tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-59212054124628934122024-03-13T14:15:25.096-07:00News and opinion found in Newspapers, etc.The New Arch Druid's take on the newshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14825705799696383447noreply@blogger.comBlogger267125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5921205412462893412.post-70142623023629171222011-03-07T21:47:00.000-08:002011-03-07T22:36:34.243-08:00Where the "TEA Party" went wrong<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">It has been a long time since I last visited this blog since my blog at wordpress is a lot of fun to use and gets a lot of views. However, I had already posted something substantial to the blog there about people who whether in seeking to maintain a lifestyle through spendy real estate that also potentially makes it a spendy prospect for businesses to operate here. And because of the deals that countries like China offers them, there goes the manufacturing plant and the jobs too. Or trying to maintain a lifestyle through sports in colleges or universities at the expense of actual education means that we have people today who no longer have a sense of priorities to bring this country back to being a first, either in cutting edge technology or any where else. You have to have top rated education for this, sports teams won't achieve that.<br /><br />But since Rand Paul, the face for the "TEA Party" showed up on "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart," I found some cause to visit here again. We all know that the guy will stick up for the super-wealthy like the Koch brothers who helped fund the "TEA Party," but what really took the cake, was when Paul held the view that only <span style="font-style: italic;">capitalism</span> could punish the wicked on Wall Street or the banks. At one point he complained about the intervention of government that enabled people in corporate offices to walk out with mega-bonuses. To put it bluntly, the dude had his facts completely twisted. <span style="font-style: italic;">They were walking out with mega-bonuses</span> long before government intervention. The intended intervention from the GW years to the first year of Obama's presidency was to keep the banks from toppling and money flowing. But for obvious reasons, the people who ran the corporate HQs weren't interested in anything but mega-bonuses for themselves and screw the rest of the marketplace. So, Rand Paul, how would capitalism punish people with that kind of attitude? Banks are part of the commercial landscape, you really can't do business without them. But then, what can you expect from a guy who pushes this radical ideology to the limits and against all reason?<br /><br />So, let us take such a Paulian concept into the real world and argue that "too much government" can be whined about and we have a burdensome regulation, when it comes to crime in your neighborhood. Even a guy like Rand Paul would agree that the mugger in the back alley, the shoplifter, the armed robber, the killer; should face their punishments to the full extent of the law. On the other hand, when it comes to banks like <a href="http://jeh15.wordpress.com/2010/11/16/when-banks-go-wrong-part-7/">Capital One:</a> Holding such a bank legally accountable for wrong doing suddenly becomes a no, no. In the case of the <span style="font-style: italic;">bank</span> capitalism must be the sole judicial system.<br /><br />All right, we are talking about a bank, one of many banks and credit card companies that sought through the Republican-controlled legislature, that it step in and intervene with the downside of capitalism. IE, that aspect of capitalism in which a bank card holder runs up an unsustainable debt on his account, declares bankruptcy, and leaves the bank holding the bill. If capitalism was the means of punishment, then it seems to me that banks could have used the bankruptcy itself to set up red flags. Notifying other banks that this person had run up unsustainable debt on his or her account(s) and then declared bankruptcy. A flag on that individual submitted to any and all banks would have told them that such a person was a credit risk and not to do business with him/her. But the banks did not choose to do that, instead: they went to Congress and demanded that government intervene in the marketplace. Further, they treated any bankruptcies that were won as an erasing of all debt and encouraged the individual who went bankrupt to get into debt another time. Well, then I would certainly have to argue that these banks weren't thinking in capitalistic terms, but only in how much money they could get for pushing easy credit. Capitalism you see would take foresight and planning. The banks instead took the path of least resistance and ended up (as portrayed even on The Daily Show Face Book page) causing a catastrophic economic collapse. Well then, how would capitalism punish these banks if they simply abandoned the rules of capitalism?<br /><br />The above link shows you what Capital One Bank did to get around consumer safety rules. Just as following the GOP passed bankruptcy reform act, they also failed to follow The Fair Credit Billing Act of 1999. Yeah, following the bankruptcy reform act, Capital One decided they could screw with the accounts through billing and payment errors, charge excessive <span style="font-style: italic;">debt</span> to the accounts on the basis of billing and payment errors, tried to create bankruptcy conditions, would not allow the accounts to be closed, would not allow the accounts to be paid off so that the accounts would be closed... And for such predatory lending practices, they should be free, according to Paul, to continue on in these questionable and criminal practices and only capitalism should punish them. Punish how? <br /><br />Meghan's law became possible because of some truly brutal killing of a young child. The "three strikes" law became possible because of the judicial system's tendency to engage in catch and release. If you are caught for some criminal offense for the third time, then you get to go away forever. But, we should not hold banks legally accountable when they fail to follow the FCBA or the changes in credit card laws since they were passed in 2009 and implemented by 2010. Yeah, laws to hold the banks <span style="font-style: italic;">legally accountable</span> when they fail to follow the rules of doing honest business with their customers. Instead, it is twisted into burdensome regulations that unduly interferes with the marketplace. Check out the link above, <span style="font-style: italic;">there </span>is your undue interference with the marketplace. Yes, it is absolutely necessary to hold those who commit crimes accountable. No matter if they are waiting for you in the back alley or sitting comfortably in a corporate office.<br /><br /></span></div>The New Arch Druid's take on the newshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14825705799696383447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5921205412462893412.post-58929966238616524632010-06-21T09:37:00.000-07:002010-06-21T11:53:19.390-07:00Afghanistan: What is our priority?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtW41yO0SXo0GA0rBG2BoLSNoXceHEMqScd8PVsPOC_3m2paPxJayikzrQwibUphn1ww8H7xOGajJSINuT96KVj5lPvIyAu-9xOen5OQAynk5narr9DcDW4mzkg9eUQV1YVq21YhWgYn0/s1600/DSCF0033.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 150px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtW41yO0SXo0GA0rBG2BoLSNoXceHEMqScd8PVsPOC_3m2paPxJayikzrQwibUphn1ww8H7xOGajJSINuT96KVj5lPvIyAu-9xOen5OQAynk5narr9DcDW4mzkg9eUQV1YVq21YhWgYn0/s200/DSCF0033.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5485278657260074018" border="0" /></a><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">As much as I respect and agree with Trudy Rubin (republished in the Spokesman-Review, Spokane, Washington 21 June 2010), it still begs the question that after 9 years of our presence in Afghanistan, just exactly what are our priorities in that country? Remember when we first invaded Afghanistan? It was around a month after 9/11/2001. Our reasons were simple, getting the terrorists who attacked innocent people here in America. Go after the people who gave them safe harbor. Then our priorities shifted from going after terrorists to forcing a democratic society on a people who were not really ready for such a society. Then our priorities shifted again. Instead of dealing decisively with the Taliban and Al Qaeda; the GW administration decided that "terrorism" was a greater issue in Iraq and so went after Saddam Hussein. In the meantime, the Hamid Karzai gvt became increasingly corrupt, ceded greater control of the general countryside to the Warlords, the Taliban began re-emerging and gaining stronger footholds in Afghanistan and had positions of security in Pakistan itself. The GW administration did not choose to work <span style="font-style: italic;">with </span>Pakistan to deal decisively with the Taliban. With the end result that the Taliban had free rein to begin destabilizing Pakistan as well. <br /><br />Back in the day when all this was going on under a GOP president, and it was the <span style="font-style: italic;">Democrats</span> who wanted a time line for withdrawal from Iraq; exactly what did Senator McCain have to say about any "re-emergence" of anti-Democratic forces? Or did he simply join with fellow GOP voices in Congress to utterly condemn the Democrats as failing to support our troops and spineless in the face of terrorists? Was there mention of negotiating with the U.S. installed Iraqi gvt to assure a stable country that the U.S. Military could eventually leave and the Iraqi people and gvt could handle their own security from then on? Or was there a failure on the part of the GOP led gvt to make the sort of decisive demands: now that we got rid of a brutal dictator for you and paved the way for you to achieve a democratic state, how about stepping up to the plate and working to make a better society and gvt for yourself? As long as GW and his administration weren't prepared to make such decisive demands, they also left themselves no room to negotiate with what ever actual society and gvt the Iraqi people would eventually create. That all we would do is simply prop up a dependent "state" rather than ceding back to a sovereign people the free will to decide their own future. As long as we are there, a "dependent people" don't have to make any decisions as to their own future. As long as we are there, there would be factions prepared to resent our presence and to go on the attack against their fellows just because other factions desire the presence of Americans. Apparently, it never occurred to anyone, inclusive of Senator McCain during the heyday of the GW administration to bring all sides together and have them negotiate a peace pact. If Shi'ite Muslims worked out a peace pact with Kurds and other minority peoples and beliefs living in Iraq; then it would have been possible for the U.S. presence in Iraq to have left years sooner. Instead of negotiating peace with actual warring parties after the fall of Hussein, GW decided instead that he could simply impose a western style (and Christian) type of gvt on that people. After he left office, President Obama as his successor proceeded to put forth a time line for withdrawal of troops from Iraq whether warring parties within that country were ready for it or not.<br /><br />The time for negotiating the peace is after you have fought the initial fight and put the enemies on the run. You don't put off such negotiations for a later date or abandon them all together. GW had made it readily apparent that he wanted to go to war and use being a "war president" to personally boost his ego and keep a GOP lock on Congress. But he also made it readily apparent that he didn't know how to run a war or bring one to a successful conclusion. That is why, two years after he has left office, we are still dealing with the Iraqi situation that could have been concluded a long time ago and Afghanistan who's people we actually <span style="font-style: italic;">did</span> abandon before invading Iraq. GW was ultimately not interested in negotiating the peace after the battle was won. Had we actually been prepared to do that, we could have strengthened the hand of the newly installed gvt in Afghanistan and that of the people to more thoroughly resist Taliban incursions. The fact that McCain couldn't be bothered discussing that fact back when GW was still in office, and was simply one more <span style="font-style: italic;">Republican voice</span> opposing the Democrats in a polarized partisan contest of who should ultimately reign supreme in Washington, D.C.; makes it a little late for him to argue negotiation and prospective abandonment of the Afghani people today. Make that, 7 <span style="font-style: italic;">years</span> to late. No war is truly over until you have left the enemy no room to maneuver and no further reason to fight you. GW loved the "glory of war," but not the work it would take to actually end one and leave behind a stable society. After all, given his treatment of this American society, how should he be bothered with giving greater consideration to countries he invaded and left destabilized as a consequence? It says a lot about the people he put into his administration. It says a lot about himself. And it says a lot about Senator McCain who lacks the necessary graciousness two years after his defeat at the polls to consider his own lack of willingness to truly challenge the last administration when it would have counted the most. Waiting 8 years and challenging this one really begs the question of why do it now?<br /><br />Should the Obama administration begin negotiating the peace between the Afghani peoples and all factions that could prove detrimental to a stable society? Absolutely. That there can not just be a time line for troop withdrawal; there must also be a firm commitment between the peoples and their gvt to create a society that they can live with and resist any effort on the part of militant Taliban to recreate the sort of intolerable conditions where human rights are concerned, that was partially why they were ousted in the first place! The Afghani people should be informed about what sort of choices they should have. Negotiate the peace between them and deny a philosophical foothold that allows the Taliban room to maneuver and then go on to attack the rest of their society and gvt, or face a return to a nightmare situation pre the American invasion. Given this sort of decisive either/or demand; the Afghani peoples would indeed know where they would stand once the American forces did leave. As long as the American forces are there and propping up a corrupt gvt, no such decisions have to be made. Nor does the American gvt have room to negotiate. If the Afghani peoples wish to be a sovereign peoples in a post-Taliban world, they will have to make a decision as to their own future. Further, to negotiate with the American gvt as to what they want that future to look like.<br /><br />Also in the news, Al Qaeda making a threat to the Obama administration that if you don't pull troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan there will be grave consequences. Shall we say, stand in line behind financial institutions allowed to run amok then collapsing? The BP oil spill? Business interests that use any excuse to continue to outsource jobs? Excuse me, but we have now seen more harm from our "friends" than our enemies.<br /><br />Our original rationale for going to war in Afghanistan was about terrorism. Terrorism must continue to be the focus of this and all other succeeding administrations until that day comes when those who currently engage in violent extremism see no further cause to do so. Let a sovereign people build their own nation. If they truly desire to do so. It can not solely be up to us to take care of them as though they were "orphans." We can assist, yes; but ultimately, the decisions as to their futures is their own to make.