The Rant

Back in the Saddle

2011-10-10T19:55:00.000-07:00

I have been distracted but continue to be pissed off. If anyone hasn't noticed, the recent Anti-Wall Street, 99% movement is a symptom of something similar to the tea party movement, even if the two movements wouldn't admit it.

Ordinary Americans know they are being screwed by someone. Is it the liberals, the Republicans, the Democrats.....or is it the 1%?

Are the Republicans Kidding

2011-04-04T20:05:00.000-07:00

Do Americans under the age of 55 intend to pay for all of their own retirement and health insurance? The Republicans think so. I am sure that those 55 to 65 probably recognize the limitations of their ability to fund their retirement without any help from the system that they have paid into for 30 to 40 years. But anyone between 20 and 40 better just look at what happened to the net worth of most Americans in the last 3 years. Without programs like social security or medicare, you may be forced to spend your last dime to live and pay your medical bills because you won't be able to afford your medical insurance...then you get sick, and then you are f...........

the Public Sector

2011-01-17T06:37:00.001-08:00

The first problem with the public sector is that there is not enough money to pay for all of them. The get retirements which are unlike anything seen in the private sector. Since there is no competition for most of the private sector, there is no economic incentive for efficiency (until the state goes broke, which is happening now).

The problem is not of who to blame. The problem is budgeting. Man's desires are infinite. Our resources are finite. We cannot buy more than we have resources to buy. Reality is the problem with the public sector.

Scapegoating the Public Sector

2011-01-03T19:01:00.000-08:00

Bob:

Hope you and yours had a good Xmas and New Years.

My son Steve was up here last night and launched an attack on public sector employees. Steve, like most younger private sector workers has been subject to a pay freeze for more than 3 years and has a 401(k) plan rather than a pension plan. Steve launched an attack on Social Security, Medicare, and pension plans for public employees. These, he has be convinced, are the bogeymen which are dragging the economy into the hole.

Lest we forget years of unending war, the Bush tax cuts and the bursting of the real estate bubble, why is it that all the aged and the public workers are lazy, union members, public employees, welfare queens, etc.; but the idea like raising taxes both income and estate taxes on those who can afford to pay them are viewed as socialist and not a legitimate area of discussion.

I don't have a problem talking about raising retirement ages or the taxation of social security benefits...etc., but any discussion of the upper 1 or 2% of the country getting all the goodies, while real wages for everybody else declines is particularly upsetting.

Why, because, while private sector wages decline (and corporate profits rise), Steve and his ilk attack public sector workers who have some union protection and thus have not had their wages and benefits eroded as fast, rather than blaming the real villains in this economy -- the rich and powerful.

New bloggers

2010-12-17T22:39:00.000-08:00

I am way to the left of most of you. However, I welcome all points of view...provided they are willing to back up the positions they take.

My last post

2010-12-17T20:36:00.000-08:00

Does anyone care?

Can you buy a get out free card by paying $250 million to avoid prosecution by a foreign country.

But wait, there is a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in the US.....

This is intended to prevent US businesses from bribing foreign officials to obtain business. Just because Nigeria can be bought off, where is the US Justice Department????

All the Justice Money Can Buy

2010-12-17T16:06:00.000-08:00

From a posting on Truth Out:

Bush Sr., James Baker Instrumental in Getting Nigeria to Drop Bribery Charges Against Cheney
Friday 17 December 2010

by: Jason Leopold, t r u t h o u t Report

Former President George H.W. Bush and ex-Secretary of State James Baker were part of a negotiating team that convinced Nigerian government officials to drop bribery charges against Dick Cheney and Halliburton, the oil services firm he led prior to becoming vice president.

Representatives for Halliburton also participated in the talks.
Bush and Baker participated in conference call discussions with senior Nigerian government officials, including the country's attorney general, Mohammed Adoke, last weekend on behalf of Cheney in an attempt to work out a settlement, according to Nigerian news reports.

On Friday, Femi Babafemi, a spokesman for Nigeria's Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), the agency that filed the 16-count indictment last week, said the case against Cheney, Halliburton and several other current and former executives has been "formally dropped."

Earlier this week, Babafemi said Halliburton agreed during negotiation talks to a "plea bargain" and to "pay $250 million in fines in lieu of prosecution." He said the Nigerian government accepted the terms of the settlement.
Truthout was unable to reach spokespeople for Bush and Baker. A Halliburton spokesperson declined to comment.

The payment will bring an immediate end to the bribery and corruption charges against Halliburton, Cheney and several of the company's current and former executives.

Babafemi added that the payment consists of $120 million in penalties and the repatriation of $130 million "trapped in Switzerland," and he expects Adoke to approve of the deal as early as today.

As Truthout previously reported, the charges revolve around $180 million in bribes executives who worked for Halliburton's former subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR) paid to Nigerian government officials between 1994 and 2004 in exchange for $6 billion in construction contracts for the Bonny Island natural gas liquefaction plant. KBR, which also has handled lucrative US government support contracts for US troops in Iraq and elsewhere, was spun off from Halliburton in 2007 into a separate company.

The bribes allegedly went to the notoriously corrupt Nigerian dictator Sani Abacha and some of his subordinates. Cheney was chairman and chief executive of Halliburton from 1995 to 2000.

The cash bribes were allegedly laundered through UK lawyer Jeffrey Tesler, who served as a consultant to KBR after it was formed in a 1998 merger that Cheney engineered between Halliburton and Dresser Industries. Tesler was hired in 1995 as an agent of a four-company joint venture that was awarded four engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) contracts by Nigeria LNG Ltd., (NLNG). Tesler was indicted last year by the Department of Justice, which has been conducting its own probe into the matter, and he is fighting extradition to the US.

The Justice Department announced earlier this month that Tesler's associate, Wojciech J. Chodan, the former vice president to KBR's UK subsidiary, pleaded guilty to violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) for in his role in the bribery scandal.

Chodan, who was extradited to the United States from England, is scheduled to be sentenced in February and faces a maximum five years in federal prison.
Truthout sustains itself through tax-deductible donations from our readers. Please make a contribution today to keep truly independent journalism strong!
Albert "Jack" Stanley, who Cheney had named chief executive of KBR in 1998, was also named in the indictment filed by Nigerian anti-corruption officials. Charges against him have also been dropped.

Stanley was a close associate of Cheney's. The former vice president promoted him in 1998 to head KBR and told the Middle East Economic Digest in 1999 that having Stanley at the helm of the Halliburton subsidiary "has helped us tremendously."
In September 2008, Stanley pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud to settle charges related to a separate kickback scheme and for conspiring to violate FCPA in connection with bribery case.

According to the DOJ's plea agreement, Stanley started paying bribes in 1995, the year Cheney was named chief executive of the corporation, and ended when Stanley was fired in 2004. Stanley faces seven years in prison and nearly $11 million in restitution payments. He remains free on bail pending a sentencing hearing scheduled for January.

Last year, KBR pleaded guilty to violating FCPA and admitted that it paid $180 million in "consulting fees" to Tesler and a Japanese trading company for use in bribing Nigerian government officials. KBR paid a $402 million fine and Halliburton paid $177 million in civil penalties as part of its plea deal. The company did not admit wrongdoing.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) had questioned Cheney during its two-year-long probe of Halliburton's accounting irregularities and concluded that he should not be held responsible for what went on behind the scenes at the company he ran for five years.

US Government Intervention?
Last week, after the indictment was filed in Abuja, Nigeria's capitol, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, "We do not believe that there will be a basis for further action (requiring Cheney to respond to the charges), but we will look into it."

Moreover, Johnnie Carson, the US Assistant Secretary, Bureau of African Affairs, told reporters during a conference call last week that the US government was closely following the case against Cheney and had already engaged in discussions about it with Nigerian authorities.

While Nigeria government officials may be satisfied with the settlement agreement, the same cannot be said for some of the country's citizens who had hoped to see the former vice president respond to the charges.

"I would have loved to see Dick Cheney in chains in our court and facing justice in our prisons," said Celestine AkpoBari, program officer at Social Action Nigeria. "That would have been a very big point that would have lifted Nigeria out of its woes."

Owei Lakemfa, a columnist for Nigeria's Daily Vanguard, said Cheney "is an international crook who should be in jail in his country, Iraq, Netherlands, Afghanistan, Britain, Azerbaijan or in Nigeria...But unfortunately, the scales of justice are not balanced, so he will escape justice with his loot."

Christians in the military

2010-12-13T12:53:00.000-08:00

About 87 percent of Americans identify themselves as Christians. So the fact that most in the military are Christians is not exactly a shocker. I would be far more worried if Islam was booming in the military. Islam seems to encourage a non patriotic point of view that places loyalty to Islam over loyalty to any nation state. Furthermore, the teaching of "jihad" creates conflicts when any Moslem is required to go to war against a Moslem state. There have been several cases of Moslems turning weapons on fellow Americans because of these issues.

Besides, J.D., doesn't any form of religious belief prove that one is nuts and therefore unfit for service?

Military Religious Freedom Foundation

2010-12-02T18:27:00.000-08:00

Expanding upon my last post this is from a link on Mikey Weinstein's Military Religious Freedom Foundation's website. As it is Hanukkah, I thought independence of conscience is a core American value. Thus those who would impose a religious test on being a good American needs to be seen for what it is.....bigotry.

Our military should be 100% secular. Religion has no place defining who should or should not be in the armed services of this country.

This article suggests that the Chaplin corps are counseling injured or traumatized soldiers to accept Jesus as a solution to their problems.

"Weinstein said soldiers are being told that finding Jesus is the only way to overcome the trauma.

The Pentagon press office did not return calls or emails for comment.

“What we’re seeing is a national disgrace that is actually increasing suicides rather than reducing them,” charged Weinstein in an interview with Antiwar.com.

While that would be hard to prove, Weinstein has plenty of reason for believing it. In five years of investigations, complaints and lawsuits – amassing a client base of more than 18,000 active duty service members – the former Air Force Judge Advocate General (JAG) has uncovered a Christian subculture within the military that not only instructs and favors evangelism, it insists upon it, from the service academies on up – obliterating not only the constitutional restriction on state-sponsored religion, but fueling the dangerous perception that America is on a religious crusade against the Muslim world.

“We’re standing by as a tsunami sweeps over us,” he said of the growing military evangelism, or as some call it, Christian supremacy. Weinstein says MRFF has become a shelter for individuals who can find no other remedy or respite from the pressure to conform on campus or on base. His days and nights are spent talking to service members, retaining lawyers, strategizing and filing formal complaints. He insists he is not “anti-religion,” but a tireless defender of the U.S. Constitution.

“Wherever I see unconstitutional religious predators in the U.S. military, of any stripe, I don’t care if I live or die. Someone’s gonna get a beating and we’re going to do it,” he told writer Matthew Harwood of Truth-out.org in July. “The two ways to administer the beating is to go into the media or into court.”

