The Future of the Republican Party.
in a just world, we shouldn't root for the challenger for the RNC chair in this article.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/27/obama.song/
but, i'm often reminded how unjust this world really is. can we all stand another lesson?
i'd like to see this edition of the republican party descend lower than the stock markets until it (the RNC) is unrecognizable as anything other than a tax-exempt minor religion.
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Welcome to the Beginning!
With this installment, the NewsDarkTime flips its format to complement the election of Barak Obama as President of the United States.
The long dark night of the Bush years is now drawing to a close. While many (hardly residual) problems remain, let's hope the list of casualties of the Bush years includes:
The one I paid attention to: use of "the real Virginia". I would hope our media is empowered to speak out when we are treated to this bile, and call it for what it is: a divisive distraction, practiced by those unworthy of leadership. All these ills are thinly veiled attempt to exploit bigotry for political gain. Notice "division" isn't the same as "negative". Is it negative to point out that a candidate who claims to represent "change", had an economic policy indistinguishable from his failed predecessor? Is it negative to point out your opponents claim of "change" is based on no discernable change in the last two years, that your opponent really represents the old tired policy. We will have to re-calibrate our sense of "negative", and replace the negative with "divisive" as the negative value.
Death of Hate Politics.
When a Senate candidate offers her opponent says "there is no God", is this less than hate. It plays on the irrational fears of the so-called faithful. This is a divisive act of another type. The failure of this practice, by itself, doesn't remove the temptation from the desperate candidate. The hope is this approach will diminish over time, again with the support of the major media. Their fear of losing revenue from those pedaling the hate will lead this renewal.
The influence of the Religious Right
This dimension offers some positive signs. The data to come out of this election should confirm the evangelical movement has discovered the call of Jesus to serve "the least among you" is on the path to saving one's soul. It's no longer sufficient, let alone necessary to hector the "unsaved" among us on how we're hell-bound if we don't sign up for a narrow litany. There will be local setbacks along the way; some states will vote unnecessary, if not hateful, wasteful restrictions (e.g. anti-gay marriage), boulders to be soon removed from the road ahead. By and large, the recognition here is there is a progressive evangelical movement, now empowered to staunch the bleeding of reason from religion.
The Old GOP
One first needs to decide "who" is the Old GOP, "old" in this context is the purposeful recognition of the central content of Grand Old Party. The once-grand party is in danger of becoming more than old if not extinct. Last night, when John McCain nobly conceded, he concluded with hope and prediction of Sarah Palin's future in the party. I'm hoping that was little more than lip-service. She represents a new continuity of the divisive, hateful, and narrow direction the party has been heading since losing it's moorings in the post-Reagan era.
Other Signs
The political arena isn't the only place where we can hope to see an improvement in the "background noise", to quote John McCain. I belong to the now-recognizable portion of the liberal community who believe that free speech doesn't cover anything we see in the media. It's more conservative than liberal to suggest commercial censorship can help remove the garbage from the airwaves. I'm not so worried about a particular type of show as I am the confrontational, exploitative, and mindless values in a range of shows. That "youtube" helped us turn an corner in '06, that this form of reporting makes the major media take notice. There is an opportunity for lightness, variety, humor, all tasteful, informative, and, by the way, entertaining, not pandering.
It's a start. Let's hold our leaders and media to the rising standards.
With this installment, the NewsDarkTime flips its format to complement the election of Barak Obama as President of the United States.
The long dark night of the Bush years is now drawing to a close. While many (hardly residual) problems remain, let's hope the list of casualties of the Bush years includes:
- The end of politics of division.
- The death of hate politics.
- The influence of the religious right,
- The Old GOP.
The one I paid attention to: use of "the real Virginia". I would hope our media is empowered to speak out when we are treated to this bile, and call it for what it is: a divisive distraction, practiced by those unworthy of leadership. All these ills are thinly veiled attempt to exploit bigotry for political gain. Notice "division" isn't the same as "negative". Is it negative to point out that a candidate who claims to represent "change", had an economic policy indistinguishable from his failed predecessor? Is it negative to point out your opponents claim of "change" is based on no discernable change in the last two years, that your opponent really represents the old tired policy. We will have to re-calibrate our sense of "negative", and replace the negative with "divisive" as the negative value.
Death of Hate Politics.