<br /></span></div><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span></div>The New Arch Druid's take on the newshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14825705799696383447noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5921205412462893412.post-43736672819830444572010-03-24T09:21:00.000-07:002010-03-24T10:05:05.520-07:00Latest book review<div style="text-align: justify;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">"Anti-Semitism in America."</span> I had that book around for a while and after finishing the "Swords of Riverside," finally picked this book up to read it. So far, it is a particularly disturbing book. Anti-Semitism has been around since the founding days of Christianity. And the rationale for it is found in the New Testament. I do have a number of questions regarding that rationale for Anti-Semitism and they are thus: did someone forget to remind these "Christians" that Christ was a Jew? Are the alleged "anti-Semitism" in the New Testament actually a direct quotation of Christ or words put in his mouth long after the fact? Especially as to the latter, the final compilation of the New Testament was hundreds of years after the birth and death of Christ. In that time, the vast majority of converts to Christianity weren't Jewish, but rather Pagan. If that tells you anything. And you can be sure that pagan influence would be the underpinnings of any final compilations of the New Testament. And it is because "Christians" felt that they were so superior to any other belief, that they felt quite safe in denigrating those who hadn't "converted" to their beliefs. How long after the fact could you possibly make the claim that the Jews did agree to the torture and final execution of Christ and make it official in the bible? 100 years? 2oo years? The religious council that finally put together what would become the modern version of the New Testament? In that time, considerable enmity could and would spring up between pagan Christians and Jews unconvinced that Christ was the Messiah. Because of that enmity, it would always be easy to make biblical claims long after the fact that Christ had it in for his fellow Jews and that the Jews would simply prefer to sell him out to the Romans. Which makes the argument that the bible carries a degree of "Christian" mythology and a rationality for their hatred of those who do not believe as they do.<br /><br />The next question would certainly be: when Christ instructed his followers to "love their neighbors as themselves," and even to "love their enemies," why is it then that "Christians" would prefer to engage in religious bigotry? Sorry, but one is hardly supportive of a "superior religion" if one does not live up to the teachings of Christ. And the hatred of Judaism, the violence against them, the mockery of them; does not square with biblical morals. But, "Christians" went through 2,000 years plus justifying it.<br /><br />When reading this book, as the author Dinnerstein began to discuss the increased hatred of Judaism in general and Jews in particular at the turn of the 20<sup>th</sup> century and the "Progressive era," seems that the "liberalism" of that time didn't extend to those not of the Jewish faith. And when Bolshevism overturned the last Tsar of Russia, it was a taint that Jews in America could also carry along with earlier questions about their loyalty.<br /><br />Today, a Glen Beck can on Fox News equate "progressive" with Marx or Hitler. But, he used exactly the same language against "progressives" that were used against the Jewish faith from the early 1900s. Wonder if the guy has any kind of historical understanding of the fact? Today, Obama is attacked for his "socialist" views if he employs government to aid those left out or left behind. It is exactly the same language that was used against the Jews in an earlier era. Today, Democrats are complained about if they push for too much government or the gvt take over of _________. A parallel argument of what was complained that those "shyster" Jews who would use their "influence" to take over gvt and ultimately bring an end to a "Christian" nation. Literally, the same or comparable language of those who "fear" gvt because of whom might ultimately control it.<br /><br />Not so long ago, "Christians" claimed a Judeo/Christian set of values. That is, until a Rabbi sought to put up a Menorah at Sea-Tac airport and rather than put up the Menorah, Sea-Tac officials took down the trees. The resulting uproar that led to across the board attacks on the Rabbi and demands by "Christians" that their pagan trees be put back up in the airport. The trees were put back up and the Menorah was never installed. Yeah, Judeo/Christian values up and until a Rabbi wants to put a Menorah honoring his holiday in an airport that only wants to honor a pagan/Christian holiday. That should tell you a lot right there. Or when a battle erupted in Florida, such as Jews putting up Menorahs to honor their holiday in a public setting and "Christians" who decided that Nativity sets could be placed in the near vicinity. In a land of diverse religion, why would "Christians" feel the need to compete for attention with the Jews? Given the particular history of "Christian" refusal to respect beliefs outside of their own, that exploiting the Nativity as a competition with the Jewish holiday comes as no surprise. Hanuka is recognized on the calenders. But we don't take a week off for the festival of lights as we do for "Christmas." How about that.<br /><br />And it is "Christianity" after centuries of abusing those of other beliefs, then turns around and tries to claim that they are "victims." War on "Christmas" anyone?<br /><br />I'd have to say in closing however, that much of what "Christians" had to say about Jews in particular, sounded exactly like the worst demons of their own beliefs. Merely a case of projection.<br /></span></div><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span></div>The New Arch Druid's take on the newshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14825705799696383447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5921205412462893412.post-39071998020818383852010-01-05T10:07:00.000-08:002010-01-05T10:55:03.719-08:00The thugs vs the U.S.<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Fhrida Ghitas is fortunately <span style="font-style: italic;">not</span> published in the Spokesman-Review very often. I think it is actually a blessing that she isn't. If there was ever a definition of liberal, she would meet that definition to a "T." So, reading her republished editorial in the 5 January 2010 edition of the Spokesman-Review, you could immediately get the impression that because Iranian President Ahmedinajad only happens to be an extremist who undoubtedly hates the <span style="font-style: italic;">west</span> as much as he hates Israel and the U.S.; our failure to "make nice" to such a thug and make him see sweet reason, well; it can't be GW's fault, <span style="font-weight: bold;">now can it</span>? No kidding? Really?<br /><br />Let's lay aside for the minute that countries with governments and leaders who absolutely detest this nation; one of the lasting legacies of GW was that he spent more time <span style="font-weight: bold;">alienating his friends</span> than putting together at any time an effective foreign policy. Only if you ignore such a legacy as Ms. Ghitas sets out to do, then you can opine away that GW can't be blamed for countries with "mutually exclusive" policies (that at the same time, hate us). Well no, if for example Iran spent better than 20 years calling us the "Great Satan" regardless of who was in office, that would be true</span></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">. On the other hand, how about attacking France for refusing to step up to the plate on a contemplated invasion (by the U.S.) of Iraq</span></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">. Anything associated however loosely with France could be renamed: Freedom Fries, Freedom Toast; and French wines could be dumped down the gutter. And "French cleaners" could get vandalized with graffiti written all over the building, etc. I am quite sure that the French government (that was demonstrating mutually exclusive policies when it came to GW's two terms in office) breathed a sigh of relief when GW was replaced by Dem successor President Obama. As did other nations known to be our<span style="font-style: italic;"> allies</span> before being confronted with the last president's belligerence.<br /><br />Now to take into consideration, Hugo Chavez. Would it be impossible for the man to not know the world's opinion of President Bush when he was in office? The point to be made is, that of course the man isn't stupid, he'd have radio, TV, some kind of newspaper, and without a doubt the capacity to obtain international news. Just as he would travel to other nations at odds with this one, quite prepared to make deals with those countries just to p.o. the last administration in particular. Ever consider that Chavez is a master manipulator very capable of pushing the hot buttons of people most passionate? Well, yeah; is the Pope Catholic?<br /><br />I remember when people started screaming away about President Obama's poor choice of "friends." In letters to the editor in the Coeur d'Alene Press and again in the Spokesman-Review and even on blogs. President Hugo Chavez who gave Obama a book, Chavez who at one point spoke approvingly of the new president before the U.N. brought a rain of rants that insinuated a question of <span style="font-style: italic;">disloyalty</span> by Obama to this nation. And from there, attacks on the (old) left in general. So, when Chavez who'd be just as capable of knowing <span style="font-style: italic;">all about </span>the criticisms of American media such as CNN and Fox News about Obama obtaining the Nobel Peace Prize so soon into his presidency; well now it wouldn't be impossible for the man to simply capitalize on that American-based criticism and change his opinions about Obama "his dear friend" in a matter of months. While I did not hear about Chavez' mutually exclusive domestic and foreign polices vis a vis Obama until Ms. Ghitas brought this matter front and center. I do know that there did come a time when Obama wasn't being attacked for his anti-American "friends." Not now, anyway when one of them turns on him.<br /><br />No, I don't guess that diplomacy is going to work on Ahmedinajad. But neither did drawing a line in the sand, backing away, drawing another line in the sand, backing away and drawing another line in the sand; which was the Iranian foreign policy under the GW administration ever effective either. So, what should we do? Well, we reduce our dependence on foreign oil and begin to do something toward cutting off Iran's oil profits, which no doubt does go a long way toward funding Ahmedinajad's nuclear ambitions. We ask the rest of the western world to follow suit. Then we turn to Iran's neighbors and tell them that it would be in their best interests, that whenever Ahmedinajad throws a tantrum, to send him to his room without supper. Maybe applying the right sort of diplomacy not directly with Iran but with those who do business <span style="font-style: italic;">with </span>Iran would do more to curtail Iran's thuggish attitudes. If Iran no longer had the profits to support a nuclear program, how quickly would Iran come to the negotiating table?<br /></span></span></div>The New Arch Druid's take on the newshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14825705799696383447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5921205412462893412.post-1220249184074893672009-06-22T07:55:00.000-07:002009-06-22T08:46:18.420-07:00Decent and enlightened Republicans<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">I thoroughly enjoyed Leonard Pitts, jr.'s editorial this morning (republished in the Spokesman-Review) about what the Republican party was commencing to do wrong when it came to expanding its own base and trying to make that long climb back into power. Namely, being a little too prepared to continue to alienate what ought to be a natural constituency—African-Americans. His column is definitely worth reading for the anti-racist rant that is the message he puts forth. And his appeal to decent and enlightened Republicans to tell their party about what ought not a party platform any longer; precisely: using racial and racist overtones against this nation's first African-American president.<br /><br />It brings to mind a quite clumsy and laughable letter published in the Coeur d'Alene Press of recent<a href="http://jeh15.wordpress.com/"> vintage</a>, where the writer complained about the current administration in exactly the manner that Pitts had decried. Being happy with a GOP president who could balance a Dem Congress (but he was also white, wasn't he?), who "kept them safe" (not really); who only spent "millions" (that is around a few 0s off of what the last administration had actually spent) as opposed to Obama's trillions. But who wouldn't have been treated as both "racial and a radical." Well, let's put it bluntly, that racism was behind Rush Limbaugh's encouraging the GOP to go to the polls in open primary states and vote for Hillary Clinton. Had Clinton won the Dem nod on overtly racist votes; not necessarily would she have become president because the same racists would have been equally appalled at the idea that a woman might just ascend to the highest office of the land. Vote for the woman in the Dem field of presidential wannabes only because that "black man" scares the heck out of these people. And let us also put it bluntly that Dems weren't holding TEA Parties during the last administration because they were absolutely scared spitless of how they would get treated if they did. As indeed both radical and anti-American. They got that jammed in their collective faces anyway over the last 8 years for any number of reasons. So if the writer could claim now that Democrats were out protesting excess spending by the current administration; perhaps so. But it is also safe to say that they could more safely protest the current administration than they could have the last one. <span style="font-style: italic;">And that anyone on the political spectrum</span> could more easily protest the current administration than they could have or would have the last one. Because, this administration at least is more democratic in nature. Even though it did have valid questions for the motivations of the TEA Party activists. Well now, it would be good for the writer to have gotten the Spokesman-Review and had a chance to read Pitts' editorial; that would answer a few questions. The GOP is infested with racist hold overs; they and the religious activists are about all that is left of the party's base. In short, the TEA Parties were driven in part by racism <span style="font-style: italic;">and </span>radicalism. If the Dem president had been white, <span style="font-style: italic;">would </span>there have been TEA Parties? Probably not. The <span style="font-style: italic;">last</span> time there was a Dem majority in Congress and a Dem President—Bill Clinton, no TEA Parties were held at all. So, seems to me that what scared the heck out of these TEA Party participants and had them organizing their opposition to the current administration was indeed based on race. And TEA Parties weren't in vogue when this country was in more difficult times back in the 1930s when FDR got sworn into office. How about that. After all, an activist gvt was hard at work trying to bring an economically crippled nation back into full production. The same as now. FDR was all about excessive spending to put people back to work. The same as now. The GOP lack of gratitude for FDR's helping them to achieve a middle class and higher status would only appear decades after the fact. Unlike now. Afraid that unless the TEA Party participants can really prove otherwise, race was a factor in why they organized their protests.