr.
This month, Dierker came out with his book:
Chapter 1 of Circuit Judge Robert H. Dierker Jr.'s book, "The Tyranny of Tolerance: A Sitting Judge Breaks the Code of Silence to Expose the Liberal Judicial Assault," has circulated via e-mail since last month and been widely read in legal circles, lawyers and judges say.
The sentiments expressed in that chapter, which frequently uses the term "femifascists" and is titled "The Cloud Cuckooland of Radical Feminism," have already prompted a complaint with the state body that can reprimand or remove judges.
The actual unveiling of the book is to be on conservative talk-show host Bill O'Reilly's show next month. Literacy level aside, one would at least think that a Circuit Judge would have enough of a knowlege base to move above juvenile name-calling. But then it is clear from his language that the Judge is getting some of his information from right wing talk shows. Scary thought in itself.
The good news is that there is a loophole that can be used to remove him from the bench if O'Reilly or anyone else references his official position as a judge.
Other judges and lawyers have said that Dierker may have violated a state rule against a judge using his or her position for personal profit. One judge said it would be surprising if Dierker was not removed, calling the book "professional suicide."
Of course he is going to be introduced sooner or later as a judge; in fact the title itself says so. If that fact can be shown to cause even a single person to buy the book who would not have, then Dierker has made money on it and can then be removed from the bench. As I said, the best way would have been to let the voters decide, but he waited until after the election precisely so the voters can't have a say until 2012. A brave man of principle, that Robert Dierker, to wait until after the election.
But the book raises other concerns. In matters of law, the modern feminist movement has spearheaded legal changes needed to deal with matters like gender discrimination, family leave, equal pay and sexual harrassment, to name a few. One has to wonder, despite the judge's disclaimer at the end of the book, whether he would be able to rule impartially on a case involving any of these matters, if he thought that the law came straight from "Cuckooland."
Maybe Judge Dierker wants the controversy-- hoping he can parlay it into a run for higher office, as former Alabama Judge Roy Moore did (you remember Moore, don't you? The 'ten commandments' judge?) Dierker is known to be frustrated at being passed over for higher judgeships (obviously a good call though.) Memo to Dierker: Moore lost his run in the GOP primary for Governor, even running against a Republican governor who had broken a pledge not to raise taxes.
Another useless death due to the Iraq war of a soldier -- this time in Maryland.
Well, that's one way to stay out of Iraq. But it seems such a waste: army reservist due to go to Iraq killed by police in standoff.
LEONARDTOWN, Maryland — A member of the U.S. Army Reserves despondent about being sent to Iraq was killed by police during a 14-hour standoff that began Christmas night when family members told authorities he was armed and threatening to kill himself.
James Emerick Dean, 28, had barricaded himself inside his father's house with several weapons Monday night, family members told police. He later told officers he would shoot anyone who entered the house. His father was not home at the time.
Around noon Tuesday, while police were preparing to use tear gas to force Dean out of the home, Dean came to the front door and pointed his weapon at an officer, St. Mary's County Sheriff Tim Cameron said. Another deputy shot Dean once, killing him.
Dean had already served 18 months in Afghanistan and was despondent after learning recently that he would be deployed to Iraq, family members told police.
During the standoff, Dean fired several shots at police, including one that struck a car where a deputy sat. The officer was not injured.
This is about as close as it gets to a suicide. If you shoot at police officers and then come out into plain sight and point a gun at one, well, let's say your chances of survival are probably less than if you had pointed the gun at yourself and pulled the trigger (some people actually do survive that).
It is true, that having signed on as a member of the army reserve James Dean knew he might be deployed, and during a war he knew he might be deployed to a war zone. At the same time, he had already gone to one, and apparently had done so willingly. Unlike regular units, reserve and national guard units are made up of people who have a job outside of the service-- and with the job, bills to pay and other responsibilities that are not shared by full time soldiers.
What this does show (for the umpteenth time, I might add) is the overreliance on the guard and reserve units by the Bush administration. They have finally proposed to do what John Kerry suggested two years ago, namely expand the standing army. But count on George W. Bush to start a long protracted war and then realize four years into it that we may need more troops.
The worst part of this is it is a tragedy that didn't have to happen. There should be regular post-war professional counseling available, free of charge, to all returning soldiers-- whether they are full time or not. Then when a situation like this comes up, at least someone may be in a position to identify it and get the person involved the help (s)he needs.
LEONARDTOWN, Maryland — A member of the U.S. Army Reserves despondent about being sent to Iraq was killed by police during a 14-hour standoff that began Christmas night when family members told authorities he was armed and threatening to kill himself.
James Emerick Dean, 28, had barricaded himself inside his father's house with several weapons Monday night, family members told police. He later told officers he would shoot anyone who entered the house. His father was not home at the time.