When a Senate candidate offers her opponent says "there is no God", is this less than hate. It plays on the irrational fears of the so-called faithful. This is a divisive act of another type. The failure of this practice, by itself, doesn't remove the temptation from the desperate candidate. The hope is this approach will diminish over time, again with the support of the major media. Their fear of losing revenue from those pedaling the hate will lead this renewal.
The influence of the Religious Right
This dimension offers some positive signs. The data to come out of this election should confirm the evangelical movement has discovered the call of Jesus to serve "the least among you" is on the path to saving one's soul. It's no longer sufficient, let alone necessary to hector the "unsaved" among us on how we're hell-bound if we don't sign up for a narrow litany. There will be local setbacks along the way; some states will vote unnecessary, if not hateful, wasteful restrictions (e.g. anti-gay marriage), boulders to be soon removed from the road ahead. By and large, the recognition here is there is a progressive evangelical movement, now empowered to staunch the bleeding of reason from religion.
The Old GOP
One first needs to decide "who" is the Old GOP, "old" in this context is the purposeful recognition of the central content of Grand Old Party. The once-grand party is in danger of becoming more than old if not extinct. Last night, when John McCain nobly conceded, he concluded with hope and prediction of Sarah Palin's future in the party. I'm hoping that was little more than lip-service. She represents a new continuity of the divisive, hateful, and narrow direction the party has been heading since losing it's moorings in the post-Reagan era.
Other Signs
The political arena isn't the only place where we can hope to see an improvement in the "background noise", to quote John McCain. I belong to the now-recognizable portion of the liberal community who believe that free speech doesn't cover anything we see in the media. It's more conservative than liberal to suggest commercial censorship can help remove the garbage from the airwaves. I'm not so worried about a particular type of show as I am the confrontational, exploitative, and mindless values in a range of shows. That "youtube" helped us turn an corner in '06, that this form of reporting makes the major media take notice. There is an opportunity for lightness, variety, humor, all tasteful, informative, and, by the way, entertaining, not pandering.
It's a start. Let's hold our leaders and media to the rising standards.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Before I Forget
The current financial crisis, 3 weeks on, draws out us experts, assessing blame. There are some blame-assessors who readily identify themselves among those you needn't listen to. What are the criteria to gain this list? First anyone speaking with authority on a Fox affiliate, and more generally those who blame the regulators and in particular, of late, those blaming Barney Frank.
The chorus is like this: the legislators pushed Fannie and Freddie to give loans to those who couldn't afford it, those bad Americans (likely of questionable origin) who never were supposed to have a house and were basically handed it by those bleeding hearts in Washington. This would be fine were it not for a few missing details. Notably the identity of the tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people it took to push the bad paper, who were making piles of money for bundling these debts, and calling them assets. Clearly regulation and even legislation permitted, if not promoted this behavior. But let's be a little reasonable here. Do we look at, say, a pregnant teenager or first time drug addict as the culprit. Either of these social ills was brought on with the help of someone else, in the market, as it were, who sold them on their condition.
This problem is not new. I recently read Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle", where the obvious problem is the conditions in the meat-packing business. But for the Rudkus family, it's set against their exploitation by the propertied class. A no-small section details how they are sold this wonderful home, close enough to the factory, but which takes everyone's salary, even the pan-handling children, just to stay in. The terms are all in behalf of the mortgage company, who routinely throws people out, and with another coat of whitewash recycles the property for the next in the supply line of victims of the plant.
Back to our current dilemma: I hear little of the blame laid on the group of people who fill the logical void left by heaping blame on those among us who live beyond their means and the legislator/regulator who allows/permits the extravagance. Those who bloviate on Fox, blame Barney Frank, or regulators overlook this group. After all, what has been a not-hidden agenda of the last two or three decades in Washington? The growth of the lobbyist/consultant class. Who is writing the legislation? Not the people's representatives. The representatives of the moneyed class.
And why is Barney Frank on the hit list? Well, for all of two years he's been the chair of the House Banking committee. And surely, that's been enough time for a turn-around in the debacle that's 3 decades in the making. Watching Bill O'Reilly trying to blame Barney Frank for assuring investors that F&F were now stable enough to rely on as investment advice generated both disgust and comic relief. Frank repeatedly pointed out the quote O'Reilly focused on included more caution than not. I was disappointed Frank didn't challenge O'Reilly on that most sacred of capitalist dictums: "let the buyer beware". _and_ remind O'Reilly that nothing any congressman, much less the banking chairman, can be considered investment advice. No, Bill, those who poured money into F&F after the bailout did so with their capitalist eyes wide open.
