Yeah, I go to the dentist once in a while to do corrective work on cavities, crowns and discuss matters of interest to the dental staff. 14 November 2007 and I discussed Editor Smith's lashing out at the Inlander for hiring a former employee of the Spokesman-Review and then having that same former employee write about his former employer's newspaper. So, I brought up the question of whether this might be conflict of interest. Dr. Petellin suggested that it might well be if a pledge of confidentiality was ever signed between employer and employee. What was interesting, when Smith posted on Huckleberries on-line to defend his charges against the Inlander and its editor Ted McGregor, Smith never once brought up such a pledge. It was also suggested by my dentist esp. where dirty laundry might get aired... What is just as interesting, Dave Oliveria who runs the HBO blog has aired plenty of dirty laundry about his former boss Duane Hagadone. Nor is there much of a difference between commentary and actual news since both come out of the same newspaper and both become sources of information. Smith would have a legit argument to make if he held his own paper to the same standards that he would like to apply to a limited distribution weekly.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Richard Alberts of Hayden, Idaho wrote a Readers Write letter that was published in the Coeur d'Alene Press about SCHIP and what was proposed as a humongous Democratic expansion of that Program. let me see, folks in Idaho who can make 7,000 a month in wages. Frankly, I'm lucky when I can make 600 to 700 a month in wages. But such is the prohibitive cost of private insurance that even a so-called low cost insurance of $26.00 per month as stipulated in his letter becomes $312.00 that I can't afford given that I also can't afford to rent. And just how good is the coverage? So, a worker in Idaho who actually makes 7,000 a month, which means that such a person would make $84,000.00 a year undoubtedly can better afford private insurance. What Alberts did not ask was how many people in the state of Idaho actually makes that kind of wages where it becomes "socialist" to expand a program to cover them and their children as well? GW exploited people of upper income wages as the rationale for why such an expanded program can get vetoed. Left out of the pic, is that he ended up hurting most everyone else at the lower end of the scale.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Sighted, news item buried in a blurb sized report on the back page of the Spokesman-Review for the 14th of November 2007. The Democratic legislature in Oregon tried to get a measure passed at the ballot box to increase cigarette and tobacco taxes to expand health insurance for children in their state. GW hailed the fact that the voters voted it down as a set back of course to those much hated Democrats. The Democrats pointed out that the tobacco companies such as Phillip Morris led the charge against this health care plan in a series of multi-million dollar TV ads. Which puts the voters of Oregon and GW in that highly untenable position of being for cancer sticks and against better health.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Jon Stewart of "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" would call it a segway (sic?) what gets added to this blog. Cal Thomas gets going on his latest attack against the Democratic (bare) majority by questioning their patriotism. Patriotism as defined thusly in Thomas' republished column in the Spokesman-Review: 'a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion." By the time Thomas finishes screwing around with his re-interpretations and mis-interpretations of patriotism, it amounts to you are only a patriot if you show a blind allegiance to Bush. There is no question that applies 99% to Cal Thomas. Since most of his columns have generally been to criticize everyone else before he can barely murmur some faint dissent about his dear leader. The Democrats actually do have their problems such as cutting some millions of dollars from border security. But border security, such as after the planned millennium terrorist attack in 1999 and certainly after 9/11/2001 was not exactly high on GW's list of priorities either. The Democrats have bought into being unduly generous to illegal aliens despite the continuing threat of terrorism in this country. GW's own refusal enforce immigration laws poses an equal problem.
Now onto the specifics of Thomas' case against the Dems: He mentions Iraq and what our interests are there. From what I can gather, our interests in Iraq are as commercial as that of Russia, Germany and France when those countries initially opposed our invading that country. --Oil. Since that time, oil as a founding rationale for the invasion has been admitted to. The further stipulation would seem to be a government in Iraq that gives the U.S. based commercial interests what ever the hell they want. The same treatment they get now from GW himself. So, what would a "victory" look like since GW has never defined it. And the rationales for keeping our troops in a country that is finally beginning to stand up (so that we can finally stand down as GW once proclaimed) become more questionable. Making GW keep his 3 year old promise (2004-2005) is handing him defeat. And those who would hold GW to his years old promise lack the necessary patriotism. Given GW's constant penchant for moving the goal posts, what are our interests in Iraq beyond the commercial and GW's personal vendetta against the late and not so great Saddam Hussein?