Around noon Tuesday, while police were preparing to use tear gas to force Dean out of the home, Dean came to the front door and pointed his weapon at an officer, St. Mary's County Sheriff Tim Cameron said. Another deputy shot Dean once, killing him.
Dean had already served 18 months in Afghanistan and was despondent after learning recently that he would be deployed to Iraq, family members told police.
During the standoff, Dean fired several shots at police, including one that struck a car where a deputy sat. The officer was not injured.
This is about as close as it gets to a suicide. If you shoot at police officers and then come out into plain sight and point a gun at one, well, let's say your chances of survival are probably less than if you had pointed the gun at yourself and pulled the trigger (some people actually do survive that).
It is true, that having signed on as a member of the army reserve James Dean knew he might be deployed, and during a war he knew he might be deployed to a war zone. At the same time, he had already gone to one, and apparently had done so willingly. Unlike regular units, reserve and national guard units are made up of people who have a job outside of the service-- and with the job, bills to pay and other responsibilities that are not shared by full time soldiers.
What this does show (for the umpteenth time, I might add) is the overreliance on the guard and reserve units by the Bush administration. They have finally proposed to do what John Kerry suggested two years ago, namely expand the standing army. But count on George W. Bush to start a long protracted war and then realize four years into it that we may need more troops.
The worst part of this is it is a tragedy that didn't have to happen. There should be regular post-war professional counseling available, free of charge, to all returning soldiers-- whether they are full time or not. Then when a situation like this comes up, at least someone may be in a position to identify it and get the person involved the help (s)he needs.
Republicans STILL believe government spending must be wasteful, so they are STILL trying to make it so.
Last March, I wrote a post entitled, Republicans believe that government spending is wasteful. And they're certainly proving themselves right about how contractors that the government had hired for Katrina cleanup-- generally politically well-connected firms like Bechtel and Fluor-- used to getting fat on government contracts-- had taken a cut from the contracts and shuffled the job off to subcontractors, who in turn had shuffled it off through layers and layers of subcontractors until it got to the people who actually did the work, for a tiny fraction of the cost.
Well, it turns out that things haven't gotten better. An audit came out today showing contractors are still bilking us out of billions, all legally because the Bush administration apparently did nothing after this first came out in March.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The tally for Hurricane Katrina waste could top $2 billion next year because half of the lucrative government contracts valued at $500,000 or greater for cleanup work are being awarded with little competition.
Federal investigators have already determined the Bush administration squandered $1 billion on fraudulent disaster aid to individuals after the 2005 storm.
Now they are shifting their attention to the multimillion dollar contracts to politically connected firms that critics have long said are a prime area for abuse.
In January, investigators will release the first of several audits examining more than $12 billion in Katrina contracts. The charges range from political favoritism to limited opportunities for small and minority-owned firms, which initially got only 1.5 percent of the total work.
"Based on their track record, it wouldn't surprise me if we saw another billion more in waste," said Clark Kent Ervin, the Homeland Security Department's inspector general from 2003-2004. "I don't think sufficient progress has been made."
He called it inexcusable that the Bush administration would still have so many no-bid contracts. Under pressure last year, Federal Emergency Management Agency director David Paulison pledged to rebid many of the agreements, only to backtrack months later and reopen only a portion.
Investigators are now examining whether some of the agreements -- which in some cases were extended without warning rather than rebid -- are still unfairly benefiting large firms.
"It's a combination of laziness, ineptitude and it may well be nefarious," Ervin said.
This is however not a surprise. There is a history that this administration will fix a problem only when a spotlight is shone on it, and as soon as the spotlight moves on to something else, they go right back to their old way of doing things.
The real losers in all of this are the people of Louisiana. Thousands are still living as refugees, almost a year and a half since Katrina, the work is progressing slowly, and sooner or later people's appetite for investing more money in this will wane-- and the money that has been invested will almost all be sitting in someone's bank account who did none of the actual work.
I would propose a simple solution for this. According to the article in March, the overcharges ranged up to 1700%.
Certainly it is tempting to suggest that the government simply nationalize the contracts, send the Corps of Engineers out there to do cleanup, and if they hired a subcontractor it would be a local subcontractor who could not themselves subcontract out any of the work.
But I have a suggestion which might even appeal to conservatives and would still get a handle on the problem: I would suggest that the amount of 'cut' that could be taken out of such a contract to all levels of subcontractors would be limited to, say, 20% of the total overall contract. That means that if, for example, a company like Bechtel, Flour or Shaw gets a government contract to do cleanup anyplace (not just for Katrina) the sweetest deal they could cut would be to pay subcontractors 80% of the overall contract-- and that only if that contractor agreed that their organization would specifically and personally do all the work. Or, Bechtel or Fluor could keep 10% and dump it off to someone else who could take 10% of the original contract and then still pay 80% to whoever was actually doing the work.