His latest action: protesting the September “Rock the Fort” concert series sponsored by the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, of which son Franklin Graham is the CEO (yes, the one who called Muslims wicked and evil). MRFF was successful several months before in pressuring the Army to disinvite Graham to speak at its “National Day of Prayer.”

“We’re not supposed to be using the U.S. Army to develop and engender, you know, new soldiers for Christ,” Weinstein told CNN at the time. The concert, scheduled for Fort Bragg, North Carolina, had also been to Fort Jackson (slick promotional video here), and was endorsed and promoted by Army chaplains. The soldiers at Fort Bragg were actually given slips of paper ahead of the concert on which to place names of seven other soldiers who might attend “so they will come to Christ,” added Weinstein.

Jeff Sharlet

2010-12-02T14:46:00.000-08:00

Bob:

I think Sharlet's book "C Street: The Fundamentalist Threat to American Democracy" should be on every liberal's must read list. I think his discussion of the penetration of the military officer corps is especially timely considering today's discussion of the repeal of don't ask, don't tell.

California Broke

2010-11-14T02:19:00.000-08:00

California is broke. In fact, they are so much in the red that they are borrowing over $40 million dollars per day just to cover mandatory unemployment payments to its citizens.

In a recent article from San Francisco Gate.com, the publication outlines how much California borrows just to pay for this social program.

With one in every eight workers unemployed and empty state coffers, California is borrowing billions of dollars from the federal government to pay unemployment insurance.

The Los Angeles Times reports that the state owes $8.6 billion already, and will have to come up with a $362-million payment to Washington by the end of next September.

The continued borrowing means federal unemployment insurance taxes are going to increase, upping the annual payroll costs $21 a year per worker.

California tops the list of 32 states that have borrowed a total of $41 billion to pay claims.
____________________________

The Democrats have been in charge for years in California. Good job, guys.

Eating the Rich in California

2010-11-07T16:51:00.001-08:00

After the parasitical poor have devoured the productive rich, what then?

Witness California. Soon the poor will begin eating one another, until there is nothing left but poverty and chaos.

Thanks President Obama

2010-10-28T21:32:00.000-07:00

Thanks for recharging the Republican base and single handedly wreaking havoc on the Democrats. Yes He Can.

Balancing the budget

2010-06-25T13:07:00.000-07:00

Rather than raising my taxes I would suggest that we cut the size of government. A careful review of the work being done probably would uncover some unneccessary or unproductive work. That is what the private sector did when times became tough. Cut the fat in order to grow the economy. Reduce taxes and needless regulation. Encourage businessmen, instead of persecuting and reviling them.

I am sure J.D. Would agree?

Tea Party Fools

2010-04-15T20:20:00.000-07:00

Bob:

Taxes have not gone up for the average American. Contrary to the vile rants at the Tea Parties, taxes have gone down for Joe the Plumber since the beginning of the year. This has got to stop. I don't mean complaining about fatuous tax increases.

We need to balance the budget and do it on the backs of the rich. Oh that might mean you and me....too bad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Watching Obama

2010-03-04T21:04:00.000-08:00

So, how happy is everyone with Obama after one year?

Liz Cheney from wikipedia

2010-01-11T20:29:00.000-08:00

THIS IS WORTH READING

Personal life
Cheney is the elder of two daughters of former Vice President Dick Cheney and former Second Lady Lynne Cheney; her younger sister is Mary Cheney. Cheney graduated from McLean High School in 1984. She received her bachelor's degree from Colorado College, where she wrote her senior thesis, "The Evolution of Presidential War Powers," in 1988.[1] She received her Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree from the University of Chicago Law School in 1996, having also taken courses in Middle Eastern history at the Oriental Institute.[2]
Cheney is married to Philip Perry, the former General Counsel of the United States Department of Homeland Security. She and Perry have five children: three daughters, Kate, Elizabeth, and Grace; and two sons, Philip and Richard.
[edit] Early career
Before attending law school, Cheney worked for the State Department for five years and the U.S. Agency for International Development between 1989 and 1993. After 1993, she took a job at Armitage Associates LLP, the consulting firm founded by Richard Armitage, then a former Defense Department official and Iran-Contra operative who later served as Deputy Secretary of State.
After graduating from law school, Cheney practiced law in the private sector (at the law firm of White & Case) and as an international law attorney and consultant at the International Finance Corporation, a member of the World Bank Group. She has also served as Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of State for Assistance to the former Soviet Union, and as a USAID officer in U.S. embassies in Budapest and Warsaw.[3]
[edit] Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs
In 2002, Cheney was appointed to the position of Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs,[4] a pre-existing vacant post with an "economic portfolio," which is a mandate to promote investment in the region. Amid reports, including a New York Times editorial by Paul Krugman, saying that the job was created especially for her, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said that she had come recommended by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell.[5][6] The Times (London) reported that Cheney's appointment was "the most intriguing sign that America is getting serious about Middle East reform" and that the appointment was "a measure of the seriousness with which the administration was taking Middle East programmes for literacy, education, and reform."[7] The appointment followed publicized policy divisions between the Vice President's office and the State Department on Middle East policy. In that position, she was given control of the Middle East Partnership Initiative, designed to "foster increased democracy and economic progress in a troubled region." The program spent $29 million in 2002, increased to $129 million in the following year. Cheney's task was to channel money to pre-screened groups, some of which were not identified publicly for fear of retaliations from extant governments they sought to undermine. For the budget year 2004, the project sought $145 million. [8][9]
[edit] 2004 Bush-Cheney re-election campaign
After two years of service, Cheney left her first State Department post in 2003 to serve in her father's re-election campaign. [10] Participating in the "W Stands for Women" initiative to target female voters, Cheney spoke often of how women have enlarged their scope of political issues, invoking the September 11 attacks and "security." [11]
[edit] Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State For Near Eastern Affairs
In February 2005, she returned to the US State Department and was appointed the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State For Near Eastern Affairs and Coordinator for Broader Middle East and North Africa Initiatives.[12] In this position, Cheney supported the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, C. David Welch, and coordinated U.S. multilateral efforts to promote and support democracy, expanded education and economic opportunities in the Middle East and Northern Africa. Her position made her the second-ranking U.S. diplomat for the Middle East. Cheney oversaw the launch of two semi-independent foundations, the Fund of the Future (worth $100 million), to provide capital for small businesses and the Foundation of the Future (worth $55 million), to promote freedom of the press and democracy.[13] In that capacity, Cheney endorsed a controversial draft of a new Iraqi constitution.[14] In November 2005, Cheney was questioned by Ysemink Congar of Turkish CNN that there was "a lot of skepticism building about the U.S. advocacy for democracy and human rights, based on a recent Washington Post story on "black sites" operated by the U.S. and the CIA in some of the countries receiving MEPI support:
Congar: If you were addressing the skeptics today, directly, what would you say to them? Why should they believe that the U.S. is genuinely advocating — supporting democracy and human rights in the region? And why should they — I mean, I'm talking about the grassroots now — why shuld they enthusiastically endorse the Forum for the Future? Thank you.
Cheney: I'll go first. You know, this is a question that I think has come up ever since we first began supporting democratic activities in the region back in 2002. And what I would say is judge us by our actions, you know. Judge us by the extent to which we really are standing with the people who are working for freedom. Judge us by the extent to which we are supporting NGOs with our money and with our back, you know, with our technical assistance. Judge us by the extent to which, you know, our Secretary of State goes to Cairo and makes a speech in Cairo in the heart of the broader Middle East about the importance of freedom and the importance of people being able to express their own wills and desires.
So, you know, yes, I think there is skepticism. I think that there is disagreement about policies. I think some of that comes from a misunderstanding of American policies. But at the end of the day, I think that the idea of skepticism is, frankly, a little bit overblown. I mean, my sense is that it's become conventional wisdom among elites that there are skeptics. There certainly are some skeptics, but there are certainly millions and millions of people across the broader Middle East who are participating with us in projects, that are providing training and skills and how you operate in a political — in a democratic environment. And who very much appreciate and feel protected by the fact that the United States is standing with them, you know.So there will always be skeptics, but I would watch what we do and watch also what we say about these issues.[15]
At the same briefing, Cheney was asked by Tarek Rashad of the Middle East News Agency about the "paradox" of the MEPI funding NGO's supporting democracy and human rights would be "rallying in fact against the regimes and the governments in the region. Cheney answered that contributions to the Foundation had come from governments, but the foundation would not include government officers on its board or as its chairman, that "no government entities will be in either position."[16]
[edit] Iran Syria Policy and Operations Group
Elizabeth Cheney also headed the Iran Syria Policy and Operations Group (ISOG), established in March 2006, a unit within the State Department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs.
In April 2006, The New York Times published a story critical of Cheney's work, particularly with respect to Iran. Of particular scrutiny was a grants program administered by Elizabeth Cheney's unit, in collaboration with a Republican-affiliated foundation, the International Republican Institute.[17] The Times maintained that when the group became controversial, with critics saying that it was plotting covert actions that could escalate into war with Iran and Syria, the group was disbanded, by May 2006. Shortly before the ISOG group was dissolved, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice initiated a major effort to engage Iran and Syria in efforts to stabilize Iraq.[18] As late as April 11, 2009, Iranian officials investigating "cyber-crimes" cited Cheney's efforts in the daily newspaper Iran, specifically the "Democracy Program" [sic] initiative as parallel to a Netherlands-funded push for a "velvet revolution" accomplished by a media campaign to polarize the country, "despite the 1981 Algiers Accords signed between the U.S. and Iran in the aftermath of the U.S. embassy takeover in Tehran." [19]
[edit] 2008 Republican presidential campaigns
Cheney signed on in June 2007 to serve as one of three national co-chairs for Fred Thompson's 2008 presidential campaign. The other co-chairs were Spencer Abraham and George Allen. In a press release issued at the beginning of his campaign, Thompson said he was "very pleased to announce that former Senators Abraham and Allen, as well as Liz Cheney, will serve as co-chairs of my national leadership team." Thompson added: "These distinguished individuals bring wise counsel and invaluable experience to my campaign leadership team, and they will play a critical role in helping spread my consistent conservative message across America."[20] After Thompson dropped out of the race, Cheney announced on January 27, 2008 that she would work for Mitt Romney's presidential campaign, serving as a senior foreign policy advisor.[21]
[edit] Public appearances and publications
In the years following her second departure from the State Department, Liz Cheney played an increasingly public role as a spokeswoman for neoconservative Republican issues, making numerous appearances on cable news shows. In October 2009, Cheney became a regular "Fox News Contributor" for the Fox News Network, appearing with shows hosted by Sean Hannity, Greta Van Susteren, and Chris Wallace.[22]
In late January 2007, Cheney penned an editorial in The Washington Post criticizing Senator Hillary Clinton's position on the Iraq war.[23]
In August 2008, the New York Times reported that Liz Cheney was encouraging her father to write a book on his political career, and that she was indexing her father's pre-vice-presidential papers housed in various libraries across the country, "drafting timetables and outlines for his review."[24] The Times cited Liz Cheney on April 24, 2009, as the source of information that Dick Cheney had requested that the National Archives declassify two documents that would prove the efficacy of "enhanced interrogation techniques" in handling of U.S. detainees.[25]
In the time following her departure from the State Department, Cheney became more outspoken in her criticisms of the Bush administration's foreign policy, particularly of the State Department's renewed efforts to conduct Palestinian-Israeli peace talks and efforts to enlist Iran's aid in stabilizing Iraq.[26]
In 2008, Cheney was listed on the speakers roster of Leading Authorities, Inc., a talent management and booking agent. Cheney gives paid public lectures on international relations and the role of women in emerging democracies.[27]
On April 23, 2009, days after the release of controversial memos from the Bush administration about the authorization of enhanced interrogation techniques in interrogations of U.S. captives, Liz Cheney appeared on a morning news program on MSNBC defending “enhanced interrogation techniques,” the Justice Department attorneys who argued the methods were legal, and her father's record as vice-president.[28]
Liz Cheney was asked to nominate and write an entry for Time's 100 most influential people special issue in spring 2009. Cheney wrote of Norah al-Faiz, Saudi Arabia's Deputy Minister for Women's Education, "The appointment of al-Faiz, in her early 50s was the most significant sign yet of the quiet revolution under way since King Abdullah ascended the throne in 2005."[29]
On May 12, 2009, in a debate of the motion "Diplomacy With Iran Is Going Nowhere," sponsored by the Rosenkranz Foundation and Intelligence Squared U.S., Liz Cheney and Dan Senor argued in favor of the motion. R. Nicholas Burns and foreign policy analyst Kenneth Pollack argued that diplomacy has produced results.
On June 5, 2009, Media Matters reported that Liz Cheney had made 22 public appearances in less than a month.[30]
On July 13, 2009, CNN reported that Liz Cheney had announced she was "open" to the idea of running for future political office.[31]
On July 14, 2009, The Associated Press reported that Liz Cheney, in response to whether her father, then Vice-President Dick Cheney, had broken any laws in instructing the CIA not to inform Congress of certain clandestine anti-terrorism programs recently terminated by Obama-appointed CIA Director Leon Panetta, said "There's no evidence of that." Cheney also conceded that "I was not in every meeting that my father had. I was not in most meetings that my father had" in regard to her father's role in allegedly concealing information from Congress.[32]
On July 21, 2009, Liz Cheney appeared on CNN's Larry King Live and stated in a discussion of the "birther" movement that "one of the reasons you see people so concerned about this, I think this issue is, people are uncomfortable with having for the first time ever, I think, a president who seems so reluctant to defend the nation overseas ..." Asked directly by King if she thought Obama was born in Kenya, Cheney responded, "No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that people are fundamentally uncomfortable and fundamentally I think increasingly uncomfortable with an American president who seems to be afraid to defend America, stand up for what we believe in." [33]
On September 28, 2009, The New York Times profiled Liz Cheney on its front page, describing her popularity among conservatives such as Michelle Malkin, Dan Senor, and Elliot Abrams at the "Smart Girls Summit" held in Nashville, Tennessee. In that article, Cheney's sister Mary Cheney is quoted as saying, "I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any daylight at all between Liz's and my father's views. It's not because she's been indoctrinated. It's because he's right."[34]
On November 15, 2009, Liz Cheney made waves when she joined the four-member panel of Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, making supportive comments about Sarah Palin and Cheney's father Dick Cheney running for the presidency in 2012. After viewing comparative clips of President Barack Obama bowing to the emperor of Japan and a past meeting between the same emperor and Vice-President Cheney, her comment that “You could also look at the comparison and think Cheney 2012.” was met by the raucous scepticism of the other committee members.
[edit] Keep America Safe
In October 2009 Liz Cheney, William Kristol, and Deborah Burlingame launched, as board members, a non-profit 501(c)4 organization, Keep America Safe. The purpose of the group is to provide information for concerned Americans about critical national security issues.
The group collects donations and data about contributors and visitors to its website, and reserves the right to share that data with unspecified "third parties."[35]