<br /><br />But, I would like to offer a couple of corrections now as to Pitts concepts of conservatism: when racist "states' rights" proponnents get called "conservative," what's "conservative" about being a bigot? Christ was a Semite, people go to church to hear the teachings that initially came from a Semite; <span style="font-style: italic;">then </span>they go out and demonstrate nothing but hate for anyone who doesn't look like them, think like them, hold a political or religious philosophy different from their own, or even behaves differently from how they behave. The people who proclaim themselves to be biblical literalists; yet do not value their own book so as to actually live up to its teachings in their own lives. The same people, ladies and gentlemen, who'd attack the enlightened and decent as "liberal." The time that pure hatred gets called "conservative" has to be scary to anyone. The time that "love your neighbor as yourself" an erstwhile Christian commandment if there ever was one gets attacked as "liberal," as though something nasty lay underneath it; that says a lot about what has become the radicalization of the GOP. Why would anyone truly conservative go against what he says he values most? Who's actions and behavior can only be destructive of the canons of his belief? He wouldn't. In short, someone who happens to be truly conservative would be both decent and enlightened. As of now, they truly don't exist among the GOP.<br /></span></div>The New Arch Druid's take on the newshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14825705799696383447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5921205412462893412.post-79138423482827875012009-05-02T09:36:00.000-07:002009-05-02T10:52:40.309-07:00Don't know much about history<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Kathleen Parker's 1 May editorial republished in the Spokesman-Review demonstrated a real snit fit over the very idea (apalling) that President Barack H. Obama (pro-choice) could accept an invitation from Notre Dame University (Catholic) as a commencement speaker and even get an honorary degree. So she starts her editorial off with this declaration; "Here on planet 'What about Me,' principled people are so rare as to be oddities. Thus it was a head-swiveling moment Monday when former Vatican Ambassador Mary Ann Glendon quietly declined Notre Dame's Laetare Medal." Seems Ms. Glendon is a Harvard University law professor and a respected author on bioethics and human rights. That is, given the tone of Parker's column to follow, Prof Glendon is thoroughly anti-abortion. And that it is on this <span style="font-style: italic;">highly political stance</span> that Ms. Glendon won't accept this medal [in part] because Barack Obama was invited to be a commencement speaker. —Parker. Quite frankly, I'd suggest that "faith" wasn't behind Ambassador Glendon's refusal to accept such a medal so much as her political opposition to President Obama and his ideology. Which then begs the question, we know that GW Bush authorized the use of torture against terrorist suspects. GW being invited by Notre Dame to be a commencement speaker and a recipient of an honorary degree <span style="font-weight: bold;">despite his history</span> on international policies and the contravening of the Geneva Conventions; would a Ms. Glendon refuse such a medal on the grounds that GW wasn't a supporter of human rights or accept it because GW was opposed to abortion and stem cell research? But if Ms. Glendon were acting on the principles of "faith," to put it bluntly, her respected authorship on bioethics and human rights ought to put her at odds with the very church she was only an ambassador to; given the history of the church itself as not being a supporter of human rights. <span style="font-style: italic;">Under the circumstances, I wouldn't accept such a medal</span>.<br /><br />But, I highly doubt that "faith" had anything to do with it. Rather, as I suggested above, it was all about the politics.<br /><br />Parker goes on to say, "It has always seemed to me that the truest form of feminism, as in the earliest days of suffrage, would be to hold abhorrent the state-sanctioned destruction of women's unique life-bearing gifts." Excuse me? Suffrage was all about women's equality. And along with Margaret Sanger's push toward the equality of women also included birth control and family planning. Thus it can be said without equivocation, that Ms. Sanger was the founder of Planned Parenthood. But at the time of the earliest days of the feminist movement, the "conservative" reaction was to oppose women taking their place in society as workers, voters, politicians, having an independent income and managing it on their own, deciding for themselves just how many kids they'd like to have and when. The "conservative" reaction was that women's only role was to be that of wife, mother and home maker. In the century since women's suffrage made many political and economic gains, the "conservative" reaction is to now put a new dress on a very old argument; precisely, the only <span style="font-style: italic;">acceptable</span> feminism is the woman who is wife, mother and home maker. And this comes from the pen of a woman who is not herself <span style="font-style: italic;">only </span>a wife, mother and home maker... presumably. No, Parker actually does work for a living in the newspaper business. And is therefore a beneficiary of the feminism that Sanger helped promote. And as for the "state-sanctioned destruction of women's unique life-bearing gifts," I think she does not recall any too well what the state allowed in the 19<sup>th</sup> century as to doctors being able to neuter women who were regarded as [retarded] by giving them hysterectomies. <span style="font-style: italic;">That</span> is the only "state-sanctioned destruction of women's unique life-bearing gifts" that I know of. Rendering such women as incapable of bearing children. Talk about your euphemisms that not only shoot wide of the mark but head off into Never Never land. There is no life-bearing gift in getting pregnant. Only if you possess the well-functioning equipment to get there at all.<br /><br />With reference to Glendon refusing to accept the medal Parker had this to say,<br /></span><ul><li><span style="font-family:times new roman;">President Obama won't be doing all the talking. Mary Ann Glendon, the former U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican, will be speaking as the recipient of the Laetare Medal.</span></li><li><span style="font-family:times new roman;">We think having the President come to Notre Dame, meet our leaders, and hear a talk from Mary Ann Glendon is a good thing for the president and for the causes we care about.</span></li></ul><br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;">"Glendon, who is no mortal's pawn, decided she couldn't accept the award."<br /><br />Apparently, "faith" insists that neither will Prof. Glendon act very Christian, either. I am fully familiar with the bible. I am fully familiar with that scripture in Luke that advises the followers of Christ to love even their enemies. With reference to God loving even sinners by the gifts he bestows (sun and rain) upon them. True love, according to Christ, does not stop at the gate of someone you regard as a foe. In today's political language, Glendon as a "Christian" should have been more than happy to seize on an opportunity to assist Notre Dame in educating the President on the causes both she and the university cared about. But instead, she let political opposition stand in the way of Christian morality. That I regard as a real loss to herself and Notre Dame that "faith" in accordance with the bible wasn't the "principle" she wished to stand on. So, a trip down history lane: until the rise of the feminist movement, abortion really wasn't an issue from the 18<sup>th</sup> to the 19<sup>th</sup> centuries. It did occur but the precise records of how often the occurrence, how many hundreds, thousands, of women might have obtained such a procedure is not known. With the rise of feminism, only then did "conservatives" and religious activists go on record with a political opposition to the procedure. Anti-family planning laws were passed to include prohibiting the birth control pill as well as rendering illegal the abortion procedure. But regardless of the effort to render illegal the abortion procedure, women still sought out and obtained abortions, at great risk to themselves. "Faith" wasn't the article that drove such opposition. Rather the politics that opposed the existence and rise of feminism in this nation. If "faith" was the principle that Glendon was applauded for by Parker, well, it wasn't very evident by Parker's description since any dogma concerning abortion must also be met with respect as well for one's fellow Christians. Glendon had no such respect. The politics came first. Glendon might have been an ambassador for Christ and she refused. Good for her as she most certainly shot in the foot what credibility Christianity might have got in this world. But why should Obama bow out? He has demonstrated more than once his willingness to love even his political enemies.<br /><br /></span></div>The New Arch Druid's take on the newshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14825705799696383447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5921205412462893412.post-1896989974654020802009-04-04T09:19:00.000-07:002009-04-04T10:04:12.108-07:00The errors of hysterical screeching<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">E. Thomas McClanahan who is a member of the Kansas City Star editorial board and republished on 4 April 2009 began with a comedy of errors when it comes to the use of polls to argue the failure of the Obama administration barely into its 4<sup>th</sup> month. The highly partisan Zogby poll was specified. For anyone who recalls the Zogby poll, the Spokesman-Review's blog Huckleberries online made consistent use of the Zogby poll because I do believe the blog's author didn't really care to see Obama win. But compare the Zogby poll to other polls, even to that of CNN's polls of polls, and the Zogby poll was artificially too low during the primary and general campaign season of 2008. I sure wouldn't much trust the Zogby poll that can as easily track voting demographics as can John King's "Magic Wall." And therefore, asks questions of people and only those people who wouldn't have supported Obama in the first place, before making "random calls" of anyone else. I'm sure the Zogby pollsters would have been still surprised despite their skewed attempts at polling that President Obama still has such strong support. But McClanahan, who seems to want Obama governed solely by polling sees a man who is polled in the mid 50s as a failure. Actually, Obama would have to poll worse than GW in his last year in office, about 19%, by the end of his<span style="font-style: italic;"> first year in office</span>, to be regarded as an utter failure. "Many people are worried?" Or only those people who are actually polled with typically loaded questions, worried. <br /><br />One of the issues that McClanahan brings out is the cap and trade environmental policy that can only wreck our manufacturing base. We have a manufacturing base? Beyond the auto industry, most of our manufacturing base does not exist in this country any more. Perhaps one cause can be past environmental regs (which GW proceeded to relax and the manufacturing industry fled this nation regardless) but the other greater cause was the desire for cheap labor. No, cap and trade environmental policies would only affect polluting energy producing companies. They aren't going to outsource to say China before sending the energy they produce back to the consumers locally. Either a staff member of the Kansas City Star is badly misinformed or he hopes that his readers are ignorant. Given the fact that Lou Dobbs of CNN has bemoaned the fact that we don't really make anything in this country any more, then McClanahan could have watched his colleague on TV, even contacted him more personally to discuss our lack of a manufacturing base that GW's own environmental policies would not have discouraged these industries from continuing to operate here. Excuse me, but the well informed don't to date have a problem with Obama's policies or presidency.<br /><br />On the health care front, health care and the insurance has become unaffordable here in this nation. The insurance policies that cover less while costing more. The "tests" that doctors perform to assure that they don't get malpractice lawsuits make hospital stays unaffordable. Doctor visits unaffordable. What has that got to do with the economic crisis that swept through Europe? Actually, nothing. While whipping away at Obama, McClanahan ignores some truly crucial factors that started economic collapses across many nations and led to the G20 Summit in the last week. Banks such as Citigroup that looked for foreign investors to keep it financed as it continued to engage in out of control business practices. Lou Dobbs faithful following was informed of that back in 2007/2008. Citigroup that went from national to international in its out of control desire to obtain more capital; as its inevitable collapse loomed, so it began to create an economic crisis in countries that had provided it with capital. As did AIG. The heavy speculation in oil futures, driving up to obscene levels the price of gas at the pump, that too was a factor in economic collapses across nations. It heavily hit the most impoverished to the point of starvation and violent rioting before gas prices began to reduce to more affordable levels. It literally caused local businesses to close. But if you want to scapegoat GW's successor, then do by all means ignore all that. But the above is exactly why the people put Obama and not McCain into office. With McClanahan, you do have to wonder who suffers most from short term memory problems.<br /></span></div>The New Arch Druid's take on the newshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14825705799696383447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5921205412462893412.post-42077727687757466822009-03-24T09:16:00.000-07:002009-03-24T09:55:23.179-07:00Once an apologist, ALWAYS an apologist<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times new roman;">The business world has become some sort of victim of a Congress hell-bent on controlling it, if you believe the hysterical screeching coming from the likes of Cal Thomas. The people who bussed to the homes of AIG executives and protested them should have <span style="font-style: italic;">really</span> directed their anger at the politicians in Washington, D.C. People should hold "tea parties" out of "protest" at what the federal gvt is doing... The problem for Mr. Thomas is, it is a little late to make the argument that the voters should specifically target 3 Dems, including Barney Frank and Chris Dodd out of "anger," or that they simply need to "clean house," of <span style="font-style: italic;">all</span> politicians come November 2010. The reason why is that any politician who is running for office as a newcomer, who vies for the House or Senate seat of the incumbent Thomas wants to see replaced, will also have gotten a percentage of his campaign funding from the same business interests who want the politician to provide favorable legislation for. And at one time, Thomas was actually among those opposed to the capping of campaign contributions from PACs and the business world because it was after all, "free speech." In short, he wasn't opposed to graft and corruption between Congress and the private sector as long as the private sector was ultimately a beneficiary.