Ok, In my last post I promised that in my next post I would take a break from the cynicism and do something lighthearted. So here goes. I once had an friend who was a genuine dust bowl Okie. Ivan was his name and I say was because he died several years ago. He was one of the happiest people I ever knew. He was quite a bit older than me but was full of life and I admired him because he treated everyone the same, with respect. He was half Cherokee Indian and said he was from the "lapland." I asked him where that was and he said, "that's where Oklahoma laps over into Arkansas."
When he came to California he picked fruit for a living. He told me this story about how one summer he ran into a friend from back home who asked him where he had been working? He replied, "over in San Jose," but he pronounced it like it read to him. His friend, who had been out west a few years before Ivan said, "no Ivan, out here the J is silent, use an H instead, otherwise the people won't know what your talking about. Ivan sincerely thanked his friend for that helpful bit of advice and wished him well. Ivan said the next time he ran into his friend it was winter. His friend was glad to see him again and said, " good to see you Ivan, it's been a while, when was that anyway?" Ivan replied, " oh that was back in the early summer, maybe hune or huly!"
Now Ivan didn't hear all that well and one of my favorite stories came up while he explained how he had lost his hearing as a child from an illness. He said it didn't bother him too much but it had been a little embarrassing at times. He said, one time back in Oklahoma when he was a kid, working in a service station, a beautiful woman drove up in a new Cadillac. He never saw her before and figured she was from a big city. She pulled up slowly and said to Ivan, "young man, do you have a rest room? The service station had just been equipped with compressed air and Ivan, hearing whisk broom instead of rest room, and wanting to impress her, grabbed the air hose and said, "no Mam, but if you pull it up a few feet I'll blow it out for ya!"
Friday, August 24, 2007
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
AFL/CIO Dem Debate
MSNBC went with their entertainment newsman Kieth Oberman to referee this event. His day job is being MSNBC'S counter-weight to Fox News where he slings mud and generally takes the low road in challenging the competition. Luckily we were spared the insufferable sermonized drivel he has become famous for. In fact in last nights role and in others, to be fair, he's done a decent enough job. I guess that was the Kieth Oberman who was influenced by Hal Fishman who he duly thanked at the end of the debate. Fishman, a 46 year TV news veteran from Los Angeles, died yesterday. He was an old school, quality newsman who will be missed.
Anyway, may I go backwards because I'm forgetting this thing so fast that soon I'll have nothing to say. Probably not a good sign.
Question? What exactly is the point in interviewing candidates campaign managers, media strategists and the like as we are routinely subjected to with last night being no exception? Chris Mathews did the honors this time. What a ridiculous way to try to learn anything. Chris, bring their mothers on next time. At least there would be a slight chance to hear something less than glowing.
Then there are the experts that size up what just happened. Now tell me something-how do you feel when someone says they know what you want? A little irritated maybe? Let's face it, people don't tell other people this unless they want an argument or worse. So why do the so called political experts do it all the time. This time it was Pat Buchanan and Willie Brown who said over and over, "what the American people want..." I understand that they each were candidates in campaigns and have insight but that is the extent of it. To claim they know what people want is flagrantly false and when they say it I find it insulting and stop listening.
Now to the debate. I think that one objective and informative way to judge this debate is to look at how they handled the pandering. The event host was the AFL/CIO so let's look at who pulled the blue collar stuff off the shelf with the greatest of ease. With potentially millions watching it is interesting to see what balance they strike between the spirited live audience and the inanimate yet important home viewers. I'm after a shamelessness quotient here and there were five winners. The shared award goes to Rep. Kucinich, Gov. Richardson, Sen. Edwards, Sen. Dodd and Sen. Clinton, more or less in that order.