Freedom of Opinion in the Army

2009-11-09T05:59:00.000-08:00

Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the gunman who killed 13 at America's Fort Hood military base, once gave a lecture to other doctors in which he said non-believers should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats.

By Nick Allen in Fort Hood
Published: 5:00PM GMT 08 Nov 2009

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the U.S. Army doctor named as a suspect in the shooting death of 13 people and the wounding of 31 others at Fort Hood, Texas Photo: GETTY
He also told colleagues at America's top military hospital that non-Muslims were infidels condemned to hell who should be set on fire. The outburst came during an hour-long talk Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, gave on the Koran in front of dozens of other doctors at Walter Reed Army Medical Centre in Washington DC, where he worked for six years before arriving at Fort Hood in July.
Colleagues had expected a discussion on a medical issue but were instead given an extremist interpretation of the Koran, which Hasan appeared to believe.

So my question is this: Should the army keep members in its ranks who hold this kind of opinion?

From Thom Hartman

2009-11-05T20:09:00.001-08:00

In the ultimate outrage - The Lords of Wall Street have received the swine flu vaccine before some hospitals that are trying to serve pregnant woman. There was a shortage of the vaccine in NYC hospitals, clinics and doctors but not to the the healthy white males who work at Wall Street. Goldman Sachs got 200 doses for their in-house clinic that serves the lords of Wall Street, the same number of doses as New York's Lennox Hospital, while Citibank got 1200 doses.

Rachael Maddow

2009-10-16T05:47:00.000-07:00

Bob:

Go to Rachael Maddow's offical website and watch the show segments for 10/15 with Tim Phillips of "grass roots organization" Americans for Prosperity.

She got pissed.

Eating the Rich in California

2009-09-20T16:54:00.000-07:00

In California, the top one percent income earners pay 47% of the State's income tax. Not surprisingly, some of these "rich" have chosen to move their businesses and their persons to states with less draconian income taxes. Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming have no state income tax.

Is it really fair that the majority of voters pay virtually no taxes, yet get to use their political power to spend whatever they like using money from people who are compelled to pay taxes? Is this not taxation without representation?

With regard to the Federal income taxes, the bottom 50% pay an insignificant percentage of the total taxes, and a smaller percentage every year. In 2008, the bottom 50% pay only 2.89% of the total taxes. Yet 51% can vote to award themselves money from government programs for anything they like. For example, the government pays farmers two billion dollars not to farm their land. It paid sixty billion dollars for other kinds of corporate welfare. We spent something like 500 billion dollars in Iraq in 2008. So we can build democracy there or something. (the Weapons of Mass destruction turned out not to exist).

To me, it seems fair that the tax rate should be equal for all voters. If I make ten times what you do, my taxes will be ten times higher, but you will pay according to your ability. If you want to wage war in Iraq making it safe for democracy, or pay Farmers not to farm, you should pay your fair share for these brilliant projects.

If a person pays no taxes, they should not get a vote on how the money they did not contribute is to be spent. People who feed off of other humans are called cannibals.

Obama Fools Everyone

2009-09-15T22:05:00.000-07:00

Liberals were fooled too.

The Obama administration supports extending three key provisions of the Patriot Act that are due to expire at the end of the year, the Justice Department told Congress in a letter made public Tuesday.

Lawmakers and civil rights groups had been pressing the Democratic administration to say whether it wants to preserve the post-Sept. 11 law's authority to access business records, as well as monitor so-called "lone wolf" terrorists and conduct roving wiretaps.

The provision on business records was long criticized by rights groups as giving the government access to citizens' library records, and a coalition of liberal and conservative groups complained that the Patriot Act gives the government too much authority to snoop into Americans' private lives.

As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama said he would take a close look at the law, based on his past expertise in constitutional law. Back in May, President Obama said legal institutions must be updated to deal with the threat of terrorism, but in a way that preserves the rule of law and accountability.

In a letter to lawmakers, Justice Department officials said the administration supports extending the three expiring provisions of the law, although they are willing to consider additional privacy protections as long as they don't weaken the effectiveness of the law.

Obama continues to prosecute the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, pretty much without change, except he is ramping up Afghanistan. He has done nothing about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." He has not closed Gitmo.

Hope and Change continues.

The Rich Can't be Taxed, After Being Eaten

2009-09-08T05:59:00.000-07:00

Tax revenues in the states are permanently down. Government needs to shrink, not grow. But where is there any will to do what needs to be done? Not in California. I wonder which state I should flee too? California gets most of its revenue from less than one percent of the population. But these people can move themselves and their businesses. And they are. California revenue is down some 30%. Hope and Change. Perhaps Democrats should enslave them and force them and compel them to work "for the good of the people."

I should have gone to work for the private sector.

2009-09-07T20:37:00.000-07:00

I knew I made a mistake working for the private sector. The future is clearly with the government. Except these wages must be paid by taxes on the private sector, which is currently shrinking. Oh well, we can always borrow more money. No need to worry or sweat the small stuff. YES WE CAN!!

Meet the New Boss

2009-08-29T23:23:00.000-07:00

Same as the old boss.

What Happened to the AntiWar Movement?

2009-08-19T06:12:00.000-07:00

Apparently, it was only the Anti-Republican-War movement.

Obama Two Face

2009-08-13T20:24:00.000-07:00

Obama got elected spouting pretty but vague platitudes promising everything to everyone. He is a good speaker and seemed always to be cool and reasonable and moderate.

Now that he is elected, he cannot rely upon vague generalities. He must submit actual laws to be passed. And the laws he has submitted, upon inspection, prove not to be moderate nor cool nor rational. They are radical bills from a radical leftist agenda, spending money with no thought for the deficit, seeking to bring medical care within the total control of the government, taxing every person out of a paranoid fear of ecotastrophe, with no thought about the cost or the likely benefit to the country or world. In short, Obama is exactly what would be predicted from looking at his history and background and the nature of the friends he keeps.

Now that his true face is at least being revealed, America is finding out the terrible truth about the mistake it made in 2008. The question of the hour: how long will it take the country to pay for this mistake.

Al-Qaeda North Carolina

2009-07-28T21:07:00.000-07:00

Police arrested 7 men in North Carolina and charged them with terrorist activities that have their roots in Afghanistan and Pakistan and date back to the 1980s, before a few of them were born.

Jihad in America. These young men obviously need assistance from the ACLU. Their rights are being trampled including the right to free exercise of religion.

Eating The Rich, Infinitum

2009-07-27T12:55:00.000-07:00

It is not just conservative media that is losing money. Most newspapers are losing money. Print media is on life support and may become extinct. The New York Times is losing money and subscribers.

As for the tax argument, I do not recall the economy booming under Jimmy Carter when Reagan took over. I seem to recall something called "stagflation."

How exactly does increasing the taxes on the working rich (those still earning an income) help the economy? He neglected to mention this minor detail.

