Once an apologist, ALWAYS an apologist

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 really 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 all 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.

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.

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?

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.

Not stem cell research, objectifying humanity.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Regulation=Socialism

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:

Agencies failing us

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

Dave Stevens
Spokane

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...

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.

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^st 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.

Regarding the stimulus package

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.

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.

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.

Digital switch over and other news

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.

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.

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.

On Huckleberries online 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.

The Hate Parade

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.

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?

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.

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?

The Stimulus package

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.

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 Spokesman-Review.
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.

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.