<br /><br />What Mr. Thomas seems to fail to understand, is that when various industries and financial institutions pay out fantastic sums to politicians on the assumption that those same pols will remember them in federal legislation, the relaxing of rules, the unenforced regs, the regulatory agencies that don't and possibly can't do their jobs right; when you get the sort of financial melt down mess that happened in one year: 2008; that had been however decades in its development and catastrophic consequences; those "victimized" businesses did want it that way. Now he proclaims that we don't need "new rules," we just need to enforce the ones already on the books. Excuse me, Thomas, but the laws now on the books were just the way business lobbyists wanted them when they paid out millions in dollars to write the legislation favoring their specified special interests. So yes, we need new rules.<br /><br />When the Spokesman-Review republished his latest tirade in its 24 March 2009 edition, the S-R also published a column by Robyn Blumner. She goes to great lengths to describe usury in this society, those who made great "short term" wealth trading in essentially worthless paper, and the refusal of investors to invest in something solid such as what would produce good jobs and a stable manufacturing base in this nation. Question: what is the worth of a "tea party?" Our tax dollars have been at work shoring up the business interests and catering to their very needs ever since it was decreed that corporations could be deemed private citizens. No one threw "tea parties" when politicians on the taxpayers' dime engaged in tort and bankruptcy reform. They did not throw "tea parties," when politicians on the taxpayers' dime helped business interests work against Americans having good paying jobs. They did not throw "tea parties," when politicians on the taxpayers dime allowed and even encouraged the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs and the insourcing of foreign labor. They did not throw "tea parties," when gvt turned to the private sector when it came to the war in Iraq. And the private sector much epitomized by Halliburton then proceeded to bilk the taxpayers of their hard earned money by its failure to do its job right. So, what is the worth of throwing a tea party now except on a partisan "feel good" premise?<br /><br />Of course, politicians can let the nation down because of one fact, only those with the money (the business world/wealthy) are the ones the politicians are going to listen to the most. But until now, to make an anti-corporatist argument was to put you on the side of "socialism." Never mind that the private sector that cozies up to gvt demanding that its short term interests get met, does run the risks of finding that it can come with plenty of strings attached. Mr. Thomas was never opposed to the one, he is only opposed to the consequences of the private sector demanding the personal attention of the federal gvt. Yeah, given the financial mess this nation now faces, there are going to be consequences.<br /></span></div>The New Arch Druid's take on the newshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14825705799696383447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5921205412462893412.post-73185442413755774732009-03-13T08:32:00.000-07:002009-03-13T09:21:12.538-07:00Not stem cell research, objectifying humanity.<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times new roman;"></span>If there is one thing to be said about political columnists such as Kathleen Parker, they always come up with cute creative ways to not get their message across and to reaffirm to the congregation where their positions clearly are. Stem cell research if it comes from embryoes not used and would have been discarded by fertility clinics is now "objectifying humanity." In other words, if I had some debilitating disease such as Parkinson's that could be cured by an embryonic stem cell based treatment, I'd be objectifying humanity if I accepted such a treatment. But the painful shaking, the slow deterioration of the body long before death would have brought a blessed relief; I'd have that choice wouldn't I of not accepting the treatment on "moral grounds" and thereby objectify my own. No one wins in such a debate because it becomes an either or. Either you are going to be for that discarded embryo that never becomes a child or you are going to be for research done on it that saves the life of your child. Looks like objectifying humanity is a permanent fixture in the political realm already.<br /><br />While Ms. Parker turns to select research to prove why we should turn only to alternative stem cell research, she mentions U.S. News & World Report in particular who's editorial staff and editor in particular happens to have a political bias. They gave full coverage to a guy once with "research" that was ultimately discredited as to a "link" between breast cancer and abortion. But discredited ultimately because the risks of breast cancer should have been just as high for women who miscarry, in itself a form of abortion. Or breast cancer risks already being high for women who never had kids. How about the breast cancer risks for women who did have kids? How about the fact that women can simply be prone to breast cancer period never mind the politics surrounding abortion? So, the researcher she mentioned, who worked initially for the first President Bush (by the way, G HW Bush was anti-abortion) a Dr. Bernadine Healy informing the readership that embryonic stem cell research is obsolete. If that were the case, then President Obama would have no cause to lift the ban or provide federal tax dollars.<br /><br />Of course private research could always get private funding so Ms. Parker intoned. But given the politics surrounding embryonic stem cell research private funding would not necessarily be guaranteed. Esp. when restrictions existed that scientists could only use existing stem cell lines, most of which were unusable, private research with private funding based on such a federal restriction, would have simply driven such research to other nations with fewer restrictions. Which I believe that Ms. Parker neglected to be any too informative about that . Only because of such a restriction, not necessarily because of the efficacy of using alternative stem cells, researchers turned to seeing what might be done about that to essentially get around the ban. Which again, Ms. Parker ignored. If such research were indeed a success, again there would be no need for President Obama to lift the ban on embryonic stem cell research.<br /><br />The cloning of Dolly the sheep created a political firestorm. What was feared was that human cloning would be next, the creating and destroying of human embryos for research purposes. Well now, if anti-abortionists guard the door against using discarded embryos for research, they could just as easily pave the way toward scientists creating and destroying embryos for research purposes. <br /><br />My position is, that discarded embryos should be used for research if there is no way that they can ever be children. To find out exactly how stem cells work, what they can be used for and eventually, to discover if alternative stem cell use can also be duplicated to the same degree of success as is done with embryonic stem cell research. But that no treatments should go out the door until all research has been done. I don't believe in objectifying humanity. If a stem cell taken from my blood or skin, etc. could be used to cure a debilitating affliction, I'd be more than happy to receive it because it would be the culmination of research that got the science to this point in time. It has to start somewhere. Why not with discarded embryos?<br /></div>The New Arch Druid's take on the newshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14825705799696383447noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5921205412462893412.post-61113756907552636772009-02-28T08:06:00.000-08:002009-02-28T09:10:35.995-08:00Regulation=Socialism<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Government that gives you specific guidelines on how you operate your business, workplace safety rules, the type of product that it wants to see as to quality and safe use, the minumum pay requirements... I am quite sure that business interests operating in this country would indeed grumble over "social democracy" of the European style as expressed by Charles Krauthammer. However, while those businesses have grumbled over "too much regulation" and then started moving their operations overseas in order to avoid all that; we have ultimately letters to the editors such as this one:</span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><blockquote style=""><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><h3 style="">Agencies failing us</h3></span></div><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Just in the last year, we have had salmonella scares for lettuce, tomatoes, spinach and now peanuts. The Chinese have sent us lead painted toys for our children to play with and poisonous milk (melamine) for our children to enjoy.<br />I've heard people blame farmers, the factories and the Chinese. Put the blame where it belongs: on the ineffective bureaucracies of the USDA and the FDA. How much do you want to bet that there is a USDA tag on the side of the peanut butter jar. It's being sent to hospitals, nursing homes, schools and prisons. You can't sell products in the U.S. without approval from the USDA and/or the FDA.<br />These bumbling agencies are in place and paid for by the American people to keep us American people safe from tainted food and tainted products.<br />Why not create some more government agencies so that they can maim and kill Americans too? These government agencies have become a burden and a strain on the American taxpayer.<br />Why do we pay these agencies when they really don't care about what they're paid to do? Our government is failing all around us. Let's not even mention the Securities and Exchange Commission.</span></blockquote><br /></span><div style="text-align: right;"><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><blockquote style=""><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Dave Steven<span style="font-style: italic;">s<br />Spokane<br /></span></span></blockquote></span></div><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="" times="" new="">Besides being a touch hysterical, this letter does present some valid arguments. Problem is, that in the GW years, the regulating agencies that Mr. Stevens gives a major thumbs down on were underfunded to begin with, understaffed and essentially an extension of the business interests they were supposed to regulate. The only problem with this letter is that Mr. Stevens waited until now to write this letter and denounce all agencies for failures just because of the political decisions made by the last administration at a time when a new administration has barely come into office. Mr. Stevens could have written this letter even a year ago. But given the tone of for what are we paying these agencies... Well now, the presumption is to simply get rid of them altogether, and I assume that the American people can take even more of a chance with their medicines, durable products, as well as food. The gvt funded highly regulated "private sector" that Mr. Krauthammer does much whining about well now...<br /><br />I hope he doesn't have any money in a bank that failed recently. That the merchandize he bought at a high end store wasn't made as cheaply as possible in Bangledesh and sold at a high mark up price under a name brand. That he actually did get what he paid for. That the car besides being made in America isn't being recalled for faulty parts. Or as demonstrated in prior years, having a tendency to blow up on you if hit just right. How about the house he owns? Can he trust that it wasn't built with shoddy materials and priced much higher for the type of work and material that went into it? The bridge he drives on, doesn't face the immediate threat of collapse. The store he enters with a heavy snow load on the roof, the roof itself will bear the burden quite well. But well, with all those business friendly legislatures and city gvts in place, costumer friendly products and services literally, getting what you paid for, isn't necessarily a fact. Having regulations effectively enforced and you are more likely to get what you pay for.<br /><br />As for gvt funding. I recall during the Reagan era that Senator Jack Kemp among others pushed from the federal gvt a desire to incentivize business interests to enter areas of high poverty and set up shop. What would it take for businesses to do that? Tax breaks? Direct funding? Don't recall that Krauthammer said anything about such a "social democracy" during the Reagan era. Well, President Obama is certainly direct funding business interests today to encourage new technology and reduce the poverty levels in this nation. To literally incentivize those businesses to help bring this country forward into the 21<sup>st</sup> century. That wouldn't be the first time in this nation's history that this happened of course. The federal gvt provided a railway transportation grid during the Lincoln era that was ultimately a useful tool of the private sector to transport goods and services across the nation. Lincoln being a Republican, could he be accused of "social democracy?" The federal gvt under Eisenhower made possible our national freeways and bridges. Ultimately, the private sector made use of the same transportation grid to better deliver goods and services across the nation. Could Eisenhower be accused justly of "social democracy?" Eisenhower was a Republican. Oh, I see, we reserve such accusations for the Democrats in high office.<br /><br /></span></div></span></div>The New Arch Druid's take on the newshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14825705799696383447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5921205412462893412.post-47654410363858814232009-02-25T07:22:00.000-08:002009-02-25T07:49:46.687-08:00Regarding the stimulus package<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">The stimulus package is now law, it became law regardless of overwhelming GOP opposition to it in Congress and because of GOP love for federal dollars from state and local levels. So, did the news media miss bipartisanship when it came to passing out "free" dollars? Gary Crooks "Smar Bombs" went into the particular details of GOP opposition for the package in Congress and among some state governors. That particular column is published twice a week in the Spokesman-Review. What got me to chuckling over his column was where he pointed out select Congressional GOP and governors who expressed their opposition for varying reasons, even to claiming socialism (apparently, "socialism" is that argument you use when you are called on to account for how you spend the money), or increased business taxes, etc. once the stimulus money was gone.<br /><br />Well the presumption is, that the money wouldn't just be lying around but put to somewhat good use. Critical infrastructure repair takes time to do. It can take years. But in the time that critical infrastructure is taking place, those at work spend money they have earned and bring business to the towns and cities where they work. At least, that's the idea. From the business they do, they begin to increase the tax base. From the business they do, they increase the likelihood of more people being hired, also providing business because of the money they earned, and etc. Why would we assume—re Republicans—that we shall continue to plead poverty and cry about businesses being burdened with excessive unemployment taxes? Why would there be unemployment if the concept of the stimulus package works out to any extent as it has been touted.