Iran: Even though Tom Foreman, Michael Ware, Lou Dobbs, etc. take note of the fact that violence has gone down dramatically in Iraq since the surge has begun, has Thomas been to the moon on an extended tour and just now got back? I should not doubt that weapons from Iran were smuggled into Iraq to be used against our U.S. Armed Forces and Iraqi civilians. But no one has precisely said just how much of a percentage of armaments were shipped in to what the Iraqis were able to gather up from stockpiles post invasion. Incidentally, we left those munitions dumps mostly unguarded. So, if Iranian and Al Qaeda inspired violence has dropped dramatically owing to our getting with the Sunnis and letting them know what was in their best interests, then it becomes harder to justify exploiting Iraq to beat the drums of war against Iran. Especially when we have yet to see the Iraqi government get its act together.
Iran part 2: What Ahmedinijad (sic) might or might not do with the centrifuges he now has in operation for enriching uranium, is certainly cause for concern. Just as much of a cause of concern is GW being unwilling to address the Iranian president in a way that leaves no room for doubt that if he does build a bomb he can expect unwelcome company. Given GW's waffling and uncertainty on Iran, the question would also have to be asked, what are America's interests there since GW hasn't clearly defined them either?
Thomas whines that the Dems are simply too critical of GW all the time. When gosh, golly gee, they were never that way in the past. How about the GOP attacking Clinton on foreign and domestic policy. Prepared to impeach the man even when he happened to have serious concerns with Hussein over WMD. Former presidents simply don't criticize... Does that only apply to Democratic presidents but not the GOP? I do believe that the late Gerald Ford had a few unkind words about Clinton that were ultimately revealed after his death. So, defend the country out of love and devotion, defend the country's interests.
Note on GW, he went into the Air National Guard rather than face getting his butt shot at in Vietnam. Then he skipped out on his commitment at every opportunity. Not what would be called patriotism. Dubai as a country and as a commercial interest and also a country with terrorist sympathies. GW was very much prepared to sign off on handing some critical ports to a government owned business Dubai Ports World. Just as it took bad pet food, bad your food, bad toothpaste and dangerously made toys, massive recalls of such toys, before GW on the one hand began considering that yeah, food safety should be enforced and product safety overall should be enforced. But, on the other hand, not everyone in his administration especially those heading the product safety commission, Nordman /Nording (sic?) agree to increased funding and enforcement powers. It is also noted that this same commissioner took some trips at the expense of the businesses her agency was supposed to be regulating. Now discuss again this defense of the nation's interests. I submit that the health of the people are very much in the interests of the nation. Blind loyalty to GW puts you in grave danger of being highly unpatriotic.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Richard Alberts of Hayden, Idaho wrote a Readers Write letter that was published in the Coeur d'Alene Press about SCHIP and what was proposed as a humongous Democratic expansion of that Program. let me see, folks in Idaho who can make 7,000 a month in wages. Frankly, I'm lucky when I can make 600 to 700 a month in wages. But such is the prohibitive cost of private insurance that even a so-called low cost insurance of $26.00 per month as stipulated in his letter becomes $312.00 that I can't afford given that I also can't afford to rent. And just how good is the coverage? So, a worker in Idaho who actually makes 7,000 a month, which means that such a person would make $84,000.00 a year undoubtedly can better afford private insurance. What Alberts did not ask was how many people in the state of Idaho actually makes that kind of wages where it becomes "socialist" to expand a program to cover them and their children as well? GW exploited people of upper income wages as the rationale for why such an expanded program can get vetoed. Left out of the pic, is that he ended up hurting most everyone else at the lower end of the scale.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Sighted, news item buried in a blurb sized report on the back page of the Spokesman-Review for the 14th of November 2007. The Democratic legislature in Oregon tried to get a measure passed at the ballot box to increase cigarette and tobacco taxes to expand health insurance for children in their state. GW hailed the fact that the voters voted it down as a set back of course to those much hated Democrats. The Democrats pointed out that the tobacco companies such as Phillip Morris led the charge against this health care plan in a series of multi-million dollar TV ads. Which puts the voters of Oregon and GW in that highly untenable position of being for cancer sticks and against better health.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Jon Stewart of "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" would call it a segway (sic?) what gets added to this blog. Cal Thomas gets going on his latest attack against the Democratic (bare) majority by questioning their patriotism. Patriotism as defined thusly in Thomas' republished column in the Spokesman-Review: 'a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion." By the time Thomas finishes screwing around with his re-interpretations and mis-interpretations of patriotism, it amounts to you are only a patriot if you show a blind allegiance to Bush. There is no question that applies 99% to Cal Thomas. Since most of his columns have generally been to criticize everyone else before he can barely murmur some faint dissent about his dear leader. The Democrats actually do have their problems such as cutting some millions of dollars from border security. But border security, such as after the planned millennium terrorist attack in 1999 and certainly after 9/11/2001 was not exactly high on GW's list of priorities either. The Democrats have bought into being unduly generous to illegal aliens despite the continuing threat of terrorism in this country. GW's own refusal enforce immigration laws poses an equal problem.