Liberals are universally interested in taxing wealth. What does not interest them is making wealth. Perhaps they do not believe in the concept. They certainly do not approve of it, or want to encourage it.

Thom Hartman

2009-07-23T18:15:00.000-07:00

Bob:

I love left wingers..no joke. There are some inaccuracies but eat the rich anyway.

The Great Tax Con Job
by Thom Hartmann
Republicans are using the T-word - taxes - to attack the Obama healthcare program. It's a strategy based in a lie.

A very small niche of America's uber-wealthy have pulled off what may well be the biggest con job in the history of our republic, and they did it in a startlingly brief 30 or so years. True, they spent over three billion dollars to make it happen, but the reward to them was in the hundreds of billions - and will continue to be.

As my friend and colleague Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks pointed out in a Daily Kos blog recently, billionaire Rupert Murdoch loses $50 million a year on the NY Post, billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife loses $2 to $3 million a year on the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, billionaire Philip Anschutz loses around $5 million a year on The Weekly Standard, and billionaire Sun Myung Moon has lost $2 to $3 billion on The Washington Times.
Why are these guys willing to lose so much money funding "conservative" media? Why do they bulk-buy every right-wing book that comes out to throw it to the top of the NY Times Bestseller list and then give away the copies to "subscribers" to their websites and publications? Why do they fund to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year money-hole "think tanks" like Heritage and Cato?

The answer is pretty straightforward. They do it because it buys them respectability, and gets their con job out there. Even though William Kristol's publication is a money-losing joke (with only 85,000 subscribers!), his association with the Standard was enough to get him on TV talk shows whenever he wants, and a column with The New York Times. The Washington Times catapulted Tony Blankley to stardom.

"Fellowships" and other forms of indirect sponsorship of right-wing talk show hosts have made otherwise-marginal shows and their hosts ubiquitous, and such sponsorships of groups like Norquist's anti-tax "Americans for Tax Reform" regularly get people like him front-and-center in any debate on taxation in the United States.
All so they could run a tax con on the American people, thus keeping Moon and Murdoch and Scaife and Anschutz (and others) richer than you or I could ever even imagine.
All of this money was spent - invested, really, since it's been more than saved back in low income tax rates on millionaires and billionaires - to convince Americans that up is down and black is white when it comes to income taxes. Here's how it works:
Rich Person's Tax Effect
If a person earns so much money that he doesn't or can't spend it all each year, then when his taxes go down your income after taxes goes up. This is largely because there's little to no relationship between what he "needs to live on" and what he's "earning."

Somebody living on a million dollars a year but earning five million after taxes, can sock away four million in a Swiss bank. If his taxes go up enough to drop his after-tax income to only three million a year, he's still living on a million a year, and only socks away two million in the Swiss bank. His "disposable" income goes down when his taxes go up, and vice-versa. (Technically, the word is "discretionary" income for after-tax, after-living-expenses income, but "disposable" income has become so widely used as a phrase to describe discretionary income I'll use it here.)
The Rich Person's Tax Effect is the one that virtually all Americans understand - and, oddly, most working class people think applies to them, too (this is the truly amazing part of the con job referred to earlier).
But it doesn't.
Working Person's Tax Effect - version one

Most working people spend pretty much all of what they earn - their "disposable/discretionary" income is close to zero. Savings rates in the US among working people typically are small - one to five percent - and during the last few years of the W. Bush administration actually went negative. So the take-home pay that people have after taxes - regardless of what the taxes may be - is pretty much what they live on.

As economist David Ricardo pointed out in 1817 in the "On Wages" chapter of his book "On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation," take home pay is also generally "what a person will work for." Employers know this: Ricardo's "Iron Law of Wages" is rooted in the notion that there is a "market" for labor, driven in part by supply and demand. So if a worker is earning, for example, a gross salary of $75,000, his 2008 federal income tax would be about $15,000 ($802.50 on first $8,025 of income;$3,687.75 on income from $8,025 to $32,550; $10,612.50 on income from $32,550 to $75,000), leaving him a take-home pay of $60,000.

Both he and his employer know that he'll do the job he's doing for around $60,000 a year in take-home pay.
So what happens if his taxes go up, cutting his take-home pay to $55,000 a year (even though his gross is still $75,000)? Over time (typically one to three years) his wages will rise enough to compensate for the lost income.
Alan Greenspan used to be hysterical about this effect - he called it "wage inflation" - and The Wall Street Journal and other publications would often reference it, although the average working person has no idea that if his taxes go up, his wages will eventually go up. Similarly, when working-class people's taxes go down, their gross wages will, over time, go down so their inflation-adjusted take-home pay remains the same. We've seen both happen over the past eighty years, over and over again.
When I was in Denmark last year doing my radio show from the Danish Radio offices for a week and interviewing many of that nation's leading politicians, economists, energy experts, and newspaper publishers, one of my guests made a comment that dropped the scales from my own eyes.
We'd been discussing taxes on the air, what the Danes get for their average 52% tax rate (free college education, free health care, 4 weeks of vacation, being the world's "happiest" country according to research reported on CBS's "60 Minutes" TV show, etc.). I asked him why people didn't revolt at such high tax rates, and he smiled and just pointed out to me that the average Dane is very well paid with a minimum wage that equals about $18 US (depending on the exchange rate from day to day).
Off the air, he made the comment to me that was so enlightening. "You Americans are such suckers," he said, as I recall. "You think that the rules for taxes that apply to rich people also apply to working people. But they don't. When working peoples' taxes go up, their pay goes up. When their taxes go down, their pay goes down. It may take a year or two or three to all even out, but it always works this way - look at any country in Europe. And it's the opposite of how it works for rich people!"
Working Person's Tax Effect - Version Two

The other point about taxes - which Obama leveraged with his "no tax increases on people earning under $250,000 a year" pledge - has to do with the fact that our tax structure in the US is progressive.
Here's how it breaks out for a single person from the 2008 federal tax tables:
10% on income between $0 and $8,025
15% on the income between $8,025 and $32,550;
25% on the income between $32,550 and $78,850;
28% on the income between $78,850 and $164,550;
33% on the income between $164,550 and $357,700;
35% on the income over $357,700.
Note that our $75,000/year worker has two full tax brackets above him, which, if they go up, will not affect him at all. (This is also true, of course, for the median-wage and average-wage American workers who earn in the low to mid-$40,000/year range.)
The top tax rate that a person pays is referred to as their "marginal tax rate" (in our worker's case 28%). So what happens if the top marginal tax rate on people making over $357,700 goes up from its current 35% to, for example, the Eisenhower-era 91%?
For over 120 million American workers who don't earn over $357,700/year, it won't mean a thing. But for the tiny handful of millionaires and billionaires who have promoted The Great Tax Con, it will bite hard. And that's why they spend millions to make average working people freak out about increases in the top tax rates.
Income taxes as the "Great Stabilizer"
Beyond fairness and holding back the Landed Gentry the Founders worried about (America had no billionaires in today's money until after the Civil War, with John D. Rockefeller being our first), there's an important reason to increase to top marginal tax rate, and to do so now.

Novelist Larry Beinhart was the first to bring this to my attention. He looked over the history of tax cuts and economic bubbles, and found a clear relationship between the two. High top marginal tax rates (generally well above 60%) on rich people actually stabilize the economy, prevent economic bubbles from forming, prevent economic crashes, and lead to steady and sustained economic growth (and steady and sustained wage growth for working people).

On the other hand, when top marginal rates drop below 50 percent, the opposite happens. As Beinhart noted in a November 17, 2008 post on the Huffington Post, the massive Republican tax cuts of the 1920s (from 73% to 25%) led directly to the Roaring '20s stock market bubble, temporary boom, and then the crash and Republican Great Depression of 1929.
Rates on the very rich went back up into the 70-90% range from the 1930s to the 1980s. As a result, the economy grew steadily; for the first time in the history of our nation we went 50 years without a crash or major bank failure; and working people's wages increased enough to produce the strongest middle class this nation has ever seen.
Then came Reaganomics.

Reagan cut top marginal rates on millionaires and billionaires from 74% down to 38% and there was an immediate surge in the markets - followed by the worst crash since the Great Depression and the failure of virtually the entire nation's savings and loan banking system.

Bush I cut taxes, and the nation fell into a severe recession while debt soared and wages for working people fell.
Things stabilized somewhat when Clinton slightly raised taxes on the very rich, but W. Bush dropped them again - including taking taxes on unearned income (interest and dividends - the "income" that people like W. born with a trust fund "earn" as they sit around the pool waiting for the dividend check to arrive in the mail) down to a top rate of 15%. (That's right - trust fund babies like Bush and Scaife pay a MAXIMUM 15% federal income tax on their dividend and interest income, thanks to the second Bush tax cut.) The result of this surge in easy money for the wealthy, combined with deregulation in the financial markets, was the "froth" Greenspan worried about and led us straight into the Second Republican Great Depression, ongoing today.
The math is really pretty simple. When the uber-rich are heavily taxed, economies prosper and wages for working people steadily rise. When taxes are cut for the rich, working people suffer and economies turn into casinos.
Roll Back The Reagan Tax Cuts
While there's much discussion about letting the Bush tax cuts expire, if we really want our country to recover its financial footing we must do something altogether different. We need to roll back the Reagan tax cuts that took the top marginal rate from above 70% down into the 30% range.

First, though, we have to help Americans realize that "no new taxes" is a mantra that is meaningful to the very rich, but largely irrelevant to average working people.

Only when the current generation re-learns the economic and tax lessons well known by the generation (now dying off) that came of age in the 30s through the 60s, will this become politically possible. Americans need to learn what Europeans know about taxes - they only matter to the rich.

Thus today the uber-rich are spending hundreds of millions to make sure words like "burden" are always associated with the word "tax," and to convince average working people that they should throw out of office any politicians who are willing to raise taxes on the rich.

We have a lot of education to do...and as long as the Right Wing Machine of the uber-rich continues to "lose" (e.g. "invest") millions of dollars a year in their ongoing disinformation campaign, it's going to require all of us reciting the mantra, "Roll back the Reagan tax cuts!"

Liberty and Tyrany

2009-07-21T21:34:00.000-07:00

I have this book and am trying to read it but it is painful to me. His reasoning is not persuasive. His style is too stiff and serious. I prefer Mark Steyn. I do not worship the constitution as a sacred book. Besides, that argument was lost fifty years ago. The world of 1776 is 250 years gone. Things change.

But some things do not really change . . . like human nature. There are consequences for everything. People act in accordance with how society structures rewards and punishments.

My belief is that we live in a democratic country and people get what they vote for. In other words, the majority will get what it asks for. I'll get by no matter who is in charge.

Liberty and Tyranny

2009-07-21T09:52:00.000-07:00

Bob:

I am about a third of the way through Mark Levin's book and I am having a hard time putting my disappointment into words. There are no well reasoned arguments. While not stating it, he wants to roll back all federal government to pre-New Deal levels.