<br /><br />You get the impression that a welfare argument does exist. And it is "keep giving me money even as I decry "socialism." Coming back to "Smart Bombs," Mr. Crooks presumes that the so totally in opposition to the package GOP in members of Congress and among the governors were none the less prepared to take the money and run with it. Among the GOP members of Congress he named, (let me add here that they no doubt did a lot of hand wringing over a package laden with pork) they secured federal dollars for their districts (that they had initially voted against). Which does argue that pork is good as long as it is delivered to GOP hands. Now that is a good reason for laughing out loud.<br /></span></div>The New Arch Druid's take on the newshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14825705799696383447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5921205412462893412.post-18146066886942966262009-02-18T11:27:00.000-08:002009-02-18T11:48:57.039-08:00Digital switch over and other news<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times new roman;">Most of the TV stations in Spokane, Washington made the digital switch over at 11:30 or so last night. I scanned for the digital channels for my HDTV in my bedroom and set for Digital only channels. Then I checked out the SDTV Sharp in the living room and took note that "Analog" no longer showed up when I hit the power button. So for the Dish Network, it is effectively no longer airing Analog signals. 12 June 2009, is the final effective cut off date for the switch over to digital TV to be complete. That's for slackards to get their act together to get either converter boxes, newer digital TVs or the most recent of HDTVs. To either connect to cable or Satellite TV. I notice there is a moment's time delay when it comes to switching from one channel to another. But, there is a cleaner signal now that stations are switching to digital. And a much muddier one as KREM continues to broadcast an analog and a digital signal. My 480i sharp has absolutely no problem picking up any of the signals, otherwise.<br /><br />You have to appreciate Leonard Pitts, jr. for his republished (Spokesman-Review) opinion piece on the costs of war. The Pentagon banned photos of flag draped coffins exactly when they were used to politically slam G HW Bush back in the early 1990s. I guess that playing politics with the honored war dead wouldn't be an acceptable notion. A point that Pitts did definitely miss in his otherwise most informative column. Efforts by the news media to engage in the politics of embarrassing presidents, wouldn't be acceptable if you are the president who's the target. However, the news media was just as hasty in similar efforts at politically embarrassing Clinton. Not with flag draped coffins in this case, but rather with one live intern. That being said, Pitts does have a point about Americans waking up to the fact that war does touch us. And seeing those flag draped coffins does mean that a very real person did lose his or her life for us.<br /><br />Picked up a new channel on Dish Network, Fox business. That's nice. I may be more inclined to watch that than the Politics r Us show that is supposed to be their news channel.<br /><br />On <a href="http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/hbo/">Huckleberries online</a> today, Dave Oliveria was reporting that Avista had garnered some 7 odd millions in profits over the last year. Question: that being the case, why does Avista continually demand rate hikes? Next question: why does Avista demand that rate payers pay for new equipment? Given Obama's stimulus package, which he signed yesterday, a good chunk of that package is going to energy costs savings and green technology as well as improvements in our power grids. If that major chunk of change were to be spent in those areas as advertised, Avista could be heading toward the door of bankruptcy as people start seeking windmill power, solar array panels and etc. for their own homes. The homes that can generate their own power for heat, light, and general utility usage, for what would they need Avista and 20th century power grids? At least one thought for the day.<br /></span></div>The New Arch Druid's take on the newshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14825705799696383447noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5921205412462893412.post-57847488038502635062009-02-15T07:56:00.000-08:002009-02-15T08:39:09.030-08:00The Hate Parade<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">With Earl Parker, my my we have a real famous individual here, a former member of Reagan's press team. Wouldn't have known that until Mr. Parker informs us. While he is speaking derisively of President Obama's press conference—Obama only addresses certain members of the Washington, D.C. press corp. And here I thought that routinely happened. Certainly, we had presidential control and canned speeches over the few times that GW chose to hold a press conference before a press corp that was certainly docile. But, Mr. Parker wasn't sniping or guffawing at that time. Wouldn't be surprising, Mr. Parker admits to being a partisan Republican. He also takes a swipe at the stimulus package without going into details. Offering instead the same canned speech through his letter to the editor that Rep. John Boehner offered: these are all worthy projects to be sure, but they will hardly jump start the economy. So, what will? Given the fact that all prior efforts to "jump start the economy" during the GW administration caused it to instead collapse. As though the last 8 years never occurred.<br /><br />Next on the list, Ray Anderson does have a legitimate beef about illegal immigrants. So do I. But on what basis does Mr. Anderson have to accuse Obama of "releasing terrorists?" He actually had not. What he did publicly order was that Guantanamo Bay, Cuba would shut down its prison there. And that those who ran it would have a year to do so. In the meantime, the cases of those who are prisoners there would be put under review and any who should receive prosecution would get it. That is not an argument of simply releasing them. Mr. Anderson is obviously anti-abortion and so I won't go there even though it was the first line of his letter. What he dwells on at greater length is an executive order from Obama's desk that enables a resettlement of Gazan residents in the U.S. Conflict victims. And with ties to Hamas. When possible, I watch CNN. As hostile as CNN often is to President Obama, were that the sort of public issue that Mr. Anderson seems to think it is, then CNN would surely have grabbed onto this obviously public record and ran it into the ground bleating endlessly about it. But, on the McLaughlin group heavily populated by such people as "Monica," Pat Buchanan and etc. with a near hysterical hatred of Obama, no mention was actually made of such an order. David Brooks with his own share of condemning words for Obama, did not mention this. Charles Krauthammer, republished on a fairly frequent basis in the Spokesman-Review, would surely have disclosed this to all of the world. Odd that he hadn't. So, on what basis does Mr. Anderson believe that Obama would actively aid Palestinians with active ties to Hamas? Because he confesses that many of his relatives are Muslim? I am a Druid, many of my relatives are Christian. I am supposed to have a more generous view of the world toward people often hostile to my belief just because they are relatives? They are hostile to my belief, that's the crux of the matter. And Obama's relatives being Muslim, are surely hostile to the idea of Obama being Christian. What Mr. Anderson does is use Obama's interview on Al Arabiya as a weapon against him. Wonder how he would have reacted if it had been GW, instead?<br /><br />Esa Auten seems to have a real problem in her long and rambling letter about rights "that come from God." What our founding fathers declared in a revolutionary war document was eloquent at the time of its signing, would have assured the founding fathers' imprisonment and execution if we had not won our war against Great Britain, and was imperfectly implemented hundreds of years after the fact. Instead of Auten trying to jam her imperfect understanding of this nation's history into Obama's teeth, she should take a better look at it herself.<br /><br />Linda Cook waits seven years to describe Obama using fear. And in an even more slimey manner, equates Obama promoting his stimulus package as Indian tribes driving buffalo herds off of cliffs. Wonder what Ms. Cook plans to do with the tax cuts that are supposed to show up in her paychecks a little further down the road? Say she doesn't want them, hand them back? Wonder where her voice was when the GW administration managed to use the fear of terrorism to stampeding people into buying plastic sheeting and duct tape to build "safe rooms" that wouldn't have been safe or effective? No?<br /></span></div>The New Arch Druid's take on the newshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14825705799696383447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5921205412462893412.post-34831260574851176812009-02-12T13:33:00.000-08:002009-02-12T14:02:29.122-08:00The Stimulus package<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times new roman;">I had been on vacation for the last two weeks, it will officially come to an end on the 14th. And so, I have been watching plenty of news especially where it concerns the stimulus package now before Congress. Latest on CNN, seems the House Democrats now want to delay the final vote in order to read thoroughly what's in the package. Now they do, since much of what they had originally voted on got stripped out. And hadn't before, re Lou Dobb's complaints in the last few days on CNN. <br /><br />Getting on Face book, it has been more of a satisfying adventure than trying to Twitter. But, it took time to set it up almost to my satisfaction. I checked out Face book because Rick Sanchez could be Twittered, Face booked and Myspaced. I checked out doing a Twitter account and trying to Twitter to a Sanchez public board, I could never be sure that to be the case. But with Face book, especially after Sanchez accepted me as a "friend," I can post on my wall and it will also appear on his. One of the hot topics of the day was of course the stimulus package. The thing is, that you can expect the suddenly we remember to be fiscally responsible GOP among Sanchez' viewing audience to post to any of the above sites. One of the fellows posting suddenly decided to jam it in my teeth when I discussed the fact that what one dude called pork still produced jobs creation. He presumed that I was from the land of fruits and nuts... LOL!... meaning California and would of course swallow anything. So I duly informed the fellow where I was from and adviced him on the fact that our Republican governor wants people to spend more in taxes and fees to balance the budget and pay for infrastructure maintenance. I don't know that I got another reply to that comment, but Facebook provides a nice notification service. Better than Twitter. And those who set up Twitter claim that it is faster and better? I don't know about that, it looks pretty clunky to me. So excuse me if this is one of my more rambling blogs. But, beyond posting comments to local blogs such as at the <a href="http://spokesman.com/blogs/hbo">Spokesman-Review.</a><br />I have never before really socially networked. The fact that some of the news anchors from CNN such as Sanchez and Don Lemon will socially network with their viewers, is I think a major plus. <br /><br />Back to the hot topic of the stimulus package, I can appreciate the twittered concerns from viewers that CNN elected to show where they questioned whether the stimulus package would benefit them personally. Until such a bill does get passed and signed into law, that is hard to say. Until the money from the package begins to work its way through the U.S. as various forms of investments, that is really hard to say. Those are some legitimate causes for concern, as is any pork in the bill. Where one fellow mentioned pork, I figured I should inform him that the designing and building of a Coast Guard polar icebreaking ship was probably not pork if it put people to work in the ship building industry. For anyone who has a good bit of history as to the Coast Guard fleet, I don't believe they have the most modern of fleets and could in fact use some more modern ships, better ships. Why wouldn't that prove to be a worthwhile project and not "pork." Since if it came to a submarine being built in the same fellow's district, and a GOP Senator had sponsored it, he likely wouldn't have called it pork. Same difference. At this time, if I have a big concern about the U.S. Gvt's investment in America, I'd be more concerned about misdirected funds and businesses taking money and continuing to employ anyone other than American citizens.<br /></span></div>The New Arch Druid's take on the newshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14825705799696383447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5921205412462893412.post-90413839252136849392009-02-10T18:25:00.001-08:002009-02-10T18:25:43.388-08:00"Dead Certain," history of a failed presidency<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'><div align='justify'><font face='Times New Roman'>I picked up this book at Borders when it went on a fire sale price of $4.23 including tax. I figured at that price, I could endure reading a recent history of GW. Now that he is no longer in office that is. I got as far as his 2004 re-election bid and cracked up when GW really met Senator Kerry ready to rumble in the first of three presidential debates. Why? Because I had sent Senator Kerry e-mails through his web site to advice him about the need to task GW on the record, his record as known over the last four years by what the news media reported. What Kerry did not do during his airing of campaign ads, he did do during the debates, reminded the people of GW's actual record. Even if GW was to win the election in 2004, his nose was bloodied sufficiently by 2006, that the Dems started regaining the control of Congress. All Kerry had to do was start exposing the fraud of the GW presidency. Even further, the man that people saw as "one of us" held a sort of aristocratic view that he could never accept being challenged. Well, excuse me, GW, but this nation is a democracy. How Robert Draper described GW's reaction to even being challenged by Senator Kerry was pure joy. The debates had rocked GW in a way that he was not prepared for. Within two years, especially after Katrina, GW would face a voter revolt. But then, I expect it would take a bruising re-election for GW for people to begin to wake up to the facts. GW once had very high approval ratings that carried him into the war with Iraq. But, with Kerry carrying at least 48% of the vote, GW's popularity and factual mandate had basically eroded. Katrina—and GW's approval ratings never really recovered. Had Katrina occurred in 2004, it would have been the defining moment of GW losing the election. Especially if he showed the sort of carelessness toward Louisiana and other areas along the Gulf Coast that he did in 2005. The timing right before the off-year elections of this hurricane, couldn't be better. The same sort of fumble hand behind Iraq was also on woeful display on the home front. The people weren't likely to forget it, especially after CNN saw Katrina as the one impeachable offense that needed to be kept in the court of public opinion. But it took them all of 4 years to reach that particular conclusion. <br/><br/>I know that the author wanted to be more than fair to GW and to give the man a "humanizing" aspect. To put it bluntly, that would be an impossible task to fulfill. Here is one reason, Florida went to GW twice. First in 2000 when hanging and pregnant chads produced a highly contested election between Gore and GW. But, without a question, GW did win Florida quite handily by 2004. When President Obama went to a town in Florida today, one hit hard by job losses, there was a fellow in the audience who thanked him for visiting this town and even being prepared to listen to the people in the audience. <i>Apparently, something that GW had not done in all of eight years</i>! Here's why: he might campaign in Florida, but he made certain that the only people who came to see him and ask questions were carefully pre-screened as to their ideological loyalty. As Draper described, to assure GW's "comfort level." How could a man who was seen as "one of us," insist (as a matter of royalty or aristocracy) that he never be offended by the rabble who might not hold him in high regard. And indeed, who (Ft. Meyers, Fla, Elkhart, Indiana) might have a <i>very good reason </i>as to why they'd have heartburn. Well, as Obama was quick to point out, between 2008 and the first 2 months of 2009, unemployment had doubled. GW couldn't be bothered to actually discuss anything with real citizens, only with <u>those</u> citizens who'd further his political campaign. Real citizens would have a few nits to pick with the man. So, a fellow in the audience who made a most telling statement today: about Obama's predecessor who never once came to visit and actually listen to their concerns. And they thoroughly appreciated the fact that Obama met with them and did so. To put it bluntly, GW never really caring about the people he was elected to lead was pretty much vindicated by what I watched this morning.