Well, it turns out that things haven't gotten better. An audit came out today showing contractors are still bilking us out of billions, all legally because the Bush administration apparently did nothing after this first came out in March.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The tally for Hurricane Katrina waste could top $2 billion next year because half of the lucrative government contracts valued at $500,000 or greater for cleanup work are being awarded with little competition.
Federal investigators have already determined the Bush administration squandered $1 billion on fraudulent disaster aid to individuals after the 2005 storm.
Now they are shifting their attention to the multimillion dollar contracts to politically connected firms that critics have long said are a prime area for abuse.
In January, investigators will release the first of several audits examining more than $12 billion in Katrina contracts. The charges range from political favoritism to limited opportunities for small and minority-owned firms, which initially got only 1.5 percent of the total work.
"Based on their track record, it wouldn't surprise me if we saw another billion more in waste," said Clark Kent Ervin, the Homeland Security Department's inspector general from 2003-2004. "I don't think sufficient progress has been made."
He called it inexcusable that the Bush administration would still have so many no-bid contracts. Under pressure last year, Federal Emergency Management Agency director David Paulison pledged to rebid many of the agreements, only to backtrack months later and reopen only a portion.
Investigators are now examining whether some of the agreements -- which in some cases were extended without warning rather than rebid -- are still unfairly benefiting large firms.
"It's a combination of laziness, ineptitude and it may well be nefarious," Ervin said.
This is however not a surprise. There is a history that this administration will fix a problem only when a spotlight is shone on it, and as soon as the spotlight moves on to something else, they go right back to their old way of doing things.
The real losers in all of this are the people of Louisiana. Thousands are still living as refugees, almost a year and a half since Katrina, the work is progressing slowly, and sooner or later people's appetite for investing more money in this will wane-- and the money that has been invested will almost all be sitting in someone's bank account who did none of the actual work.
I would propose a simple solution for this. According to the article in March, the overcharges ranged up to 1700%.
Certainly it is tempting to suggest that the government simply nationalize the contracts, send the Corps of Engineers out there to do cleanup, and if they hired a subcontractor it would be a local subcontractor who could not themselves subcontract out any of the work.
But I have a suggestion which might even appeal to conservatives and would still get a handle on the problem: I would suggest that the amount of 'cut' that could be taken out of such a contract to all levels of subcontractors would be limited to, say, 20% of the total overall contract. That means that if, for example, a company like Bechtel, Flour or Shaw gets a government contract to do cleanup anyplace (not just for Katrina) the sweetest deal they could cut would be to pay subcontractors 80% of the overall contract-- and that only if that contractor agreed that their organization would specifically and personally do all the work. Or, Bechtel or Fluor could keep 10% and dump it off to someone else who could take 10% of the original contract and then still pay 80% to whoever was actually doing the work.
Rising Ocean Levels Claim Previously Inhabited Island
Quietly, very quietly the high tide came in from the Bay of Bengal. And with it, one of the most dire predictions of global warming became a reality: rising sea levels inundate previously inhabited island.
Rising seas, caused by global warming, have for the first time washed an inhabited island off the face of the Earth. The obliteration of Lohachara island, in India's part of the Sundarbans where the Ganges and the Brahmaputra rivers empty into the Bay of Bengal, marks the moment when one of the most apocalyptic predictions of environmentalists and climate scientists has started coming true.
As the seas continue to swell, they will swallow whole island nations, from the Maldives to the Marshall Islands, inundate vast areas of countries from Bangladesh to Egypt, and submerge parts of scores of coastal cities.
Eight years ago, as exclusively reported in The Independent on Sunday, the first uninhabited islands - in the Pacific atoll nation of Kiribati - vanished beneath the waves. The people of low-lying islands in Vanuatu, also in the Pacific, have been evacuated as a precaution, but the land still juts above the sea. The disappearance of Lohachara, once home to 10,000 people, is unprecedented.
It sucks, being right about this. I would much prefer that conservatives were right, that there is nothing we could do that would damage the environment. But that is not the case.
Of course when the first islands in the deep sea began to sink beneath the waves some years ago, conservatives made a pretty ridiculous claim-- that the sea floor beneath them was sinking. But one point to make about the Sundarbans-- is that they are part of the Asian continent. So if conservatives made a similar claim here they'd have to claim that Asia was sinking (presumably into the mantle) so that the sea floor was rising.
Rising seas, caused by global warming, have for the first time washed an inhabited island off the face of the Earth. The obliteration of Lohachara island, in India's part of the Sundarbans where the Ganges and the Brahmaputra rivers empty into the Bay of Bengal, marks the moment when one of the most apocalyptic predictions of environmentalists and climate scientists has started coming true.
As the seas continue to swell, they will swallow whole island nations, from the Maldives to the Marshall Islands, inundate vast areas of countries from Bangladesh to Egypt, and submerge parts of scores of coastal cities.