Even though the federal government and power has grown dramatically as a percentage of the economy during the ascendancy of the US economy, all positive things came from unfettered free enterprise, all bad things came from government regulation.

He doesn't try to create a strong "straw man" to knock down. Name an issue, free markets are always best, regulation is always bad.

I will give you a more well reasoned review of this political manifesto after I have listened to it twice. If you are a true believer, put a copy of this little red book in your back pocket.

The Rise and Fall of the American Empire

2009-07-21T06:30:00.001-07:00

It is a fact that every great historical empire has had its day, and then gone into decline . . . Greece, Rome, England flourished for a time and then became weak and corrupt, losing the courage and character that made them great. The United States may be coming upon its time of decline.

Whether the Democrats or Republicans have power seems no longer to matter in the least. George Bush increased the size of government more than Bill Clinton. Obama is increasing the government now as never before in American history. Even Reagan increased the size of government, contrary to what Republicans would like you to believe. The idea that the Nanny State will take care of you, guarantee that you have food, shelter, health care, is popular with young people these days who hold the boring details of economics and business in contempt, and with old people worrying about paying the mounting medical bills.

Both political parties have gradually, incrementally increased the size of government, so that a huge percentage of the populace now works for the government. Another huge percentage of the populace is dependent upon government largess to keep going in the form of welfare, food stamps, and various credits and subsidies. Those two segments combined now have control of the political processes. In the name of the "common good" they seize ever more wealth from those they condemn as evil: corporations, capitalists and entrepreneurs.

Some 60% of the populace pays virtually nothing in taxes, especially if you include "tax credits" or government payouts in the equation. The the non taxpayers are also the political majority, who rule in a democracy.

Those who produce the wealth by creating technology and businesses are held in contempt, and the wealth they produce is seized by politicians to redistribute to their needy greedy political base.

When the government bureaucrats and political parasites become the majority, in a democratic government, is there a way out? At that historical point, there is no longer any political limitation upon the power of the majority to simply seize what ever they want from the minority who created wealth by their intelligence, creativity and hard work. The political majority is now free to eat the rich as the Roman mobs demanded their bread and circus.

And please note that every dollar spent by the government for "public works" and every dollar spent by some "non profit" institution must be first produced by some capitalist swine who first created it in some business. If there are no business profits, government will collapse and non profits will go bankrupt.

But what happens when the rich are fully consumed? What happens when the golden goose is eaten? It seems to me that sooner than we like, we may find out the answer to this frightening question.

Pudding

2009-07-19T21:14:00.000-07:00

Some wise pundit observed: "Those that oppose the progressive agenda are pulling out all the stops to prevent a democratic majority for ruling the country. Let's hope the strong democratice majority does not shirk from the power it finally has obtained."

Who is to stop the Democrat majority from doing whatever it wants?

The Democrats have already put all their wish lists into the economic stimulus plan.

Now they can pass a single provider health care plan. They can Pass the Carbon Dioxide taxation plan. They can even nationalize private companies like GM. Who is to stop them? Until 2010 they can do whatever they like. Down with capitalism. Up with whatever you call the Democratic vision: socialism, fascism, the era of Big Government returned.

If their plans work, then American will become Heaven and all will be right with the world. The Democrats can brag "I told you so." I hope everything works out dandy.

The proof will be in the pudding and the eating thereof. The pudding is coming and coming soon.

The New Jimmy Carter?

2009-07-19T06:04:00.000-07:00

What's Next, Mr. President -- Cardigans?
By Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie
Sunday, July 19, 2009

Barely six months into his presidency, Barack Obama seems to be driving south into that political speed trap known as Carter Country: a sad-sack landscape in which every major initiative meets not just with failure but with scorn from political allies and foes alike. According to a July 13 CBS News poll, the once-unassailable president's approval rating now stands at 57 percent, down 11 points from April. Half of Americans think the recession will last an additional two years or more, 52 percent think Obama is trying to "accomplish too much," and 57 percent think the country is on the "wrong track."

From a lousy cap-and-trade bill awaiting death in the Senate to a health-care reform agenda already weak in the knees to the failure of the stimulus to deliver promised jobs and economic activity, what once looked like a hope-tastic juggernaut is showing all the horsepower of a Chevy Cobalt. "Give it to me!" the president egged on a Michigan audience last week, pledging to "solve problems" and not "gripe" about the economic hand he was dealt.

The Myth of Global Warming

2009-06-27T17:48:00.000-07:00

Many people doubt the scientific accuracy of the notion that the world is warming. For one thing, temperatures are not rising. Even if it is rising, evidence suggests that it is global warming that causes an increase in carbon dioxide, not vice versa. Even if America does reduce Carbon emissions, this will have little effect upon the major source of increase: developing nations such as Asia, India and Africa.

Waxman Markey Man Made Disaster?

2009-06-26T06:28:00.000-07:00

It is according to the Investor's Daily News. I am beginning to wonder how much economic damage Obama can manage in his first year. His powers seem virtually unlimited. And with every disaster, the solution is yet more government and more taxes. Soon we will reach a chain reaction and Kah-Bloom.

Music Piracy

2009-06-18T23:14:00.000-07:00

MINNEAPOLIS – A replay of the nation's only file-sharing case to go to trial has ended with the same result — a Minnesota woman was found to have violated music copyrights and must pay huge damages to the recording industry.
A federal jury ruled Thursday that Jammie Thomas-Rasset willfully violated the copyrights on 24 songs, and awarded recording companies $1.92 million, or $80,000 per song.
Thomas-Rasset's second trial actually turned out worse for her. When a different federal jury heard her case in 2007, it hit Thomas-Rasset with a $222,000 judgment.
The new trial was ordered after the judge in the case decided he had erred in giving jury instructions.
Thomas-Rasset sat glumly with her chin in hand as she heard the jury's finding of willful infringement, which increased the potential penalty. She raised her eyebrows in surprise when the jury's penalty of $80,000 per song was read.
Outside the courtroom, she called the $1.92 million figure "kind of ridiculous" but expressed resignation over the decision.
"There's no way they're ever going to get that," said Thomas-Rasset, a 32-year-old mother of four from the central Minnesota city of Brainerd. "I'm a mom, limited means, so I'm not going to worry about it now."
Her attorney, Kiwi Camara, said he was surprised by the size of the judgment. He said it suggested that jurors didn't believe Thomas-Rasset's denials of illegal file-sharing, and that they were angry with her.
Camara said he and his client hadn't decided whether to appeal or pursue the Recording Industry Association of America's settlement overtures.
Cara Duckworth, a spokeswoman for the RIAA, said the industry remains willing to settle. She refused to name a figure, but acknowledged Thomas-Rasset had been given the chance to settle for $3,000 to $5,000 earlier in the case.
"Since Day One we have been willing to settle this case and we remain willing to do so," Duckworth said.
In closing arguments earlier Thursday, attorneys for both sides disputed what the evidence showed.
An attorney for the recording industry, Tim Reynolds, said the "greater weight of the evidence" showed that Thomas-Rasset was responsible for the illegal file-sharing that took place on her computer. He urged jurors to hold her accountable to deter others from a practice he said has significantly harmed the people who bring music to everyone.
Defense attorney Joe Sibley said the music companies failed to prove allegations that Thomas-Rasset gave away songs by Gloria Estefan, Sheryl Crow, Green Day, Journey and others.
"Only Jammie Thomas's computer was linked to illegal file-sharing on Kazaa," Sibley said. "They couldn't put a face behind the computer."
Sibley urged jurors not to ruin Thomas-Rasset's life with a debt she could never pay. Under federal law, the jury could have awarded up to $150,000 per song.
U.S. District Judge Michael Davis, who heard the first lawsuit in 2007, ordered up a new trial after deciding he had erred in instructions to the jurors. The first time, he said the companies didn't have to prove anyone downloaded the copyrighted songs she allegedly made available. Davis later concluded the law requires that actual distribution be shown.
His jury instructions this time framed the issues somewhat differently. He didn't explicitly define distribution but said the acts of downloading copyrighted sound recordings or distributing them to other users on peer-to-peer networks like Kazaa, without a license from the owners, are copyright violations.
This case was the only one of more than 30,000 similar lawsuits to make it all the way to trial. The vast majority of people targeted by the music industry had settled for about $3,500 each. The recording industry has said it stopped filing such lawsuits last August and is instead now working with Internet service providers to fight the worst offenders.
In testimony this week, Thomas-Rasset denied she shared any songs. On Wednesday, the self-described "huge music fan" raised the possibility for the first time in the long-running case that her children or ex-husband might have done it. The defense did not provide any evidence, though, that any of them had shared the files.
The recording companies accused Thomas-Rasset of offering 1,700 songs on Kazaa as of February 2005, before the company became a legal music subscription service following a settlement with entertainment companies. For simplicity's sake the music industry tried to prove only 24 infringements.
Reynolds argued Thursday that the evidence clearly pointed to Thomas-Rasset as the person who made the songs available on Kazaa under the screen name "tereastarr." It's the same nickname she acknowledged having used for years for her e-mail and several other computer accounts, including her MySpace page.
Reynolds said the copyright security company MediaSentry traced the files offered by "tereastarr" on Kazaa to Thomas-Rasset's Internet Protocol address — the online equivalent of a street address — and to her modem.
He said MediaSentry downloaded a sample of them from the shared directory on her computer. That's an important point, given Davis' new instructions to jurors.
Although the plaintiffs weren't able to prove that anyone but MediaSentry downloaded songs off her computer because Kazaa kept no such records, Reynolds told the jury it's only logical that many users had downloaded songs offered through her computer because that's what Kazaa was there for.
Sibley argued it would have made no sense for Thomas-Rasset to use the name "tereastarr" to do anything illegal, given that she had used it widely for several years.
He also portrayed the defendant as one of the few people brave enough to stand up to the recording industry, and he warned jurors that they could also find themselves accused on the basis of weak evidence if their computers are ever linked to illegal file-sharing.
"They are going to come at you like they came at 'tereastarr,'" he said.
Steve Marks, executive vice president and general counsel of the Recording Industry Association of America, estimated earlier this week that only a few hundred of the lawsuits remain unresolved and that fewer than 10 defendants were actively fighting them.
The companies that sued Thomas-Rasset are subsidiaries of all four major recording companies, Warner Music Group Corp., Vivendi SA's Universal Music Group, EMI Group PLC and Sony Corp.'s Sony Music Entertainment.
The recording industry has blamed online piracy for declines in music sales, although other factors include the rise of legal music sales online, which emphasize buying individual tracks rather than full albums.