<br/><br/>By 2008, and well into the presidential campaign, GW's polls had dropped so low that he had a negative effect over his chosen successor. And the above is sufficient reason why. Events, GW never wanting to be challenged or having his comfort level invaded; as a consequence, he would find the GOP more thoroughly reduced to a minority status and an African-American Dem would become president.<br/></font><font face='Times New Roman'><br/>Seeing a bit of Cal Thomas, and then listening to GOP Governor Crist of Florida, his introduction of Obama included holding a hand out for that federal stimulus package. Let's hope that Thomas and his rants about "hidden welfare spending" took a note of Crist wanting that very thing for his state. Bear in mind that Crist can't hold forth on being a limited gvt free market GOP if the financial situation is so dire that he can't hope to keep his budget balanced. When GOP mayors and Governors plead poverty, that puts them at odds with the Congressional GOP who don't care for a Dem generated stimulus plan. At this point, I highly doubt that Crist much cares, as long as he can get federal money into his hot little hands. <br/></font></div></div>The New Arch Druid's take on the newshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14825705799696383447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5921205412462893412.post-83537164611278931992009-02-05T08:22:00.000-08:002009-02-05T08:57:50.181-08:00As to matters of error and political capital...<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: times new roman;"></span>You can say that Froma Harrop has something in common with David Broder, too busy condemning and not enough thinking. And I'll start with this, in the last 8 years of GW, we saw plenty of business as usual, revolving doors between the government and the private sector, and a question as to whether those who signed onto the GW administration paid their own taxes on a timely basis. Well, not only did we not know as to the latter in particular, but it mostly went undiscussed. If anything did get discussed, was the most public utterances of anyone in the GW administration. The news media simply did not "go personal" about the most intimate character and character flaws of the prior administration. No doubt there was a reason, the GW administration simply never allowed personal matters to be public. And got defensive and quickly retaliated should personal matters get some kind of public airing. Ref Dan Rather and questions concerning GW's failure to live up to his recruitment standards in the Air National Guard. The big deal was that the messenger could get attacked and even further become a sacrificial lamb by the news media to appease a wrathful president. The news media, I guess, knew better than probe too deeply personal issues that no one in the GW administration wanted to reveal.<br /><br />But given the Obama administration, it is as though the dam had burst. Cal Thomas had weighed in on the "red flags" of some of Obama's appointments to various cabinet positions. Based on? The very public revelations that 3 of these cabinet appointments had failed to pay their taxes on a timely basis. With Bill Richardson, a criminal probe into New Mexico state contracts. That's <span style="font-style: italic;">public revelations</span>! Wow! Has anyone in the news media taken a real step back and considered how silent they were on business as usual that could and did lead to so much corruption in the GW administration? They were. No matter how egregious the behavior happened to be, the news media seemed more than content to simply give GW a pass. At least until Katrina. And now we hear all about how Obama has spent his political capital trying to defend people uniquely suited to shepherd his agenda legislatively through Congress or elsewhere. But, people whom it is publicly revealed did employ the lucrative revolving door because they could parley gvt service into getting well-connected in the private sector. Tom Daschle isn't the only one. Dick Cheney had himself made use of such a revolving door, from gvt service, to include a political office, to Haliburton, and back to gvt service. But there wasn't the screaming from here to heaven by the news media because he did so. But then, the news media was merely content to report on such revolving doors and business as usual instead of complaining about it. <br /><br />Shall I say that Tom Daschle is a creature of old Washington, D.C.? Yes. Can I say that the former Senator could have done a better job of making sure that <span style="font-style: italic;">all </span>his taxes ought to have been paid on a timely basis? Most assuredly. But unlike Mr. Broder who has demonstrated the sort of inordinate hostility toward the current administration that he mostly withheld from the prior, I recognize that the Obama administration has already demonstrated a firming bedrock of transparency that includes personal issues that become a public embarrassment. Broder has the sort of access and opportunity to discuss these issues that he was quite frankly denied over the last 8 years. With me, Obama has all the political capital he needs to make mistakes, openly admit he screwed up, and move forward. And with Froma Harrop I do have one point of agreement, I don't expect a perfect administration. After all, I already see an open administration. So, when will the news media wake up and take what they are offered?<br /></div>The New Arch Druid's take on the newshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14825705799696383447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5921205412462893412.post-27655355045831298442009-01-22T01:28:00.000-08:002009-01-22T02:28:16.350-08:00Obama as anti-Christ? LOL!<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">I guess I really did not much get it when various news magazines featured pure hatred by some fringe lunacy groups such as the Evangelical new left re whether they deemed then Senator and now President Barack H. Obama as the anti-Christ. That is, until I watched the History International channel that featured what Christians thought the anti-Christ was down through the ages. Or more precisely, what they wanted to define him as being down through the ages. So let me take a guess here that principally, the anti-Christ is an espouser of false doctrine. Those who follow him are presumably not accepting the one true path of faith as per the bible. At least, according to some biblical scholars. According to fantasy and general fiction writers among the Evangelical new left, such as Hal Lindsey, and the dudes who wrote the "Left Behind" series now treated as "gospel truth;" the anti-Christ becomes this man of pure evil, tyranny and ultimate war who first disguises himself as a loving man of peace. And such is his charisma, that the people willingly follow and therefore to their doom. That through him, he becomes a principle power that gains control of the entire world. A man who persecutes and tortures and is responsible for the deaths of many thousands of people. Basically, the "Left Behind" authors want to portray a liar. A fellow who cunningly puts on a false face until the real mask is torn off, and to the horrors of those who survive and even attempt to defy him.<br /><br />But, I do have a question here, why Obama?<br /><br />Then think about this, Obama does not make the argument that he is perfect, that he won't make mistakes. Given his Chicago political history, I am also certain that Obama makes no pretense to being a saint. Therefore, as honest a man as any politician can be. After 8 long years of the Evangelical new left living with a liar, GW, they seem to have a problem with a man being more open, more honest, more transparent—if not completely so—than his predecessor, GW. And as such, the Evangelical new left have a hard time handling that. After spewing pure hatred of Clinton, falling completely silent about the more odious aspects of the GW era and essentially giving him the "dear leader" treatment, they then renew their venom with the next Dem president this nation has since elected. Which says what? If "the beast" who is described as a type of "anti-Christ," who dons the similar appearance to Christ but who speaks as the dragon is the ultimate in liars; then GW more thoroughly fits that bill. And what would a similar appearance to Christ be like? Given "John the Revelator's" initial warnings to the Christian churches, then the fellow who dons a Christ-like aspect but who speaks as a dragon would in reality be a Christian who pushes the sort of false doctrines that trips up even the elite. <br /><br />What did GW do? If the economy is now in a mess, it is because he happened to be a principle actor in determining that the market place shall have no rules to govern or guide it. In the name of national prosperity, he fostered greed and the nation reaped the consequences of greed. As a consequence of the ruining of the financial aspects that oil the market place and keep it running; GW permitted an even larger expansion of gvt to "save the market place from itself" with an unaccounted for transfer of taxpayer money in a massive bailout. That ultimately did not do what it should have done, freed credit. That being one example of a man intent on duping even his own party as to his intentions, would also make it even harder, a greater obstacle to climb for his successor who must pick up the broken pottery and try to set things aright. That is but one example. <br /><br />For the world to suddenly love Obama, it is after 8 stupefying years of having to deal with a dude who's charisma and high regard came mostly from a particularly narrow faction in this nation. He was their man after all. He would push their agenda almost exclusively. But for anyone else who did not care to grant GW a "dear leader" status, we were attacked in many diverse ways. Even as GW did (in accordance with "Left Behind" verbal pictorials) bared his fangs and talons early on in his ultimate assent to power. And yet, none of this perturbed the Evangelical new left. And while Israel does not have a new temple, we have seen a machismo war in the Middle East. Iraq became a war of choice because GW wished to flex the national muscle to show the rest of the world that yes, he can do this. But when he did do this, he also broke the back of the nation that can be rendered more vulnerable that lacks the means of fighting future wars through a lack of financing, and the resources because of gargantuan indebtedness. If Evangelicals wish to see Obama as the person to fear, well, GW had already set the stage.<br /></span></div>The New Arch Druid's take on the newshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14825705799696383447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5921205412462893412.post-6839123063727798962009-01-18T09:01:00.000-08:002009-01-18T09:43:30.194-08:00In two days<div style="text-align: justify;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaSPZ_02lCRXMvznwmAQPlUE9kwM_jVZMqwJosSahk1HrKEJS9dBkClZTlpojRhDA8lfXZ4yqQ4eaFELDmPhmhlFLDHuTYKQ60j1Dqysn_-ggyoMAyx7Wq3KiQa68lXu2SxHEhBWDsw3s/s1600-h/Business+and+fair+031.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 200px; height: 150px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiaSPZ_02lCRXMvznwmAQPlUE9kwM_jVZMqwJosSahk1HrKEJS9dBkClZTlpojRhDA8lfXZ4yqQ4eaFELDmPhmhlFLDHuTYKQ60j1Dqysn_-ggyoMAyx7Wq3KiQa68lXu2SxHEhBWDsw3s/s200/Business+and+fair+031.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5292680713301420306" border="0" /></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;">First it was Leonard Pitts, jr. who had a particularly biting response to what he deemed that history would judge about GW Bush. And now, a most eloquent and biting response by David Broder about what he thought as well of the GW legacy. (Republished in the editorial pages, http://www.spokesman.com). Broder happened to be right, GW did not ask the majority of Americans to sacrifice to pay for two wars. In fact, he did not ask the supremely wealthy to sacrifice to keep this nation from entering massive deficits and the foreign financing of two wars, supposedly beefing up homeland security, and the consequences of tax cuts.<br /><br />But, this nation and the American people have sacrificed anyway. Broder fell just short of acknowledging that.<br /><br />Lost jobs. Lost international prestige. Lost stature as a creditor nation. Practically on the verge of being a 3rd world country. Creating a gvt that people could truly be afraid of for the first time in their lives. Lost homes. Lost businesses. A reeling financial industry. Suffering from a "free market gone wild" in the way of health care, insurance of any sort, drug costs and the increasing costs of education. A military that is going to take a long time to rebuild because of how GW chose to command two wars. Katrina, the hurricane.<br /><br />This nation has not been "normal" since 9/11/2001, and all of GW's encouraging people to go shopping could never bring this nation back to normal. Is taking off your shoes to have them inspected normal? Do you have to have trial size ounces of liquids, deoderants and toothpaste to prevent your making a bomb aboard an airplane considered normal? The failure of TSA employees to spot fake weapons being loaded on planes by government oversight groups would seem to be far more scary than the bottled water you want to drink, or the breath freshener you want in your carryon. Is gvt spying on your e-mails using the excuse of terrorism considered normal? No. And GW used the fear factor very successfully against Dems in Congress in 2002. He also made a successful use of the fear factor against his Dem contender for the White House, Senator John Kerry, in 2004. But as people began to hurt personally on the financial level to far greater degrees by 2006, and Katrina still being fresh in their memories, the GOP began getting the business end of the sacrifice stick as they lost offices during the November elections of that year. The fear factor no longer worked when people were becoming increasingly fearful of their own financial security.