Eight years ago, as exclusively reported in The Independent on Sunday, the first uninhabited islands - in the Pacific atoll nation of Kiribati - vanished beneath the waves. The people of low-lying islands in Vanuatu, also in the Pacific, have been evacuated as a precaution, but the land still juts above the sea. The disappearance of Lohachara, once home to 10,000 people, is unprecedented.
It sucks, being right about this. I would much prefer that conservatives were right, that there is nothing we could do that would damage the environment. But that is not the case.
Of course when the first islands in the deep sea began to sink beneath the waves some years ago, conservatives made a pretty ridiculous claim-- that the sea floor beneath them was sinking. But one point to make about the Sundarbans-- is that they are part of the Asian continent. So if conservatives made a similar claim here they'd have to claim that Asia was sinking (presumably into the mantle) so that the sea floor was rising.
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Gerald R. Ford, 1913-2006
It is being reported that Former President Gerald R. Ford has just died.
President Ford was unique among all of America's chief executives in that he was never elected, either to the Presidency or to the Vice Presidency. He was picked by Richard Nixon to replace Spiro Agnew during the scandal-choked year of 1973. The following year he acceded to the Presidency when Nixon resigned. Ford was President for two years. Even before that Ford was a sometimes controversial figure, having served on the Warren Commission that eventually concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, had fired all the shots that hit President Kennedy and Governor Conally on that black day in November of 1963; Ford was the last surviving member of that commission. Ford served in the House of Representatives representing Grand Rapids, Michigan, until the day he was confirmed as Vice-President of the United States.
During his two years, he was a sometimes-controversial President. He set a modern record for vetoing legislation, as even after the 1974 election he did not concede an inch to the Democratic Congress. He also pardoned Richard Nixon after Nixon resigned the Presidency (effectively ending the Watergate investigation), raising the spectre of a backroom deal (which both men vigorously denied for the rest of their lives, but the possibility has to be considered nevertheless.) Ford presided over the final American withdrawl in Vietnam, including the evacuation of embassy personnel by helicopter from the rooftop of the embassy in Saigon. In 1975, Khmer Rouge guerillas, who had just seized power in Cambodia, seized the U.S. spy ship Mayaguez. Ford authorized a rescue mission, which also became controversial, as 38 marines died to rescue 39 hostages. Ford also survived two assassination attempts, including one by 'Squeaky' Fromme, a former member of the Manson family.
To be honest, for a Republican President I almost liked Gerald Ford. Even with all the vetoes, he was willing to work with Congress, and the strident partisanship, which are in abundance now and which was in abundance when he took office, had all but disappeared by the end of his term. He was also arguably the last ex-President to behave as people had come to expect an ex-President to behave, largely ducking involvement in big projects or working for the betterment of the world, instead occasionally coming in off the golf course to answer a few softball questions. Both his predecessor, Nixon, and his successor, Carter, began to set a different pattern for ex-Presidents, that of social activist and worker.
President Ford was unique among all of America's chief executives in that he was never elected, either to the Presidency or to the Vice Presidency. He was picked by Richard Nixon to replace Spiro Agnew during the scandal-choked year of 1973. The following year he acceded to the Presidency when Nixon resigned. Ford was President for two years. Even before that Ford was a sometimes controversial figure, having served on the Warren Commission that eventually concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, had fired all the shots that hit President Kennedy and Governor Conally on that black day in November of 1963; Ford was the last surviving member of that commission. Ford served in the House of Representatives representing Grand Rapids, Michigan, until the day he was confirmed as Vice-President of the United States.
During his two years, he was a sometimes-controversial President. He set a modern record for vetoing legislation, as even after the 1974 election he did not concede an inch to the Democratic Congress. He also pardoned Richard Nixon after Nixon resigned the Presidency (effectively ending the Watergate investigation), raising the spectre of a backroom deal (which both men vigorously denied for the rest of their lives, but the possibility has to be considered nevertheless.) Ford presided over the final American withdrawl in Vietnam, including the evacuation of embassy personnel by helicopter from the rooftop of the embassy in Saigon. In 1975, Khmer Rouge guerillas, who had just seized power in Cambodia, seized the U.S. spy ship Mayaguez. Ford authorized a rescue mission, which also became controversial, as 38 marines died to rescue 39 hostages. Ford also survived two assassination attempts, including one by 'Squeaky' Fromme, a former member of the Manson family.
To be honest, for a Republican President I almost liked Gerald Ford. Even with all the vetoes, he was willing to work with Congress, and the strident partisanship, which are in abundance now and which was in abundance when he took office, had all but disappeared by the end of his term. He was also arguably the last ex-President to behave as people had come to expect an ex-President to behave, largely ducking involvement in big projects or working for the betterment of the world, instead occasionally coming in off the golf course to answer a few softball questions. Both his predecessor, Nixon, and his successor, Carter, began to set a different pattern for ex-Presidents, that of social activist and worker.