Iran Crushes Free Election, Facebook Twitter

2009-06-14T20:29:00.001-07:00

"the Iranian government is mounting a campaign to disrupt independent media organizations and Web sites that air doubts about the validity of the re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the nation's president. Reports from Tehran say that social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter were taken down after Mr Ahmadinejad claimed victory. SMS text messaging, a preferred medium of communication for young Iranians, has also been disabled. 'The blocking of access to foreign news media has been stepped up, according to Reporters Without Borders. 'The Internet is now very slow, like the mobile phone network. YouTube and Facebook are hard to access and pro-reform sites... are completely inaccessible.'" Slashdot

Don't worry, per Obama, the Iranians are having a debate about their future. Could be true. It does seem that Moslems tend to settle their differences with guns and bombs.

Vigilant against Anti Semitism?

2009-06-13T07:11:00.000-07:00

Asked to comment on the last vile anti-Semitic outburst from Rev. Wright, the president’s press secretary could only muster up this: “I haven’t talked to (Obama) about these comments. I don’t have any comment about it.”

No comment, eh? Whatever happened to the president’s admonition following the Holocaust Museum shooting (”This outrageous act reminds us that we must remain vigilant against anti-Semitism and prejudice in all its forms”)? Perhaps he means we should be vigilant when it doesn’t much interfere with his own political aims and image. For twenty years Obama wasn’t vigilant in his own church, and now he simply can’t be bothered. There’s leadership for you. Commentary Blog.

Keeping Secrets

2009-06-02T17:32:00.000-07:00

The eight a.m. NPR news update today included word of the fatal shooting of one soldier and the wounding of another outside an army recruiting station in Arkansas. The news reader, Nora Raum, outlined the incident and stated that the shooting appeared to have "religious motivations."

She did not name the suspect, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, or tell NPR listeners what those religious motivations might be.

In other words, it could have been a radical Unitarian who gunned down the soldiers, or possibly a violent Presbyterian.

Why the shyness? Why not tell people what is actually happening in the world? We saw this a couple of weeks ago, when the press only gingerly acknowledged that the malevolent though incompetent suspects in the synagogue bombing-conspiracy case in New York were converts to Islam.

How is the public served by this kind of silence? The extremist Christian beliefs of George Tiller's alleged murderer are certainly relevant to that case, and no one in my profession is hesitant to discuss them. Why the hesitancy to talk about the motivations of the man who allegedly killed Pvt. William Long? from Atlantic ONline

Time for Obama to Resign

2009-06-02T15:27:00.000-07:00

According to one Democrat.

Obama has betrayed the Progressive wing of the party. He has authorized "preventative detentions" without due process. This is characteristic of a dictatorship. Obama makes Clinton look like a "paragon of integrity and virtue." Heh.

Eating the Rich, Part XXIV

2009-05-26T07:03:00.000-07:00

Maryland raises the taxes on the rich. Many of them leave Maryland. Who is John Galt?

I heard Obama yesterday explaining that the country was "out of money" because we do not yet have his plan for Government Medicine in place. I fail to see how a huge new program to provide free medicine for those who do not have insurance is going to save the government money.

Saving the Auto Unions

2009-05-04T06:59:00.000-07:00

The Obama Administration has taken the approach of making it a first priority to save the United Auto Workers Union in dealing with Chrysler and GM carcastrophe. The problem with this strategy, is how can the union prosper if the company is gone?

Experiment in Socialism

2009-04-28T18:21:00.000-07:00

Another way to look at the GM "restructuring" is an experiment in Socialism. After the Obama Plan is put into place, the Federal Government and the Union will own one of America's most famous companies.

Here is a chance for Big Government and Labor to show what they can do. Go get 'em.

Non Bankruptcy Court Reorganization

2009-04-28T06:51:00.000-07:00

The bondholders own 27 billion of GM. They get ten percent in the Obama supervised reorganization. The UAW owns 10 billion. They get 40% of the stock. The government gets nearly fifty percent. This is reorganization political style, rather than as supervised by a bankruptcy Judge. Well, fifty percent of nothing is still nothing. With the union controlling GM, it is doomed.

Hannity

2009-04-23T20:11:00.000-07:00

Bob:

Did you watch Keith Olberman tonight.....

...Will Hannity actually take Charles Grodin up on his challenge to be waterboarded for charity?

....I am tuning in to Hannity tonight to see if he takes the bait.

President Borat

2009-04-23T18:18:00.000-07:00

The candidate is friends with a known terrorist (Ayers). His pastor hates America. He bowls worse than a 4 year old. He bows to a Saudi King and kisses his ring. He gives an Ipod to the Queen of England. He likes to fly the Presidential jet down low close to skyscrapers. What could explain these bizarre behaviors? Ha ha ha. I get it. IT's a joke! Obama is actually Borat!!

Afghanistan: Hope and Change

2009-04-22T17:36:00.000-07:00

War is bad.

Very Bad.

We have no business interfering in other countries internal affairs. So why are we sending more troops and preparing for a long war in Afghanistan?

Dissent in America

2009-04-19T21:49:00.000-07:00

Of course I feared that this would be coming. One of the premier intellectuals of the Democrat Party, speaking with one of its premier newscasters, Keith Olberman, indicated that all conservatives disagree with Obama for only two reasons: 1. they are mentally deficient and 2. they are racists. Very astute analysis. Plus any woman who listens to Rush Limbaugh is like Eva Braun. Gosh, how can one refute such a brilliant analysis. I surrender.

00Bama International Man of History

2009-04-10T06:31:00.000-07:00

From the Daily Show.

Beating Young Girls

2009-04-04T14:40:00.000-07:00

How long before we get flogging for Muslim sins in the U.S.? (The teenage girl's crime? She came out of her house with another guy who was not her husband.)

Why are we going back to Afghanistan? Who are we supporting in this wonderfully progressive country?

No We Can't

2009-04-04T14:36:00.001-07:00

Europe refused Obama's request for more troops for Afghanistan.

Why should we? So they can institute Sharia law under the control of our new allies, the Taliban?

Bowing to Saudi King

2009-04-03T21:26:00.000-07:00

Obama bowing to the Saudi King.

Say what?

Obamanomics

2009-03-31T20:40:00.000-07:00

Paul Krugman, recent winner of the Nobel Prize for economics was no friend of either Bush.

Surprisingly, he is not a fan of the Obama Plan either. Of course, his ideas are not conservative neither. He apparently feels the government should nationalize the "zombie banks." So the Banks will be run as a government department, perhaps as efficiently as the Departments of Education and the U.S. Postal Service.

Meanwhile, I am looking for Galt's Gulch.

Heckuva Job, Timmy

2009-03-23T06:22:00.000-07:00

Stand by your man.

Eat the New York Times

2009-03-22T17:22:00.000-07:00

Perhaps President for life Obama should eat the traitors at the New York times for their lack of loyalty and unwillingness to agree with his policy.

Perhaps the left is taking a second look at its argument that Obama is qualified to be President of the most powerful country on earth, because he ran a good political campaign.

Away for Weekend

2009-03-20T07:14:00.001-07:00

While I'm gone, you can read this interesting article about how Obama is struggling with his communication skills. Who woulda thunk.

Meanwhile, if you are beginning to panic, you can prepare for catastrophe with this book.

Battlefield Lasers

2009-03-19T20:07:00.000-07:00

Or perhaps Ray Guns? Coming to your local war soon. Photon torpedoes next.

I Had A Dream

2009-03-18T07:02:00.000-07:00

What if Senators Frank, Dodd and Grassley did the honorable thing. Hint see the "suicide bunny" tickling Atlas on the right.

Democrat Dodd Guarantees AIG Bonuses

2009-03-17T20:19:00.000-07:00

Who in their right mind would put a provision in the "Stimulus" Bill guaranteeing bonuses to executives of bailed out firms? Chris Dodd did.

Good thing they rushed the bill through on the weekend in secret meetings at night so that no one could read the bill. That represents a new kind of responsibility and transparency. Opaque transparency.

Dodd's excuse is that it was done by one of his staffers and he didn't have time to read it either. Great.

Rewarding Incompetence

2009-03-16T06:20:00.000-07:00

Barney Frank is against rewarding incompetence. I agree with him on this point. But Barney was on the banking committee that created many of the incentives to loan to unqualified borrowers which helped to lead to this financial meltdown.

Bush was often assailed as being an idiot and incompetent. But Iraq is doing pretty well.

The United States is struggling. My worry is that Obama fails the competency test. Does he really have any idea what he is doing? His plans for reviving the economy do not seem to have any consistent strategy to me. Instead, he simply borrowed a trillion more dollars and redistributed to various Democrat pet projects. So either he does not really understand economics very well, or he really doesn't want to revive the economy. Either option is disturbing.

Atlas Shrugging

2009-03-16T05:57:00.000-07:00

Atlas Shrugged is on the Amazon best seller list again. Will Atlas Shrugged prove prophetic? People do make choices based upon incentives. If Democrats want to demonize success and wealth, perhaps some people will opt out and "go on the county." Why should people take risks with their money and work hard, only to have it taken and redistributed to government workers and various citizens with political pull, who do not have to work so hard or face competitive pressures. As a Soviet worker said, "We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us."

Fascism; What Is It?

2009-03-13T20:39:00.001-07:00

Well I see no point in arguing about what is the true meaning of "fascism" when everyone seems to define it as including anyone but me. I am still working my way through the Goldberg book and I find it to be quite intelligent, and well worth reading. Just delete the word "fascist" everywhere you find it and read it for the points he makes about the ideas that have won so much popularity among vast segments of the intellectual classes the past 100 years. Frankly, I have little trust in what "professors" in the current university classes have decided, as their thinking represents the problem to me.

I tend to look at politics on this axis. On the one had are those who prefer freedom, free markets, and regard government as a necessary evil to be kept in check and minimized. Government is dangerous because people are fallible and greedy and not to be trusted with too much power. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

On the other hand are those that distrust freedom, distrust free markets, distrust businessmen and corporations and prefer that government would control as much as possible. For example, all those persons in this country who want to replace a free market for medical services and replace it with some sort of single provider government system. Such people distrust human beings, except people who work for the government. On the far extreme you would have some kind of Socialist state where the government owns the means of production.

You can label these two poles any name you like. The little end and the Big end, the browns and the blues. It is the basic concepts that matter.

Why some people trust government so much, and some so little is an interesting question, which I do not know the answer to. I would love it if you would explain it to me.

Class War

2009-03-11T12:19:00.000-07:00

Michael Winship Oh, What a Lovely Class War!

http://www.truthout.org/031109A

Michael Winship, Truthout: "My goodness, how they howl when the proverbial shoe is on the proverbial other foot. You'd think the Red Army had just left Moscow and was preparing a frontal assault on the Federal Reserve. So what are conservatives, Wall Street and financial television commentators shouting? Socialists! That's right. Spread the word: Socialists are swarming over our nation's Capitol and making off with the means of production, otherwise known as campaign contributions and the federal budget. You got trouble, my friends."

Jon Stewart vs Cramer

2009-03-10T22:48:00.000-07:00

Ok

If you have not caught the last few nights of the Daily and what fun they have been having with Mad Money's Cramer, you have really missed something.