<br /><br />In 2008, CNN, Senator Hillary Clinton, and the McCain/Palin campaign tried using the fear factor against our soon to be inaugurated President, Barack H. Obama. As did a number of bloggers, letter writers, commenters to blogs, message boards and chat rooms. But, the fear factor that sent such delicious shivers up the spines of the die hard radicals did not work to prevent the Dem candidate from succeeding. That Obama got over 50% of the popular vote and an electoral blowout of 365, says that for most Americans, they wished to put the failed GW presidency as far behind them as they could. The fear factor was that Senator McCain would continue GW's disastrous policies. They didn't need four more years of facing more of the above.<br /><br />In the letters to the editors published this morning in both the Coeur d'Alene Press and Spokesman-Review, you get the impression that those employing the fear factor still against President elect Obama aren't paying much attention to what the man says. And are inventing their own ideas about what sort of President Obama will actually be, precisely, everything they detest about him. He isn't in office before the 20th of January, but he is already a "Karl Marx" reading president, according to one writer. And according to another, is going the route of FDR. Precisely, the revisionist history of FDR as a fellow simply continuing the disastrous policies of Herbert Hoover on steroids. Herbert Hoover, incidentally, oversaw massive job losses, bank failures and etc. FDR, upon being elected, had to attempt to reverse that. If Obama, in two days, has to provide an FDR style of intervention, it is to invest in the American workforce as GW wasn't willing to do in the last 8 years.<br /><br />In two days, the Bush era is over with. And in two days, we have a fellow who is preaching tough times and sacrifice if the nation is to get back on its feet.<br /></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span></div>The New Arch Druid's take on the newshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14825705799696383447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5921205412462893412.post-17543108466927184162009-01-10T12:10:00.000-08:002009-01-10T12:51:00.725-08:00While he is still Senator...<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><img src="http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/1/1_4_28.gif" alt="Aragorn" /><span style="font-family:times new roman;">CNN took note of the fact that still Senator Joe Biden took a trip to Pakistan at the same time that terrorists struck Lahore some many miles away. CNN didn't say that the Vice President elect was lucky that the terrorists didn't strike in the area that he was visiting, rather, Wolf Blitzer and his cadre were wringing hands over Biden possibly stepping on the toes of the not yet confirmed Sec. of State. Biden had not resigned his Senate seat, he can surely have that goodwill tour if he desires. When he does resign his seat and is sworn in as Veep, then it will be up to the Sec. of State to carry out foreign policy orders for the new administration. So how is it that Biden has stepped on anyone's toes when the new administration won't have its full day of work cut out for them until 21 January 2009?<br /><br />Biden might be cutting a fine line line here, but he is still within his privilege as a Senator to do what he wishes until he assumes a new office.<br /><br />What was even more amazing was that CNN would go to all this trouble nitpicking, second guessing, deconstructing every move that Biden or even Obama might make before they assume their new roles on 20 January 2009. They did this where a Democratic administration is concerned as they weren't prepared to where an incoming Republican administration was concerned. Instead, watching CNN during the waning days of the Clinton administration, you didn't hear a word about what GW might be doing, what Cheney might be doing, or even what their nominees for various cabinet positions and etc. were doing. They were off the MSM radar and basically invisible. After GW's inauguration, it was as though Clinton never left office, it was 24/7 ragging on the former Prez for the next few months. I shall assume that the spectacle of seeing a duly elected president being removed from office on matters not involving high crimes and misdemeanors being otherwise denied to the MSM, they had to content themselves with broiling Clinton over hot coals. But they mostly gave GW a free pass.<br /><br />Did someone forget to tell these dudes at the anchor desks and as talk show hosts that there was in fact a new president in town and that really, you should be covering him instead?<br /><br />Now, it is as though there never was a Bush presidency, Sec. of State Condi Rice is on the job until 20 January 2009. Biden's trip to Pakistan with a Senate collegue did not step on her toes.<br /><br />And I have to shake my head at the kind of thinking that had the MSM watchdogs basically sleeping when an enemy was at the door then rousing to bark, bark, bark, howl and gnash their teeth at the people who's interests they were supposed to be guarding. Then dozed away as the robber entered the house... Then barked and tried to bite as the cop tried to arrest the robber. In short, they don't have any objective priorities to work with.<br /><br />Which leads also to this, Governor Sarah Palin was on the news bashing at the news for being "unfair" to her and her family. CNN wants to find out what sort of background Palin has and it makes the McCain camp supremely uncomfy at even a mild investigation. Palin drops the ball on giving intelligent answers during the Couric interview and somehow Couric is now to blame. Tammy Faye only does what any comedian will, recognizes foibles and acts on them. But suddenly, Faye is to blame for why Palin is not now Veep elect. Seems like CNN is all about showing this whiner general sympathy. But here is some news from a Republican to this radical think guv. If you were a Democrat who vied for a spot on the Obama ticket, are you so sure that you would have been his choice, considering that your best foreign policy response was to be next door to Russia? I highly doubt it. And had you actually won a spot on the Democratic ticket, you would have been an even bigger embarrassment to Obama given your family background than you even were to McCain. As the radical think among the religious activists wouldn't have been quite so prepared to forgive you having a daughter who is out of wedlock pregnant. After all, what can one expect from those lacking in morals Dems, anyway? And Fox News, that was quick to go ballistic over Clinton as Dem would be prez, was more than charitable to yourself, and only because you have a R behind your name. So who are you kidding?<br /><br />At least the best political teams that Blitzer tends to host weren't quite so sympathetic to the whiner. But then, they did know a few things, didn't they?<br /></span></div>The New Arch Druid's take on the newshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14825705799696383447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5921205412462893412.post-43178439035784357352009-01-05T08:32:00.001-08:002009-01-05T08:32:28.902-08:00Passenger profiling<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'><div align='justify'><blockquote><font face='Times New Roman'>"At the end of the day, people got on and made comments they shouldn't have made on the airplane and other people heard them. Other people heard them, misconstrued them. It just so happened these people were of Muslim faith and appearance. It escalated, it got out of hand and everyone took precautions."—<i>Air Tran spokesman</i> <b>Tad Hutcheson </b> <i>defending his airline's decision to remove nine Muslim passengers—all but one native U.S. citizens—from a Washington-Orlando flight, based on other passenger's suspicions.</i></font><br/></blockquote><font face='Times New Roman'><br/>I recall when this had come out on CNN last week. Any passenger getting on a plane and publicly discussing the safest place to sit in the event of a crash... If the nine people had been dressed in ratty looking t-shirts and jeans and were of the <i>Christian faith</i> would I as a fellow passenger be any less suspicious? After all, Christians of extreme faith have been known to get violent But that would be an unfair criticism, right? Or would it? Never mind that plane crashes of any type can focus any passenger's mind on whether he or she or even they will get safely to their destination. The safest place to sit on a plane in the event of a crash <u>for one's survival</u> has been openly discussed on no less than news and in the public interest shows. <br/><br/>But in the case of the Muslim 9, as seen on CNN and the republished [to the Spokesman-Review] Air Tran excuse of why they were removed from the flight in the first place; I highly doubt it was what they said, but the fact that they were Muslim in the first place. That it wouldn't have mattered to their fellow passengers what they said, their fellow passengers would have been suspicious because these 9 passengers were Muslim and made no secret of it. And we all know not to trust those who are openly Muslim on board an airplane, don't we? <br/><br/>What these supposedly panicking passengers did not do was think. People openly dressed as Muslims managed to pass the security checks. Any carry on items in their possession passed security muster, they exposed themselves to the same searches as their non-Muslim passengers had. And I'll assume that Air Tran like any other airline business would want to keep its planes and passengers safe to where their inspections of <i>any passenger and his or her luggage at all </i>would be quite thorough. Had I been on the plane, and knowing that this is what these Muslims were saying as they went to take their seats, my response would have been a shrug of the shoulders and a "so?" Because I would have been just as knowledgeable about the problems airline companies have been having to even keep their planes safely in the air, and in some cases, getting their planes off the ground. Terrorism accounts for less than 1% of all airline tragedies. But because of 9/11/2001, it manages to account for the 100% sense of terror and/or hatred that Americans now feel toward fellow Americans if they are of the wrong faith. So what does it take to destroy a pluralistic democracy anyway? The Air Tran 9 case would be an ample description.<br/></font></div></div>The New Arch Druid's take on the newshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14825705799696383447noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5921205412462893412.post-34962174091865852432008-12-30T12:07:00.000-08:002008-12-30T12:44:25.421-08:00Movie review--The Golden Compass<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">I recall the major political flap about "The Golden Compass" when the movie had first come out last year. The religious radicals were all up in arms about—how dare they make a movie about religion in such a bad light—what they thought was the true underlying theme of a fantasy movie. It was after all "free thinkers" v The Magesterium. Having the chance to see the movie in full (and I wouldn't mind getting the video for this) what I saw was the following:<br /><br />The Magesterium was a world controlling presumably "secular power" that didn't like "dust" any mention of "dust" which presumably created the world. Let us assume that "dust" is "God." Even further, "dust" was able to travel between worlds (precisely "Earths" that existed in infinite possibilities side by side without each knowing that the other existed) and because "dust could travel between worlds" the plot of "The Golden Compass" was to prevent The Magesterium from gaining control of the many earths as they already had controlled the world they were now on.<br /><br />The Magesterium was even further at war with anyone who dared defy them as to the ability to "think for themselves." They were even, accoring to the movie, prepared to cut from young children their "Demons." Shape shifting spirits that walked beside children and adults and had a tendency to disappear in fiery sparks when the man died. If they could (the Magesterium) cut the demons from the kids, then they would have a generation they could totally control and vanquish, so they thought, any rebellion against their ultimate power.<br /><br />Does this <span style="font-style: italic;">look </span>like "Christianity?" What it <span style="font-style: italic;">did </span>look like was a Soviet style thinking that was ultimately successful in controlling an entire "earth." Something that it failed to do on this one. The sort of gvt that would go so far as to control how one thought or believed was actually a gvt that Christians were in fact prepared to oppose during the pagan era. Again when schisms wracked the church when it allied with totalitarian gvts during the Middle and later ages. That was the foundation of a "democracy" of a sort in Great Britain some hundreds of years before the founding of the American colonies. And Christians along with other free thinkers were at the foundation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. "The Golden Compass" was essentially a good versus evil saga. A rebellion against tyranny. The Magesterium was undoubtedly that tyranny.<br /><br />Now my question is this, when Christians fought against tyranny to win a free nation here in the U.S. of America, why would they whine that the whole idea of "The Golden Compass" was both anti-God and anti-Church? In short, are today's "Christians" of the opinion that they don't love democracy? They love the idea of having total control over states and individuals? To bring out an anti-tyranny film such as "The Golden Compass" makes their special interest demands on secular powers such as federal, state and local gvts very vulnerable to challenge? Quite frankly, I am of the opinion that those "Christians" who'd oppose the making of the film and even further the showing of such a film must be suffering from a guilty conscious. In "The Golden Compass," I saw a totalitarian state that was fearful of having its rule challenged, and would do any cruel thing to guarantee that it stayed in power. It would kidnap children and "cut away their souls" in order to achieve power that would last an eternity? It would lie to children in order to achieve its ultimate ends? Were I a Christian, I wouldn't hitch my wagon to that kind of thinking. And as a Druid, I do applaud successful battle between rebellions and tyrannies. I applaud the willingness of people to not only be free but also to fight for the freedom of others, as would seem to be the case in this movie. "Christians" were anti-Marxist, so what about this movie could they not like?<br /></span></div>The New Arch Druid's take on the newshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14825705799696383447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5921205412462893412.post-80151566702321201122008-12-23T11:17:00.000-08:002008-12-23T11:51:00.829-08:00Comedian for Congress<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">According to news reports, source—Spokesman-Review, it looks like comedian Al Franken is going to take his place in Congress. The nail biting recount now has him in the slimmest possible leads, where he is but 48 votes ahead of the incumbent that he seems to have successfully defeated. While the Democrats do not have a veto proof or filibuster proof majority in the Senate, they do have an answer to Rush Limbaugh as well as Karl Rove serving there. The author of "Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot" will have the poor fellow stewing and fretting over fresh meat on his live radio talk show. Well, I expect that we ought to have a comedian in the Senate given the joke we had to endure in the White House for all of 8 years.