Now onto the specifics of Thomas' case against the Dems: He mentions Iraq and what our interests are there. From what I can gather, our interests in Iraq are as commercial as that of Russia, Germany and France when those countries initially opposed our invading that country. --Oil. Since that time, oil as a founding rationale for the invasion has been admitted to. The further stipulation would seem to be a government in Iraq that gives the U.S. based commercial interests what ever the hell they want. The same treatment they get now from GW himself. So, what would a "victory" look like since GW has never defined it. And the rationales for keeping our troops in a country that is finally beginning to stand up (so that we can finally stand down as GW once proclaimed) become more questionable. Making GW keep his 3 year old promise (2004-2005) is handing him defeat. And those who would hold GW to his years old promise lack the necessary patriotism. Given GW's constant penchant for moving the goal posts, what are our interests in Iraq beyond the commercial and GW's personal vendetta against the late and not so great Saddam Hussein?
Iran: Even though Tom Foreman, Michael Ware, Lou Dobbs, etc. take note of the fact that violence has gone down dramatically in Iraq since the surge has begun, has Thomas been to the moon on an extended tour and just now got back? I should not doubt that weapons from Iran were smuggled into Iraq to be used against our U.S. Armed Forces and Iraqi civilians. But no one has precisely said just how much of a percentage of armaments were shipped in to what the Iraqis were able to gather up from stockpiles post invasion. Incidentally, we left those munitions dumps mostly unguarded. So, if Iranian and Al Qaeda inspired violence has dropped dramatically owing to our getting with the Sunnis and letting them know what was in their best interests, then it becomes harder to justify exploiting Iraq to beat the drums of war against Iran. Especially when we have yet to see the Iraqi government get its act together.
Iran part 2: What Ahmedinijad (sic) might or might not do with the centrifuges he now has in operation for enriching uranium, is certainly cause for concern. Just as much of a cause of concern is GW being unwilling to address the Iranian president in a way that leaves no room for doubt that if he does build a bomb he can expect unwelcome company. Given GW's waffling and uncertainty on Iran, the question would also have to be asked, what are America's interests there since GW hasn't clearly defined them either?
Thomas whines that the Dems are simply too critical of GW all the time. When gosh, golly gee, they were never that way in the past. How about the GOP attacking Clinton on foreign and domestic policy. Prepared to impeach the man even when he happened to have serious concerns with Hussein over WMD. Former presidents simply don't criticize... Does that only apply to Democratic presidents but not the GOP? I do believe that the late Gerald Ford had a few unkind words about Clinton that were ultimately revealed after his death. So, defend the country out of love and devotion, defend the country's interests.
Note on GW, he went into the Air National Guard rather than face getting his butt shot at in Vietnam. Then he skipped out on his commitment at every opportunity. Not what would be called patriotism. Dubai as a country and as a commercial interest and also a country with terrorist sympathies. GW was very much prepared to sign off on handing some critical ports to a government owned business Dubai Ports World. Just as it took bad pet food, bad your food, bad toothpaste and dangerously made toys, massive recalls of such toys, before GW on the one hand began considering that yeah, food safety should be enforced and product safety overall should be enforced. But, on the other hand, not everyone in his administration especially those heading the product safety commission, Nordman /Nording (sic?) agree to increased funding and enforcement powers. It is also noted that this same commissioner took some trips at the expense of the businesses her agency was supposed to be regulating. Now discuss again this defense of the nation's interests. I submit that the health of the people are very much in the interests of the nation. Blind loyalty to GW puts you in grave danger of being highly unpatriotic.
Posts
2 comments:
This being the first time I've stopped by your blog, I was pleasantly surprised to find it a contrast to most of those on HBO's blogroll- you actually provide tidbits of real news! With some pretty insightful commentary as well. Thanks!
(After all, in our area, the options for news in print are rapidly narrowing, unless you count the Press, right?)
Yeah, I am a news junkie. And I am a natural born commentator on the human condition. News informs me of where people are both politically and socially. Thus even published opinion becomes a source of news when comparing and contrasting opinion v published accounts. Probably the best source for news now is contrarian Lou Dobbs, I give him real credit for what I post to blogs.
Post a Comment