The Morning Joe decided to stick his nose in the dust up, and he got spanked.

And if you haven't been watching, you don't understand why its fun to be a left wing commie. I suggest watching Morning Joe tomorrow to see if he is smart enough to IGNORE the fun at his expense.

What Grade Should Obama Get So Far?

2009-03-10T20:49:00.000-07:00

What grade should Obama get for his accomplishments thus far? Taken from MSNBC, which is not usually a Republican front. Seems a little early for report cards, but here is the results as of 9PM.

Passion and Politics

2009-03-10T13:36:00.000-07:00

On the other hand, since Religion and Politics deal with values, which at bottom are more a matter of feelings than logic, I suppose I can understand how calm rational discussion might be difficult.

Anger Management

2009-03-08T19:31:00.000-07:00

Isn't it interesting that Religion and Politics are taboo topics in polite company? These are very important to many people, but discussing them only seems to provoke anger in most people. The exception seems to be that people of similar opinions can discuss with one another how much they hate, desipise, and laugh at those of different beliefs.

Apparently, religions and politics are not subjects that most people desire to consider in a calm, cool, rational manner. Rather, for most people, religion and politics are emotional topics. They are the subject of Faith. People have faith in their religion. More surprisingly, (at least to me) they have Faith in their politics. Faith and Reason are like oil and water; they do not mix.

I am not restricting my comments to stupid people or any particular party. My observation seems true to me of very intelligent members of various parties (although there does seems to be a tendency to judge members of parties to which you do not belong as being evil and stupid).

Just observe how angry nice, intelligent, educated people become ewhen they happen to overhear the expression of political opinions of the opposition party. Why should an error in logic provoke such wrath?

This human trait has always bothered me. If we cannot sit down and discuss religion and politics with even our friends and family in a calm, dispassionate manner, how can we hope to avoid relying upon violence to resolve disagreements with strangers, not to speak of enemies.

Reaching Out to the Taliban

2009-03-08T08:10:00.000-07:00

Obama told the New York Times he was contemplating reaching out to the "moderates" in the Taliban. Good news for the women of Afghanistan.

Remind me again why we are still in Afghanistan. We are on a Mission from God to convert the Afghani people to a Western, rational, scientific point of view?

Tea Party

2009-03-07T21:20:00.000-08:00

Tea Party in Orange County. Some are not happy with the Governator.

Reflection on Comment by Michael Moore

2009-03-07T08:06:00.000-08:00

"I have watched with mild amusement this week the self-immolation of the Republican Party as it bows before the altar of Rush Limbaugh, begging for mercy, pleading for forgiveness, breathlessly seeking guidance and wisdom from The Oracle....."

By why did the head of the RNC apologize to the Bloviator?

Bait And Switch

2009-03-07T06:57:00.000-08:00

The house is burning down. Is it a good time to be watering the grass?

We thought we were getting someone smart, cool, above partisanship. Instead, we get: Democrat Spending Gone Wild, Confused, weak Foreign Policy. Do we really want to rev up the war in Afghanistan? Haven't we built up enough debt on foreign adventures?

Instead of a careful background check, Obama received Fanboy gushing from the major media.

No wonder it is losing audience. In tumultuous times, can you really trust the major media to tell the truth about the Democrats and Obama? Doubtful. It will take a little while longer for the majority of Americans to realize they have been suckered.

Meanwhile, since Obama targeted him, Rush Limbaugh's ratings have doubled. Good strategy by Begala and Carville. Could this possibly be another Right Wing Conspiracy?

Dreaming Big Dreams

2009-03-06T06:15:00.000-08:00

I have nothing against trying to improve things. OUr current medical system is not very rational, and could definitely use improvement. But planners need to consider the incentives that their systems create. For example, many critics think that the welfare for families with dependent children had the unintended consequence of breaking up families, since mothers got more money if they were single. No one intended it, but it happened. Economics is not particularly moral any more than physics or engineering. It is simply reality, especially with regard to human beings and their motivation.

Similarly, it seems to be inevitable that if you provide services by means of a government monopoly, since there is no competition, there is little incentive for efficiency. Inefficient private companies go broke. Cruel, but practical.

It is nice for the Democrats that they control the government right now, but was it really wise for them to exclude the Republicans from the process of drawing up the stimulus plan? Is it a good idea to ignore intelligent people who disagree with you? Is it possible that a plan worked out as a compromise might have been a little more practical and better designed?

Don't forget what happened last time the Democrats controlled Congress and the Presidency. Only two years to the next election.

Eat the Rich, Continued

2009-03-05T19:48:00.000-08:00

Ah, it is so nice to dialogue with a friend about public policy.

The problem for Democrats (and those further to the left) is that most of the points made by Libertarians are simply basic economics. Fighting basic economics is like trying to jump to the moon. You can win for a short time, but eventually you will be pulled back to earth.

Eating the Rich. Hating the Rich. Hating Corporations. Such passions may feel good to certain types, but it is the rich, sad to say, who own businesses, hire workers, and keep the economy afloat. Poor people can spend government handouts, but they are unlikely to start new businesses and give much of a boost to the economy.

Competition may be annoying and force one to work hard, but monopolist enterprises run by public employees are not known for being efficient. If the entire economy is run by government employees, we can look forward to boom times as seen in North Korea and East Germany.

As we will find out this year.

2009-03-03T19:16:00.000-08:00

Bob:

You can take you so-called libertarian principles and shove them.

You constantly quote from the Republican playbook. You like that safe Libertian position so as to be able to distance yourself when you realize stained tissue like Rush make the very arguments you make look foolish in the light of day.

We radical, socialist, Marxist, left-wing, pinko, commies are so happy to have control of the HOUSE, THE SENATE AND THE WHITE HOUSE..

...You ain't seen nothing yet. Marginal tax rates at 39%, capital gains rates at (should I say it) 20%.... Helions and tigers and bears OH MY!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, and guess what...for at least the next 22 months, we commies can do what ever we want.

Maybe we do something with Health Care?

You better protect your precious bodily fluids. We might enact fluoridation.

Dow Since "Stimulus" Passed

2009-03-03T01:54:00.000-08:00

Do investors think that Obama's "stimulus" plan is going to "grow" the economy?

Here is the Dow Jones Industrial Average since Obama's stimulus package passed, February 8, 2009.

(Source Google Finance)

Apparently investors have some doubts. Perhaps a plan to eat the rich may not properly motivate the rich to work hard risk their riches on new ventures. Anyone have any other ideas? or is that it until 2010?

Global Warming Protest Snowed Out

2009-03-02T06:30:00.000-08:00

The mass civil disobedience planned today in Washington over Global warming looks to be snowed out.

Prediction

2009-03-01T07:44:00.000-08:00

The new Democrat budget (you can't blame this one on the Republicans) contains a deficit which is a greater percentage of the GNP than any budget since WWII. Obama forecasts optimistally that this deficit will shrink in the future by assuming that the recession will end this year and the economy will resume normal growth.

I predict that neither of these events will happen. There is nothing in this budget to stimulate the private sector, especially to stimulate businesses which creates new jobs. Spending money on goverment giveaways and transfer programs does nothing for the private sector

Every dollar spent by the government on programs requires a tax dollar on private enterprise. If you kill private enterprise, you kill the goose that laid the golden egg. It has been done before. It is going to be done here.

The deficit is going to be far larger than Obama foresees. Can Obama be so stupid economically that he does not realize this? Or does a severe recession afford him an opportunity to seize more and more power, like other 20th century leaders did during the 1930s? I don't think Obama is stupid.

Racists

2009-03-01T07:31:00.001-08:00

I am not surprised after all, anyone who disagrees with Obama, or with the Democrats is a racist, obviously. Even Democrats who criticize Obama are racists and that is whey they disagree.

OMG

2009-03-01T05:18:00.000-08:00

Ok

KSFO in San Francisco is red meat Right Wing radio... I don't know who listens to this out there....but did anyone listen to Grandma B. Simpson today.....

She had a truly bigoted Freudian slip today about Obama.

Eating The Rich

2009-02-26T20:42:00.001-08:00

Well I am "The Rich" if it means top 5%. If Obama's plan calls for my cannibalization, perhaps I need to re-think my business plan.

Obama Speech

2009-02-24T19:16:00.000-08:00

Listening to Obama reminded me of listening to Jimmy Carter. Lots of fine language. Lot's of promises. Increased benefits for everything and everyone, and reduced taxes too!*

It would be terrific if this was all possible, but it seems to violate common sense. Something for nothing doesn't work in the real world. And why should the 5% who are going to be footing this entire bill risk their time and ingenuity in order to be insulted and taxed ad infinitum? From each according to his ability to each according to his need.

*Unless you are part of the 5% highest income earners, in which case you are a greedy bastard.

Biden to Lead Spending Blitz

2009-02-23T13:38:00.001-08:00

The markets reacted swiftly to the announcement that Vice President Joe Biden would oversee the implementation of the Spending Bill, dropping to lowest level since 1997. The stock market, already in the tank, has dropped another 19.4% since election day. Obama is keeping his promise: the market is changing.

Muslim Man Beheads Wife

2009-02-17T21:01:00.000-08:00

The founder of a New York TV station aimed at countering Muslim stereotypes, Muzzammil Hassan has been arrested for beheading his wife (pictured on left). His goal to counter Muslim stereotypes has hit a rough spot. NOW has no comment.

Ken Starr

2009-02-16T17:55:00.000-08:00

By Scott Horton
Addressing a group of Mormon lawyers in Boston on Friday night Kenneth Starr charted the Republican strategy for dealing with Obama’s nominees for the Supreme Court. The Mormon Times reports:
Starr pointed out, “the salience of this very enviable position, politically, for our President is brought home by the President’s own approach to the high court during his years of service as a United States senator.” He continued, “There is one historical factoid of note: He is the first president of the United States ever in our history to have participated in a Senate filibuster of a judicial nominee. Never before has that happened.” Starr cited a November article in The Washington Times about the problems Obama faces, quoting, “Senate Republicans say the president-elect’s voting record and long simmering resentments over Democrats’ treatment of President Bush’s nominees will leave Mr. Obama hard-pressed to call for bipartisan help confirming judges or even an up-or-down vote.”
Note that the identity and qualification of the nominees is totally irrelevant. They will be opposed to the hilt, and presumably—if every single Republican in the Senate can be held in line—through a filibuster. And Starr’s claim that Obama participated in a filibuster is, as might be expected, erroneous—although he did support the idea of one.
These remarks may or may not portend the Republican strategy in addressing judicial nominees. But they certainly tell us an awful lot about Ken Starr. One would think, for instance, that the identity of the nominee and his or her qualifications and life experience would be relevant factors to take into account before deciding how to proceed. But evidently not to Starr.
He resigned a lifetime appointment to the bench and became the Whitewater special prosecutor. During the course of his handling of the matter, pubic opinion turned sharply against him as his management of the entire affair turned transparently political and staggeringly petty. In the course of his handling of the matter, he established a public relations office, and the federal judge supervising the matter took note of the steady stream of secret grand jury materials which were only in the possession of Starr’s office to friendly media. This is a violation of conventional standards of prosecutorial ethics and a possible crime as well; Starr’s views of his own ethical obligations were so stilted and self-serving that his long-time friend and ethics advisor Sam Dash resigned in protest.
If the Democrats want a poster child for their image of the Republican opposition–the bitter old White Southern man, driven by a thirst for revenge–here’s Ken Starr. All things considered, we should at least be thankful that he’s no longer sitting as a judge.