From opening sympathies expressed for the Utah Mine Workers through bad toys and human rights violations in China it seemed that these candidates decided to go for the bird in the hand. I am not saying that these issues or NAFTA, outsourcing, trade, corporate aid, health care, medicaid, lobbyist, or exporting jobs etc. are not important and my heart sincerely does go out to the Utah mine workers and their families but you can't be or promise everything to everyone without looking somewhat disingenuous and they did. Rep. Kucinich, the self proclaimed card carrying member of the AFL/CIO promised so much I was left to wonder if there was going to be anything left for me when he was done. He said he would withdraw from NAFTA in his first week in office and asked, "why do you need an infrastructure?" Then said, "so you can create a base for new jobs." In one way or another he seemed to try to make the AFL/CIO the center of the universe and he made me want to grab my wallet thinking about how he will pay for it all. Sen. Dodd said such things as he would ban outsourcing of jobs and China is our adversary. Gov. Richardson repeated many of the same promises along with Sen.Edwards blaming lobbyists for everything including NAFTA and even telling of a time when, "no scab can cross a picket line." Mr. Oberman had to settle him down by reminding Sen. Edwards that he came from a right to work state. Sen. Edwards conceded that North Carolina does have a very small organized labor movement. What I heard from most of these candidates was the usher to protectionism and I wonder if anyone remembered the pitfalls of the past.
Sen. Clinton was far more clever but chimed in with a broad study of NAFTA and said it needed broad reform and smart trade, trade prosecutors, renewable energy for jobs to lift the American worker and criticized China by agreeing with Sen. Bidens comments.
So how did Sen. Obama and Sen. Biden do on the pandering test? Better, I believe. Sen. Obama said there are some winners and some losers in matters of trade and he thought NAFTA needed to be amended. He said no one wants to lose their job but globalization is here and we have to address special interests and a tax code that favors corporations. In regards to China he said we have to recognize arguments on both sides. He said it is hard to negotiate when they are our bankers.
Sen. Biden spoke of his attempts to deal with the infrastructure problem with a proposed 20 billion dollar bill. He said we don't need anymore studies. The subways in New York along with 27% of the bridges are unsafe. He said that it's a presidents job to create jobs not export jobs and there is a lack of presidential leadership. He also repeated Sen. Obama's statement about China in a slightly different way saying that China holds the mortgage on our house.
You can see here that these candidates are thoughtful when answering questions of this nature. Where the other candidates showed little restraint and tried to please everyone, Sen. Obama and Sen. Biden met self imposed resistance to such temptations. This to me is a sign of integrity and general good character and I found this to be the case through the whole debate.That's what I'll be looking for come election time.
On the other hand the craft of politics has begun in earnest. Sen.Clinton is now trying every trick in the book to bury Sen.Obama but so far not succeeding. Her position on Pakistan and actionable intelligence that she criticized Sen. Obama for is shrewed but deceitful. She previously was on the record with a position identical to Sen. Obama's and as Sen. Biden pointed out, when it comes to actionable intelligence, this is the policy of this Government if not the law. The statement about not being able to say what you think does seem as Sen. Obama points out, an insider approach. And check out her odd man out game. "Chris Dodd and I were on a panel..." or "amen to Joe Biden," and this was for a point Sen. Biden took from Sen. Obama's about China being our bankers and changed it to holding the mortgage on our house. And she thinks it unwise to telegraph your game plan. Hers is as clear as it gets. How about her "3 point plan.'' The back door here is Al Qaeda. To be used conveniently should you get in a jamb. Wonder where she learned that one? In the mean time Sen. Obama nails a question about immigration reform and clarifies to Mr.Oberman that he does not have federal lobbyists bundling for him nor does he accept PAC money. He also defended a two pronged attack from Sen. Clinton and Sen. Dodd on the Pakistan issue. He did try to change what he said previously about Pakistan's President Musharraf and I've duly taken note of this.
Finally, from her fathers dream baseball stadium fable to "if you want to fight the right wing machine, I'm your girl," comment, this is one high gloss politician. What kind of arrogance would make her want to utter the words right wing anything. Recall who started the whole right wing conspiracy counter attack strategy while obstructing justice over the Monica Lewinsky investigation. Does Tammy Wynette and stand (or not) by your man ring a bell. Anyway you cut it, it shows poor judgement.
Because this was so damn cynical my promise to you is that my next post will be light hearted. How's that, a promise I can keep.
Anyway, may I go backwards because I'm forgetting this thing so fast that soon I'll have nothing to say. Probably not a good sign.