He should have just asked to be on the Apprentice
Apparently Donald Trump can be conned. At least on a resume. E.J. Ridings was hired as head of Trump Mortgage in April.
At the time, Trump said that the goal of Trump Mortgage was to
inject integrity into an industry that has the reputation for giving customers a raw deal....
"Trump Mortgage is going to take better care of people than anyone in the mortgage industry ever has," said Trump.
Sounds like integrity has a way to go. Until this week, Trump Mortgage's website described Ridings as a 'seasoned pro.'
First, Ridings' initial bio stated that before joining the company he was "a top executive at one of Wall Street's most prestigious investment banks."
Second, the bio had said that Ridings was an "established leader" at one of New York's leading mortgage boutiques.
Third, the bio said he had 15 years of experience in the financial industry.
All three claims appear to be false, according to regulatory documents obtained by Money and interviews with former colleagues of Ridings.
In fact, Ridings apparently worked for a whole six days as a registered broker with Morgan Stanley subsidiary Dean Witter Reynolds, out of a three month stint total. He also later worked as a day trader and at a company called GuardHill Financial, where he was a 'loan originator,' an entry-level position. Beyond this, he also sold health drinks and vitamins, and had his own cleaning service. Yup, that's right, a janitor fooled Donald Trump.
OK, so that brings us to the next question: Now that the fraud has been exposed, how did 'wonder boy' do? I mean, if anyone would forgive even this level of indiscretion in getting hired if it was balanced by an outstanding record of achievement since then, you'd expect it to be Trump. He said just last week in the Miss USA controversy, "I've always been a believer in second chances." So what kind of performance did Ridings turn in the past eight months, apparently learning as he went?
Well, not so hot.
Trump Mortgage is off to a bumpy start. At least six residential mortgage professionals have left the firm in the past six months, including Scheck and Craig Lane, who was hired to run the company's Florida operations.
And Trump Mortgage has fallen short of Ridings' earlier forecasts. At the time of the company's launch, Ridings predicted the company would complete $3 billion in loans in 2006, much of it in residential lending. Now Ridings says, "Trump Mortgage anticipated doing close to $1 billion in residential mortgages, but that figure may not be reached by the end of this year."
I'm surprised that Ridings hasn't been fired yet. He made a monkey out of 'the Donald,' and I doubt if the Donald is going to give him another chance.
At the time, Trump said that the goal of Trump Mortgage was to
inject integrity into an industry that has the reputation for giving customers a raw deal....
"Trump Mortgage is going to take better care of people than anyone in the mortgage industry ever has," said Trump.
Sounds like integrity has a way to go. Until this week, Trump Mortgage's website described Ridings as a 'seasoned pro.'
First, Ridings' initial bio stated that before joining the company he was "a top executive at one of Wall Street's most prestigious investment banks."
Second, the bio had said that Ridings was an "established leader" at one of New York's leading mortgage boutiques.
Third, the bio said he had 15 years of experience in the financial industry.
All three claims appear to be false, according to regulatory documents obtained by Money and interviews with former colleagues of Ridings.
In fact, Ridings apparently worked for a whole six days as a registered broker with Morgan Stanley subsidiary Dean Witter Reynolds, out of a three month stint total. He also later worked as a day trader and at a company called GuardHill Financial, where he was a 'loan originator,' an entry-level position. Beyond this, he also sold health drinks and vitamins, and had his own cleaning service. Yup, that's right, a janitor fooled Donald Trump.
OK, so that brings us to the next question: Now that the fraud has been exposed, how did 'wonder boy' do? I mean, if anyone would forgive even this level of indiscretion in getting hired if it was balanced by an outstanding record of achievement since then, you'd expect it to be Trump. He said just last week in the Miss USA controversy, "I've always been a believer in second chances." So what kind of performance did Ridings turn in the past eight months, apparently learning as he went?
Well, not so hot.
Trump Mortgage is off to a bumpy start. At least six residential mortgage professionals have left the firm in the past six months, including Scheck and Craig Lane, who was hired to run the company's Florida operations.
And Trump Mortgage has fallen short of Ridings' earlier forecasts. At the time of the company's launch, Ridings predicted the company would complete $3 billion in loans in 2006, much of it in residential lending. Now Ridings says, "Trump Mortgage anticipated doing close to $1 billion in residential mortgages, but that figure may not be reached by the end of this year."
I'm surprised that Ridings hasn't been fired yet. He made a monkey out of 'the Donald,' and I doubt if the Donald is going to give him another chance.
James Brown had his Widow Locked out of the House.
James Brown never ceased to amaze.
And so it is in his death. It turns out that his widow has been locked out of the house.
BEECH ISLAND, South Carolina (AP) -- James Brown's lawyer said Tuesday that the late singer and his partner were not legally married and that she was locked out of his South Carolina home for estate legal reasons.