Something a Little Different

2009-02-15T20:38:00.000-08:00

I
The Owl and the Pussy-cat went to sea In a beautiful pea green boat,They took some honey, and plenty of money, Wrapped up in a five pound note.The Owl looked up to the stars above, And sang to a small guitar,'O lovely Pussy! O Pussy my love, What a beautiful Pussy you are, You are, You are!What a beautiful Pussy you are!'

II
Pussy said to the Owl, 'You elegant fowl! How charmingly sweet you sing!O let us be married! too long we have tarried: But what shall we do for a ring?'They sailed away, for a year and a day, To the land where the Bong-tree growsAnd there in a wood a Piggy-wig stood With a ring at the end of his nose, His nose, His nose,With a ring at the end of his nose.

III
'Dear pig, are you willing to sell for one shilling Your ring?' Said the Piggy, 'I will.'So they took it away, and were married next day By the Turkey who lives on the hill.They dined on mince, and slices of quince, Which they ate with a runcible spoon;And hand in hand, on the edge of the sand, They danced by the light of the moon, The moon, The moon,They danced by the light of the moon.

Queri: what is a "runcible spoon"?

Newsweek Alternate Cover: We're All Facists Now

2009-02-14T16:12:00.000-08:00

Socialism means the abolition of private property. The state ownership of the means of production. We do not have socialism; but rather creeping fascism. The state is getting ever more involved in controlling businesses, even taking control in some instances. Mussolini's corporate state. But Fascism no longer refers to the real historical phenomenon. It has become an epithet to apply to anything you don't like, such as talk radio.

More Democrat Censorship Talk

2009-02-13T18:00:00.000-08:00

More members of the Public Employees Party are calling for action to muzzle talk radio(pictured on the left). Maurice Hinchey, a Democrat from New York, is the latest to call for the return of the "Fairness Doctrine." He is joining Debbie Stabenow of Michegan and Tom Harkin of Iowa who want the Federal government to monitor political speech, just like in Mother Russia.

After all, we can't trust non members of the Government Party to say what the Government wants to be said, can we?

Government Stimulation

2009-02-12T20:52:00.000-08:00

Obama has selected the Joker as his new Commerce secretary. The Joker has apparently decided that what the world needs now is nearly a trillion dollars in increased spending on government programs. Is this a really a good idea? Some people think not. Which countries in the world have the most economic growth, those with small governments (Hong Kong?) or those with giant governments (North Korea)?

Modern Fascism

2009-02-07T13:36:00.000-08:00

Fascism did not die with Adolph Hitler. The philosophy is alive and well, but it no longer calls itself Fascist. It prefers the words "liberal" and "progressive." I am currently reading an interesting book with the somewhat shocking title: "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg.

I would venture to suggest that what various Fascist movements hold in common is a faith, almost religious in character, in the power of the state to solve all problems in the world. For modern fascist types, Politics replaces Religion as the Ultimate Ideology. There also seems to be a faith in the ability of the Intelligentsia to solve problems and a distrust of democracy and ordinary people who are regarded as rather dumb, uneducated and not fit for making important decisions. Hence all the warnings printed all over every product you buy, such as warnings not to use a hair dryer in the shower.

The exact plan for World Salvation is not clear, but it is the power of the state that is the means. To solve the problems of the world, we need a world state, and the U.N. is idolized as the beginning of that solution. As for the Plan, if we find our Savior, such as Obama, he will come up with something, that's certain. Fascists tend to idealize Big Men such as Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, and currently, Obama.

Fascists are pragmatic, and various things will be tried and discarded. Examples are Hillary's Clinton's health care plans and her philosophy that children should not be subject to their parents, but be under the protection of the state from the parents (she wrote a book about this). Other examples are all the various New Deal plans passed in an effort to get out of the Great Depression.

Since the Key Idea is the necessity of action by the State, fascists always work to increase the power of the state, to bring within the jurisdiction of government more and more areas of life. The exact means of salvation is always a little vague. We will try something and if that doesn't work, we'll try something else, until we succeed in eradicating poverty, supplying medical care for everyone at an affordable price, and solving world peace. Studying science or economics is not necessary, those are mere details that can be delegated to government employees. Look at the content of Obama "plan" to stimulate the economy and you will see an example of fascist logic in action. The goal is always always clear and noble. The means is cobbled together rather randomly because Obama has no clear economic theory. Not to pick on Obama, especially, but recall how he responded to specific questions about what he was going to change, and by what means. Don't worry. The best minds will be chosen to come up with a Plan.

The basic critique of Fascism from my point of view is libertarian in nature. Libertarians distrust giving unlimited power to fallible humans who do not have a clear plan as to what they are going to do with it. It seems to me that the Founders of this country shared this point of view. We don't believe that human beings become any more intelligent or reliable just because they work for the government. The problem with modern politics, from the Libertarian perspective, is that both the Democrat and Republican parties are beset by fascist ideas, the Democrats wholeheartedly and the Republicans grudgingly by unconscious absorption of the Fascist spirit of the Age via popular culture and religious beliefs. (Bush and "compassionate conservatism").

Libertarians are left to stand on the sidelines playing the role of Cassandra, predicting that catastrophe is coming.

Fairness Doctrine

2009-02-07T07:57:00.000-08:00

Hmm. Interesting that you waste your time listening to those hate filled idiots. Be careful for God's sake, you might accidentally find that your brains were washed. If you happen to be trapped in your car in a traffic jam while listening, you might be afflicted by the Stockholm Syndrome and come over to the Dark Side.

And I hope you are right about the Fairness doctrine. Here (link) is one cause for worry. Courtesy of Senator Debbie Stabenow. I think her husband is an executive with Air America.

What Censorship

2009-02-07T07:40:00.000-08:00

Driving 8-12 hours a week I get my fill of Rush, Levin, Weiner, Hannity, etc. What serious effort is being made to censor these talk show hosts? The boogey man, "the Fairness Doctrine" is carted out by these blow hards every day since the elecdtion. The fact that the President or others on the left might critize the accuracy of statements or tactics of these radio hosts is not censorship. In the case of Rush, he invites such commentary by making comments that he hopes the President's economic plan fails.

Since I don't have time to research the boogey man, is there a serious House or Senate Bill, FCC proposed regulation, exectutive order, or even a committe or commission whose objecti is to reimpose the so called Fairness Doctrine, let alone censorship of right wing talk show hosts.

Free Speech

2009-02-06T12:25:00.000-08:00

Politics is usually barred from polite talk at social get togethers because people become so emotional in discussing it that tempers flare and the party is spoiled. Many people regard those of an opposing political opinion as right wing/left wing nuts (choose your preference). Those with opposing views are ridiculed as idiots. This is a phenomenon of human psychology that applies to both sides of the political spectrum.

But politicians are not superhuman gods immune from passion and prejudice. They will bring their beliefs to their job, if given the task of refereeing free speech. I still believe that the best choice is to allow free debate to continue and trust the populace to choose wisely.

The reality is that there are reasoned arguments for both the left and the right. Human beings are not always reasonable, but hopefully enlightened self interest will keep people curious about what is really true, despite their prejudices.

By the way, I did not pick Joe McCarthy as my spokesman for free speech. I held him up as the model of the new censors of the left, who wish to pass laws to ban speech with which they disagree. As I said, the left claims to be liberal, but they seem to feel quite comfortable censoring the opposition. Joe McCarthy is a symbol of government power used to squelch free speech.

Fairness Doctrine

2009-02-06T06:25:00.000-08:00

I expected it to be coming. When you are trying to set up a totalitarian state, the first thing you need to do is seize control of the media, especially the airwaves. Look what has happened to the press under Putin in the New Russia.

Hence the so called Fairness doctrine that designates the government to supervise any discussion on the airwaves. All such discussions must be "balanced" whatever that might possibly mean. The result, talk shows do not exist with a point of view; only allegedly objective shows. Such shows, like our major media news outlets, choose what events are newsworthy, and which are not. They also choose how every story will be "spun." Are Israelis victims or criminals. Who is to say. Apparently the government will tell you.

But allegedly "objective" news programs will not be criticized. Only frankly and honestly partisan points of view like Rush Limbaugh on talk Radio or Sean Hannity on Fox News will be targeted. Amazing how so called "liberals" are so hostile to the free marketplace of ideas. They love to come up with ways to prohibit points of view they disagree with, such as labeling it "hate speech." If Rush is such a big fat idiot, prove it. (P.S. I do not agree with everything said on talk Radio, obviously, but certainly feel they have the right to say it).

Two Week Report Card Obama

2009-02-04T06:32:00.001-08:00

Perhaps two weeks is a little too soon. But some people are already predicting an Obama "meltdown."

The Republicans are having too much fun in their new role as the loyal opposition. It is starting to look like it could prove to be a long four years for the Democrats.

It may dawn on some people soon that it takes more than a pretty black face and soaring rhetoric to run a country.

California Broke

2009-02-02T06:22:00.001-08:00

How is it possible that California is broke, given that it has one of the highest sales taxes and income taxes in the country?

My local paper advises me that it is the fault of Republicans for failing to raise taxes even higher. What about spending? Don't be ridiculous, these government programs are all sacred.

Increasing Tax Revenue

2009-02-01T04:24:00.000-08:00

Brilliant Barack Obama has discovered already, in only the first two weeks of his administration, a way to increase government tax revenue by getting high income tax cheats who are not paying their fair share to pay more. His clever idea: he nominates them to high cabinet posts.

Stimulating the Economy

2009-01-29T14:01:00.000-08:00

If you tax group A to buy stuff for group B, group A will have less money to spend in the same amount as group B has more money. So the net gain to the economy is zero. What you have is income redistribution, not economic stimulation.

In general, Obama is transferring money from the private sector to the public sector. Does the public sector grow the economy? Does it innovate new products? How innovative are the post office, or the public school system or even NASA if you get right down to it. These ideas are not new. They have been tried before. They do not produce economic growth; far from it.

How to Revive the Economy

2009-01-27T22:05:00.000-08:00

Throw a trillion dollars down a rat hole. ($100 billion to the states to shore up medicare, $200 million for the National Mall in Washington, $500 million to install new bomb detectors in airports, $400 million to Nasa to do climate change research, etc.) If the Republicans are smart, they will allow the Democrats to take full credit for these brilliant ideas.