Question? What exactly is the point in interviewing candidates campaign managers, media strategists and the like as we are routinely subjected to with last night being no exception? Chris Mathews did the honors this time. What a ridiculous way to try to learn anything. Chris, bring their mothers on next time. At least there would be a slight chance to hear something less than glowing.
Then there are the experts that size up what just happened. Now tell me something-how do you feel when someone says they know what you want? A little irritated maybe? Let's face it, people don't tell other people this unless they want an argument or worse. So why do the so called political experts do it all the time. This time it was Pat Buchanan and Willie Brown who said over and over, "what the American people want..." I understand that they each were candidates in campaigns and have insight but that is the extent of it. To claim they know what people want is flagrantly false and when they say it I find it insulting and stop listening.
Now to the debate. I think that one objective and informative way to judge this debate is to look at how they handled the pandering. The event host was the AFL/CIO so let's look at who pulled the blue collar stuff off the shelf with the greatest of ease. With potentially millions watching it is interesting to see what balance they strike between the spirited live audience and the inanimate yet important home viewers. I'm after a shamelessness quotient here and there were five winners. The shared award goes to Rep. Kucinich, Gov. Richardson, Sen. Edwards, Sen. Dodd and Sen. Clinton, more or less in that order.
From opening sympathies expressed for the Utah Mine Workers through bad toys and human rights violations in China it seemed that these candidates decided to go for the bird in the hand. I am not saying that these issues or NAFTA, outsourcing, trade, corporate aid, health care, medicaid, lobbyist, or exporting jobs etc. are not important and my heart sincerely does go out to the Utah mine workers and their families but you can't be or promise everything to everyone without looking somewhat disingenuous and they did. Rep. Kucinich, the self proclaimed card carrying member of the AFL/CIO promised so much I was left to wonder if there was going to be anything left for me when he was done. He said he would withdraw from NAFTA in his first week in office and asked, "why do you need an infrastructure?" Then said, "so you can create a base for new jobs." In one way or another he seemed to try to make the AFL/CIO the center of the universe and he made me want to grab my wallet thinking about how he will pay for it all. Sen. Dodd said such things as he would ban outsourcing of jobs and China is our adversary. Gov. Richardson repeated many of the same promises along with Sen.Edwards blaming lobbyists for everything including NAFTA and even telling of a time when, "no scab can cross a picket line." Mr. Oberman had to settle him down by reminding Sen. Edwards that he came from a right to work state. Sen. Edwards conceded that North Carolina does have a very small organized labor movement. What I heard from most of these candidates was the usher to protectionism and I wonder if anyone remembered the pitfalls of the past.
Sen. Clinton was far more clever but chimed in with a broad study of NAFTA and said it needed broad reform and smart trade, trade prosecutors, renewable energy for jobs to lift the American worker and criticized China by agreeing with Sen. Bidens comments.
So how did Sen. Obama and Sen. Biden do on the pandering test? Better, I believe. Sen. Obama said there are some winners and some losers in matters of trade and he thought NAFTA needed to be amended. He said no one wants to lose their job but globalization is here and we have to address special interests and a tax code that favors corporations. In regards to China he said we have to recognize arguments on both sides. He said it is hard to negotiate when they are our bankers.
Sen. Biden spoke of his attempts to deal with the infrastructure problem with a proposed 20 billion dollar bill. He said we don't need anymore studies. The subways in New York along with 27% of the bridges are unsafe. He said that it's a presidents job to create jobs not export jobs and there is a lack of presidential leadership. He also repeated Sen. Obama's statement about China in a slightly different way saying that China holds the mortgage on our house.
You can see here that these candidates are thoughtful when answering questions of this nature. Where the other candidates showed little restraint and tried to please everyone, Sen. Obama and Sen. Biden met self imposed resistance to such temptations. This to me is a sign of integrity and general good character and I found this to be the case through the whole debate.That's what I'll be looking for come election time.