"It's not a reflection on her as an individual," lawyer Buddy Dallas told The Associated Press. "I have not even been in the house, nor will I until appropriate protocol is followed."
Brown's partner, backup dancer Tomi Rae Hynie, was already married to a Texas man in 2001 when she married Brown, thus making her marriage to Brown null, Dallas said. He said Hynie later annulled the previous marriage, but she and Brown never remarried.
"I suppose it would mean she was, from time to time, a guest in Mr. Brown's home," Dallas said.
On Monday, after the 73-year-old "Godfather of Soul" died at an Atlanta hospital, Hynie, 36, found the gates to Brown's Beech Island, South Carolina, home padlocked and said she was denied access.
The protocol Mr. Brown's lawyer is following, including locking her out, is protocol that was established by the singer himself. And clearly he knew the legal situation involving her previous marriage and made a conscious decision not to remarry her legally.
I have to admit that neither party comes out looking very good in this one.
James Brown has a five year old son by Tomi Rae Hynie, so it's not like she hasn't invested a significant amount of time with him. The couple has feuded and in 2004 Brown pleaded guilty to a domestic violence charge after Hynie alleged that he had pushed her to the ground and threatened her life.
On the other hand, Hynie apparently hasn't seen Brown 'in weeks.' He went to the Hospital in Atlanta to be treated for pneumonia, and with him on his deathbed she apparently didn't even bother to come by the hospital and visit, much less keep him company in his final hours. It may be that the 'protocol' he established was done so during these final hours when she was someplace else (she says she was on a 'retreat;' In this day and age it isn't hard to contact anyone in an emergency (as his hospitalization was) And of course she is 36, he is 73. Not saying that there couldn't be true love in this scenario, but her actions during his decline and death hardly suggest it. So Golddigger seems to be the only apt description. Then, to put an exclamation point on it, she was apparently also not with her son when his father died. If there is one other place that it would be logical and understandable for her to be, other than at his bedside, it would be with her son who was losing his father. But apparently when she went on her 'retreat,' she left the boy to grieve in the care of someone else.
As I said, this does not look very good for either of them. And I am sure she is getting in contact with her lawyer right now, to go to court with his lawyer. She will probably lose, because it appears that Brown carefully prepared and landscaped the legal ground in this case before he died.
I just hope there is something left for his kids (including his son by Hynie as well as the rest of the kids.)
And so it is in his death. It turns out that his widow has been locked out of the house.
BEECH ISLAND, South Carolina (AP) -- James Brown's lawyer said Tuesday that the late singer and his partner were not legally married and that she was locked out of his South Carolina home for estate legal reasons.
"It's not a reflection on her as an individual," lawyer Buddy Dallas told The Associated Press. "I have not even been in the house, nor will I until appropriate protocol is followed."
Brown's partner, backup dancer Tomi Rae Hynie, was already married to a Texas man in 2001 when she married Brown, thus making her marriage to Brown null, Dallas said. He said Hynie later annulled the previous marriage, but she and Brown never remarried.
"I suppose it would mean she was, from time to time, a guest in Mr. Brown's home," Dallas said.
On Monday, after the 73-year-old "Godfather of Soul" died at an Atlanta hospital, Hynie, 36, found the gates to Brown's Beech Island, South Carolina, home padlocked and said she was denied access.
The protocol Mr. Brown's lawyer is following, including locking her out, is protocol that was established by the singer himself. And clearly he knew the legal situation involving her previous marriage and made a conscious decision not to remarry her legally.
I have to admit that neither party comes out looking very good in this one.
James Brown has a five year old son by Tomi Rae Hynie, so it's not like she hasn't invested a significant amount of time with him. The couple has feuded and in 2004 Brown pleaded guilty to a domestic violence charge after Hynie alleged that he had pushed her to the ground and threatened her life.
On the other hand, Hynie apparently hasn't seen Brown 'in weeks.' He went to the Hospital in Atlanta to be treated for pneumonia, and with him on his deathbed she apparently didn't even bother to come by the hospital and visit, much less keep him company in his final hours. It may be that the 'protocol' he established was done so during these final hours when she was someplace else (she says she was on a 'retreat;' In this day and age it isn't hard to contact anyone in an emergency (as his hospitalization was) And of course she is 36, he is 73. Not saying that there couldn't be true love in this scenario, but her actions during his decline and death hardly suggest it. So Golddigger seems to be the only apt description. Then, to put an exclamation point on it, she was apparently also not with her son when his father died. If there is one other place that it would be logical and understandable for her to be, other than at his bedside, it would be with her son who was losing his father. But apparently when she went on her 'retreat,' she left the boy to grieve in the care of someone else.
As I said, this does not look very good for either of them. And I am sure she is getting in contact with her lawyer right now, to go to court with his lawyer. She will probably lose, because it appears that Brown carefully prepared and landscaped the legal ground in this case before he died.