<br /><hr /><br />The Governor Blagojevich problem that never seems to go away. It has been weeks now since Gov. Blago was initially arrested on corruption charges, weeks since U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald told the public that he found no entangling and criminal associations between team Obama and Gov. Blago's office over the purported sale of Obama's vacated Senate seat. And Obama himself wanted an internal review done (no doubt as a reasurrance to voters as to his own transparency) as to what actual contacts if any, any of his team might have with the Illinois gov at any time. But while CNN especially Anderson Cooper 360° was prepared to treat such an internal review with mockery and even scorn (well excuse me, but isn't this what they wanted?), Ed Henry did manage a bit of candor; hearkening back to Fitzgerald's on the record statements of earlier in December. There is no there, there.<br /><br />I guess the CNN producers and crew can't get over the fact that giving such an easy pass to McCain, refusing to second guess, dissect or deconstruct his every comment and past association; did not ultimately lead to the favored son, McCain winning the presidency after all; and so they must bite Obama on the ass at every turn, even when they have no news story to do it with. It reminds me of CNN airing tapes that were acquired illegally and used as a witness against Bill Clinton. Monica Lewinsky came across as the pouting ninny who didn't like the idea that ultimately Bill didn't continue their affair and said it was over. But nowhere on those tapes did you hear Ms. Lewinsky being "victimized." Or the tone would have been very different. If the intent of the tapes were, to inform the public about Clinton's "sexual history," that of course would be true. But as it would pertain to a sexual harassment case that Judge Wilbur-Wright proclaimed lacked the necessary evidence to go to trial? That it would not offer. As to putting a man on federal trial for lying to the court? CNN airing the tape at all bollixed up any court case that might have legitimately existed. It was all about politics, even coming from what was supposed to be a 24/7 news channel and not a recognition of the law.<br /><br />The law says that Gov. Blago is the center of the fiasco he made of his own office. The burden of guilt or innocence lies on the man who is centrally accused of doing the dirty after 4 years of intense scrutiny <span style="font-style: italic;">by federal prosecutors</span>. But not Senator now President elect Obama. Had the federal prosecutors gone after Obama, he would have been forced out of the running for the office of the presidency early on. If CNN has a problem in not being able to recognize the obvious, then just how trusted are they as a news service?<br /></span></div>The New Arch Druid's take on the newshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14825705799696383447noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5921205412462893412.post-12509876398845514402008-12-16T09:17:00.000-08:002008-12-17T18:43:48.435-08:00Bryan Fischer and the misconceptions about Christmas<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Dave Oliveria manages to front page Bryan Fischer ever so often because the deeply religious gent manages to do one thing very well, stir up a lot of controversy. The latest, Fischer's argument that the public square should host only that which pertains to the majority belief, especially when it comes to the Christmas holiday. He bluntly makes it plain that he would not allow other religious views to share the public space with his own.<br /><br />I commented on <a href="http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/hbo/?page=2">Fischer's position.</a><br />[This link being updated since this was initially posted. The Spokesman-Review website is now Spokesman.com and the link features Bryan Fischer carrying his war against merchants if they don't cowtow to his precise Xmas wishes. You would think that in the spirit of the season, Fischer would learn a little love, charity or generosity.]<br /><br />And as Oliveria also links to "Community Comment" regarding the origins of the Christmas tree, the decorated tree long in use before Christians decided to co-opt it for themselves; if Fischer is going to be hostile to any and all symbols that don't pertain to his own belief, then the decorated tree that has been in use for thousands of years, to which God (in some bibles) was utterly hostile to the idea of his chosen people making use of them, then Fischer would have to be true to his bible and true to his own argument that any symbol that doesn't reflect his religion should simply be abolished. That would have to include the Christmas tree.<br /><br />Here are some more examples:<br /></span><ol><li>Community comment: Gift giving was in vogue during Pagan Rome's Saturnalia. Gift giving during the Winter Solstice can't therefore be an acceptable act. Unless we give charitably—at all times of the year, and give gifts only on one's birthday.</li><li>The wreath may symbolize a halo. But it also may symbolize a crown of thorns. But one can find "halos" adorning the heads of Druids too. Those made of Holly incidentally.<br /></li><li>And decking the halls with bows of holly (Community comment) and in accordance with Germanic tradition of some hundreds of years, of putting a tree in or near a house to wait for spring to come; is in accordance with its preceding earth religion of Druid/Wicca and was never in accordance with Christianity. You won't find it in the bible.<br /></li><li>Community comment: Martin Luther put candles on the tree to represent the starry night that shone over Bethlehem. The candle, according to historians, is representative of the pagan torch much used during their holy celebrations, and was therefore banned, along with incense, by the church. To put a once banned because it was pagan candles on a tree that had ancient non Christian traditions in honor of Christ is a real hoot. We won't chastise Martin Luther for being a fairly ignorant fellow. But when Fischer has as much access to reading material as I do; one can certainly chastise him for pushing a symbol that at one time <span style="font-style: italic;">his own church was very hostile to.</span></li><li>How about the supposed date of Christ's birth? Politics was behind the church wanting a mass for Christ celebrated near the pagan celebrated Winter Solstice. Only with time did people begin associating the mass for Christ with Christ's birthday. <span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"> </span></span>But, in accordance with pagan tradition, other "man-gods" could also claim a winter birth under "special circumstances" much as the church would ultimately claim for Christ, Mithras was among them.<span style="font-style: italic;"> </span>Given the fact that many pagans flocked to the Christian calling, the popular man on the cross also predated Christ, that this was also how a man god would be sacrificed for the good of the people<span style="font-style: italic;">. </span>What would it take for pagans turned Christian to attribute to their new-found beliefs their own traditions? Especially when the church itself supported the whole idea?<span style="font-style: italic;"></span></li></ol>In short, poor Bryan Fischer would not have much to base a purely Christmas display on that did not have elements of older beliefs and traditions. It had all been borrowed or plagiarized.<br /><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><br /></span></div>The New Arch Druid's take on the newshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14825705799696383447noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5921205412462893412.post-31741273116221812182008-12-10T13:15:00.001-08:002008-12-10T13:15:09.323-08:00Angst about the Electoral College<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'><div align='justify'><font face='Times New Roman'>Dick Polman makes an interesting argument that the Electoral College is so archaic that it is just disenfranchizing voters. That argument while appealing is hardly valid. The voters do put their X on the ballot for the candidate of choice, from President to dog catcher. The man with the most electoral college votes is the man who wins the election. Nor does it hurt that right along with the electoral college vote, the man who gets the most <em>popular vote</em> generally wins the election. The voters are by no means disenfranchized. They had their say on 4 November 2008. They made their wishes known to the people whom they want to commit to putting into office who they decided was the clear winner in the last election. That is Senator and now President elect Barack H. Obama. So, electing a president is a two step process. But, I have absolutely no heartburn over the matter.<br/><br/>When it comes to GW Bush, of course, he did not win the popular vote in 2000, and it became a very appealing argument at that point, by way of the Democrats at least, how nice it would be to direct elect the President of the U.S. and abolish the Electoral College forever. However, given the subsequent voting problems in 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006 and 2008; by way of electronic voting machines, and the hanging chads in Florida, how can anyone be sure that a direct election of a U.S. President would be any less messy than the two step process that we have now? I can see some real problems with the idea. And Polman wasn't comfortable enough to recognize that there were plenty of methods being used in the above described election years to disenfranchize plenty of voters without the Electoral College coming into play at all. To put it bluntly, dirty politics. Just as I can have a question about laws on the book or proposed laws that would render the Electoral College essentially toothless. By, according to Polman, rendering it a "symbolic" institution.<br/><br/>If the whole idea of the Electoral College was to cater to slave states and slave owners, there were also plenty of laws that also catered to both slave states and slave owners. Going on from there, I am fully aware of how both presidential candidates, McCain and Obama, paid a lot of attention to what were defined as battleground states and certainly states with the mostest in electoral college votes. The fact that Obama spent the most money and stayed consitently on message, most assuredly won him the necessary votes. He was also televised nationally by way of news media coverage. Any voter in those less "important states" having the occasion of watching national news channels such as CNN, would know as much about Obama as those watching local news in those "swing states." In the age of instant communication, I see no reason to abolish that "archaic institution" the Electoral College.</font><br/></div></div>The New Arch Druid's take on the newshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14825705799696383447noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5921205412462893412.post-52254055624228993692008-12-03T08:11:00.001-08:002008-12-03T08:11:06.143-08:00The problem in the newspapers<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'><div align='justify'><font face='georgia'>Terrorism struck India last week. Over our Thanksgiving holiday, the gut wrenching horror of what has been described as a well-coordinated attack in which close to 200 people, and among them Jews and Westerners, esp. Americans, died. So, did the Spokesman-Review publish editorials excoriorating the terrorists? Cal Thomas who in prior years did bleat about the unchecked growth of Islam and what (terrorists) may hide behind the walls of their mosques; well he was published as whining and whipping away about British taxes. At least, it wasn't <i>American </i>taxes he was having heartburn over this time. So, let us discuss what low taxes did in Great Britain, it produced a "boom" so it was said in that country as it did under Reagan. A boom? We had a recession! during Reagan's first term and a recession that ushered Bush (41) out of office in one term. We had a boom under Clinton who did indeed raise taxes. But no decrease in taxes guaranteed a stable jobs report in this nation and it sure didn't guarantee a stable economy in Great Britain either. Thomas' biggest problem now is that facts must be ushered aside in favor of a tired ideology.<br/><br/>After 4 November 2008, The Coeur d'Alene Press was all about allowing attack letters such as from Jesse Robbins to enter its pages. The sort of frothing, screaming, ranting in which the base line seems to be, the voters were simply too stupid when they voted for Senator Barack Obama as our new president of the U.S. After all, Obama being a Democrat and he will now push <i>socialist policies</i> on this country. Problem for Robbins is that he has only lived with the GOP version of socialism for the last 8 years. A gvt that doesn't trust its own people, argues that in the name of "keeping us safe" must cause us to fear and hate our neighbors, actually does not keep us safe in the most fundamental ways—to include Katrina. He could live with that, but he could not live with a gvt that might actually show compassion toward the governed. How about that.<br/><br/>And because the letter from Robbins had clearly gone over the line, there were at least two writers who began to argue about the need to review such letters prior to publication. Which the Spokesman-Review does, incidentally. Not all letters submitted to the Spokesman are in fact published. But, according to those writers who fault that idea, an editorial review would result in censorship. According to Larry Kettle, who engaged in infantile name calling every few words, it would be censorship. Well, where the paper's editor, Mike Patrick is concerned, Kettle for one will never have to worry that those "liberal socialists" will prevent his tantrum throwing being made public. But, I will say this, that Patrick does his paper no favors by publishing such tantrum throwing.<br/><br/>No letters were published regarding the horrors of terrorism in India. That is, the only letters that Patrick saw fit to print were of local concerns and those spewing vitriole about the people's choice in elected leadership. GW is still president, Obama is waiting to assume office, and we see yet again that "the war on terror," has its limits. Americans overseas were not kept safe for our "fighting them over there so that we won't fight them here." Given what even CNN called a truly sophisticated attack, how well the Islamic extremists had carried it out, I ponder the notion that what developed was certainly Al Qaeda inspired; if not Al Qaeda in origin. I understand that 6 Americans died. Where are the letters expressing outrage? Can't do that?<br/><br/>Patrick did manage to publish a letter rebutting Larry Kettle. Same day, same paper. A Republican, who voted for Republican candidates this time voted for Obama. She did not like Robbins' engaging in name calling because of her choice which she had the freedom to make at the polling booth. Well, by extension then, Kettle as well. Because Republicans, Independents and Democrats voted for Obama in this state of Idaho, even we conservatives have been turned into (Kettle, Robbins) "liberal socialists." No, as GW clearly said in one of his last interviews, a vote for Obama was in many cases, a repudiation of himself. Well, duh.<br/></font></div></div>The New Arch Druid's take on the newshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14825705799696383447noreply@blogger.com0