On the other hand the craft of politics has begun in earnest. Sen.Clinton is now trying every trick in the book to bury Sen.Obama but so far not succeeding. Her position on Pakistan and actionable intelligence that she criticized Sen. Obama for is shrewed but deceitful. She previously was on the record with a position identical to Sen. Obama's and as Sen. Biden pointed out, when it comes to actionable intelligence, this is the policy of this Government if not the law. The statement about not being able to say what you think does seem as Sen. Obama points out, an insider approach. And check out her odd man out game. "Chris Dodd and I were on a panel..." or "amen to Joe Biden," and this was for a point Sen. Biden took from Sen. Obama's about China being our bankers and changed it to holding the mortgage on our house. And she thinks it unwise to telegraph your game plan. Hers is as clear as it gets. How about her "3 point plan.'' The back door here is Al Qaeda. To be used conveniently should you get in a jamb. Wonder where she learned that one? In the mean time Sen. Obama nails a question about immigration reform and clarifies to Mr.Oberman that he does not have federal lobbyists bundling for him nor does he accept PAC money. He also defended a two pronged attack from Sen. Clinton and Sen. Dodd on the Pakistan issue. He did try to change what he said previously about Pakistan's President Musharraf and I've duly taken note of this.
Finally, from her fathers dream baseball stadium fable to "if you want to fight the right wing machine, I'm your girl," comment, this is one high gloss politician. What kind of arrogance would make her want to utter the words right wing anything. Recall who started the whole right wing conspiracy counter attack strategy while obstructing justice over the Monica Lewinsky investigation. Does Tammy Wynette and stand (or not) by your man ring a bell. Anyway you cut it, it shows poor judgement.
Because this was so damn cynical my promise to you is that my next post will be light hearted. How's that, a promise I can keep.
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Bridge Wake UP Call
I have not heard it yet from the countless hours of news coverage dedicated to the Minneapolis bridge collapse but I'm sure many people are wondering to what degree budget shortfalls played a role in decisions about this bridge. I realize it maybe early for this discussion but with 70-80 thousand bridges with structurally deficient designations in this country you have to be a little concerned.
Last evening there was mention of the high cost of replacement in one report read by Anderson Cooper of CNN. I couldn't locate this information on the Minnesota DOT website but I know from experience that the level of available funding has a way of creeping into the objectivity of inspection reports.
Since we have been hearing about a crumbling infrastructure in this country for several years now, it seems an automatic question to ask how much has the 440 billion that has been spent on the Iraq war, taken away from tending to such critical matters as these. I suspect the truth is frightening. Make no mistake about it. This was another Government failure. Now there will be a big expensive scramble to catch up to where they were already paid to be, only this time we'll pay the same people doing the same job at premium pay because it's an emergency. And get ready to ante up. It's like a late Sunday evening with six house guest then the sewer backs up and your on hold for Roto-Rooter. Hold on to your wallet.
I thought that it was interesting that Governor Pawlenty announced that they would hire their own outside consulting firm to get to the bottom of what went wrong. He said that they had faith in the NTSB but thought they should add some "redundancy" to the process. Interesting choice of words but beyond that why do we even have an NTSB and the cost associated with it if we can't trust their abilities. Drop another item off the list of things the Government does well.
Last evening there was mention of the high cost of replacement in one report read by Anderson Cooper of CNN. I couldn't locate this information on the Minnesota DOT website but I know from experience that the level of available funding has a way of creeping into the objectivity of inspection reports.
Since we have been hearing about a crumbling infrastructure in this country for several years now, it seems an automatic question to ask how much has the 440 billion that has been spent on the Iraq war, taken away from tending to such critical matters as these. I suspect the truth is frightening. Make no mistake about it. This was another Government failure. Now there will be a big expensive scramble to catch up to where they were already paid to be, only this time we'll pay the same people doing the same job at premium pay because it's an emergency. And get ready to ante up. It's like a late Sunday evening with six house guest then the sewer backs up and your on hold for Roto-Rooter. Hold on to your wallet.
I thought that it was interesting that Governor Pawlenty announced that they would hire their own outside consulting firm to get to the bottom of what went wrong. He said that they had faith in the NTSB but thought they should add some "redundancy" to the process. Interesting choice of words but beyond that why do we even have an NTSB and the cost associated with it if we can't trust their abilities. Drop another item off the list of things the Government does well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)