I just hope there is something left for his kids (including his son by Hynie as well as the rest of the kids.)
Monday, December 25, 2006
Stuck with inefficient private industry
Remember the story from last October about how a routine drug bust had netted some classified material from Los Alamos National Laboratory?
Well, it seems that the cure was worse than the affliction. Los Alamos, having gone from institutional management via the University of California to a partnership with Bechtel, one of the most notorious recipients of corporate welfare in Washington, decided to fix the problem by having all the computers super-glued. Actually, the USB ports, more specifically had to be super-glued.
That’s right, Los Alamos Nuclear Labs, one of the top US research labs with some of the smartest scientists and engineers has decided that Super Glue is the best answer to their endpoint security problems.
What about PCMCIA slots, PS/2, Serial Ports, Firewire ports and CD-ROM drives? What will happen when a researcher needs to use a biometric device, or other USB device? The computer system is now ruined and will have to have the USB ports replaced, or the system replaced. Your tax dollars at work.
To say nothing of what happens when the letter 't' wears out on your keyboard? Now, instead of replacing a $20 keyboard, you have to trash the whole computer, probably worth thousands of dollars.
Well, what else did you expect when you gave control of the labs to private enterprise, especially a company like Bechtel which makes their living off of fat government contracts and has learned how to pocket tons of cash while actually doing very little?
Correction: Indy Voter pointed out some misleading statements, at least one of which 'government management' implied direct Federal management, which the lab has never had (though the University of California is an institution within a government entity.) Though this is technically not an error I will count it as one, so I presently have 7 errors in 510 posts, and in accordance with the previously announced policy at Deep Thought, I am publically acknowleging erroneous information in a blog post and still have a fielding percentage for post accuracy of 503/510 = .986
Well, it seems that the cure was worse than the affliction. Los Alamos, having gone from institutional management via the University of California to a partnership with Bechtel, one of the most notorious recipients of corporate welfare in Washington, decided to fix the problem by having all the computers super-glued. Actually, the USB ports, more specifically had to be super-glued.
That’s right, Los Alamos Nuclear Labs, one of the top US research labs with some of the smartest scientists and engineers has decided that Super Glue is the best answer to their endpoint security problems.
What about PCMCIA slots, PS/2, Serial Ports, Firewire ports and CD-ROM drives? What will happen when a researcher needs to use a biometric device, or other USB device? The computer system is now ruined and will have to have the USB ports replaced, or the system replaced. Your tax dollars at work.
To say nothing of what happens when the letter 't' wears out on your keyboard? Now, instead of replacing a $20 keyboard, you have to trash the whole computer, probably worth thousands of dollars.
Well, what else did you expect when you gave control of the labs to private enterprise, especially a company like Bechtel which makes their living off of fat government contracts and has learned how to pocket tons of cash while actually doing very little?
Correction: Indy Voter pointed out some misleading statements, at least one of which 'government management' implied direct Federal management, which the lab has never had (though the University of California is an institution within a government entity.) Though this is technically not an error I will count it as one, so I presently have 7 errors in 510 posts, and in accordance with the previously announced policy at Deep Thought, I am publically acknowleging erroneous information in a blog post and still have a fielding percentage for post accuracy of 503/510 = .986
Saturday, December 23, 2006
Yeah, it's Christmas. And I was right.
This would be a good time to visit a 'crystal ball' kind of prediction:
Back on September 7, as the President was suddenly focusing on the Afghan war (you know, the war against the folks who really attacked us on 9/11) as a way of diverting attention from Iraq, I wrote:
Terrorism and the Afghan War:
At the end I predicted, based on past elections, that the new focus on the Afghan war was an election related smokescreen:
So that explains a lot of why, with the election less than nine weeks away, we are suddenly seeing such a renewed focus on the war in Afghanistan right now.
Sure, conservatives will express shock at my questioning the President's motives.
All I'd say is, be sure to continue to ask him about the war in Afghanistan in November after the election and December.
Because I bet that by Christmas, Afghanistan will be relegated to the same second thought that it has been over the past few years. Hope I'm wrong, but that's what I expect.
Well, Christmas is here, and the focus is on... Iraq.
What really bothers me about this is that what the President and his advisors once again used as election campaign fodder isn't the usual stuff about abortion, guns, gays, etc.-- I can handle that-- but wars which involve the deaths of thousands of people (including hundreds of Americans), to say nothing of the aspirations and hopes of millions of people.
Back on September 7, as the President was suddenly focusing on the Afghan war (you know, the war against the folks who really attacked us on 9/11) as a way of diverting attention from Iraq, I wrote:
Terrorism and the Afghan War:
At the end I predicted, based on past elections, that the new focus on the Afghan war was an election related smokescreen:
So that explains a lot of why, with the election less than nine weeks away, we are suddenly seeing such a renewed focus on the war in Afghanistan right now.
Sure, conservatives will express shock at my questioning the President's motives.
All I'd say is, be sure to continue to ask him about the war in Afghanistan in November after the election and December.
Because I bet that by Christmas, Afghanistan will be relegated to the same second thought that it has been over the past few years. Hope I'm wrong, but that's what I expect.
Well, Christmas is here, and the focus is on... Iraq.
What really bothers me about this is that what the President and his advisors once again used as election campaign fodder isn't the usual stuff about abortion, guns, gays, etc.-- I can handle that-- but wars which involve the deaths of thousands of people (including hundreds of Americans), to say nothing of the aspirations and hopes of millions of people.
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Wanna bet they appoint Inspector Clouseau to the Renzi case?
There is news regarding the ongoing investigations involving my congressman, Rick Renzi. I say that in the plural because they were reported originally as two separate investigations. One was reported as Renzi using his office to steer Federal dollars to his father's company, and the other as Renzi arranging a land swap with James Sandlin in an influence peddling scheme as he quickly raised money to run for Congress in 2002. As I blogged in October, these two investigations may be one complicated one.
The news is that U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton, who is handling the Renzi investigation, is leaving his position to join the Phoenix based law firm of Kennedy and Gallagher in January.
In that position, he will join his wife, and not coincidentally earn quite a bit more money in all likelihood than he was earning as a U.S. Attorney.
Charlton, though I know some people who don't like him, has always impressed me. Maybe it's because I remember his investigation into Valinda Jo Elliot after the Rodeo Chedeski fire had destroyed hundreds of homes; Elliott had started the Chedeski half as a signal fire after being lost in the woods following a vehicle breakdown. Elliott took her cell phone, and had reached some stupid person with a clerk mentality with the Bureau of Land Management; they figured out where she was and informed her that since she was over the line in the national forest she had to call the national forest headquarters. The HQ of course had long since been evacuated because of the nearby Rodeo fire and the national forest was closed, so Elliott got a recorded message. Then her cell ran out of power after having been put on hold for so long by automated machines between the two calls. Anyway, Charlton was the guy who was willing to go to Heber after the Chedeski fire and face an auditorium full of enraged people and tell them that he wasn't going to prosecute Valinda Jo Elliott (which was the right call by the way; if anyone should have been prosecuted it was the one person she actually talked to, the clerk with the ultimate 'that's not my department,' mentality even while talking to a desperate person in a life and death emergency.)
There could be more to this than meets the eye though. Remember Noel Hillman? He was the prosecutor assigned to investigating the Jack Abramoff case. Hillman was doing such a good job that the Bush administration had to find a way to deal with that. They appointed him to the Federal Bench, a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that most prosecutors dream about but never get the call for.
And now suddenly Paul Charlton gets a phone call offering him a lucrative position where he can work with his wife. You have to wonder what he was working on in regard to Rick Renzi when that call came through.
Well, maybe there is something to be said for investigating allies of the Bush administration. It can be a great career boost, when they decide it's time to buy you out.
The news is that U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton, who is handling the Renzi investigation, is leaving his position to join the Phoenix based law firm of Kennedy and Gallagher in January.
In that position, he will join his wife, and not coincidentally earn quite a bit more money in all likelihood than he was earning as a U.S. Attorney.
Charlton, though I know some people who don't like him, has always impressed me. Maybe it's because I remember his investigation into Valinda Jo Elliot after the Rodeo Chedeski fire had destroyed hundreds of homes; Elliott had started the Chedeski half as a signal fire after being lost in the woods following a vehicle breakdown. Elliott took her cell phone, and had reached some stupid person with a clerk mentality with the Bureau of Land Management; they figured out where she was and informed her that since she was over the line in the national forest she had to call the national forest headquarters. The HQ of course had long since been evacuated because of the nearby Rodeo fire and the national forest was closed, so Elliott got a recorded message. Then her cell ran out of power after having been put on hold for so long by automated machines between the two calls. Anyway, Charlton was the guy who was willing to go to Heber after the Chedeski fire and face an auditorium full of enraged people and tell them that he wasn't going to prosecute Valinda Jo Elliott (which was the right call by the way; if anyone should have been prosecuted it was the one person she actually talked to, the clerk with the ultimate 'that's not my department,' mentality even while talking to a desperate person in a life and death emergency.)
There could be more to this than meets the eye though. Remember Noel Hillman? He was the prosecutor assigned to investigating the Jack Abramoff case. Hillman was doing such a good job that the Bush administration had to find a way to deal with that. They appointed him to the Federal Bench, a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that most prosecutors dream about but never get the call for.
And now suddenly Paul Charlton gets a phone call offering him a lucrative position where he can work with his wife. You have to wonder what he was working on in regard to Rick Renzi when that call came through.
Well, maybe there is something to be said for investigating allies of the Bush administration. It can be a great career boost, when they decide it's time to buy you out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