A friend in my office (on Wall St!) is a little incensed at Obama for not making this point in the recent campaign. I think Barak is holding back on this because he's smart enough to know the people are smart enough to figure this out for themselves. After all, if Barak were to starkly point his finger at those who've actually raided the treasury, it would be out of his character, and, like all pointed weapons, it's difficult to control the collateral damage. Let's hope the wisdom of the electorate is in fact represented in this year's election.
The current financial crisis, 3 weeks on, draws out us experts, assessing blame. There are some blame-assessors who readily identify themselves among those you needn't listen to. What are the criteria to gain this list? First anyone speaking with authority on a Fox affiliate, and more generally those who blame the regulators and in particular, of late, those blaming Barney Frank.
The chorus is like this: the legislators pushed Fannie and Freddie to give loans to those who couldn't afford it, those bad Americans (likely of questionable origin) who never were supposed to have a house and were basically handed it by those bleeding hearts in Washington. This would be fine were it not for a few missing details. Notably the identity of the tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people it took to push the bad paper, who were making piles of money for bundling these debts, and calling them assets. Clearly regulation and even legislation permitted, if not promoted this behavior. But let's be a little reasonable here. Do we look at, say, a pregnant teenager or first time drug addict as the culprit. Either of these social ills was brought on with the help of someone else, in the market, as it were, who sold them on their condition.
This problem is not new. I recently read Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle", where the obvious problem is the conditions in the meat-packing business. But for the Rudkus family, it's set against their exploitation by the propertied class. A no-small section details how they are sold this wonderful home, close enough to the factory, but which takes everyone's salary, even the pan-handling children, just to stay in. The terms are all in behalf of the mortgage company, who routinely throws people out, and with another coat of whitewash recycles the property for the next in the supply line of victims of the plant.
Back to our current dilemma: I hear little of the blame laid on the group of people who fill the logical void left by heaping blame on those among us who live beyond their means and the legislator/regulator who allows/permits the extravagance. Those who bloviate on Fox, blame Barney Frank, or regulators overlook this group. After all, what has been a not-hidden agenda of the last two or three decades in Washington? The growth of the lobbyist/consultant class. Who is writing the legislation? Not the people's representatives. The representatives of the moneyed class.
And why is Barney Frank on the hit list? Well, for all of two years he's been the chair of the House Banking committee. And surely, that's been enough time for a turn-around in the debacle that's 3 decades in the making. Watching Bill O'Reilly trying to blame Barney Frank for assuring investors that F&F were now stable enough to rely on as investment advice generated both disgust and comic relief. Frank repeatedly pointed out the quote O'Reilly focused on included more caution than not. I was disappointed Frank didn't challenge O'Reilly on that most sacred of capitalist dictums: "let the buyer beware". _and_ remind O'Reilly that nothing any congressman, much less the banking chairman, can be considered investment advice. No, Bill, those who poured money into F&F after the bailout did so with their capitalist eyes wide open.
A friend in my office (on Wall St!) is a little incensed at Obama for not making this point in the recent campaign. I think Barak is holding back on this because he's smart enough to know the people are smart enough to figure this out for themselves. After all, if Barak were to starkly point his finger at those who've actually raided the treasury, it would be out of his character, and, like all pointed weapons, it's difficult to control the collateral damage. Let's hope the wisdom of the electorate is in fact represented in this year's election.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
opinions are indeed different from math calculations, permitting a wry smile :-)
the letter (about 545 people -- it's really 535, but, as they say, "who's counting") is certainly one worth considering in this most ill-led of times.
on "voting all the bums out", one of the remarkable things about this electorate is we all want to get rid of every bum but our own. i'm working for linda stender, here in the NJ 7th. she ran a close race against mike ferguson 2 yrs ago, and he's _not_ running for re-election, which is one reason he can afford to vote _for_ the bailout. so, here in the nj 7th, one way or another, our bum is gone!
i'm very cautious about throwing all the bums out, just the bad ones. what's a bad one? for me, just about any republican, though i do see a few on the natl tube which give me some hope: chris shays (ct) -- the _last_ republican in the NE, who isn't sure he's in any party; richard shelby (ga) -- a no-nonsense guy who can also _listen_, a commodity in short supply inside the beltway, mitch mcconnell (ky) -- who can, and will compromise when the time demands. so, while i'm as partisan as you dare get, and still hope to retain sanity, there are a few on the other side, heck, i forgot dick lugar (in) -- one of the most _considerate_ people you'd ever hope to have working for the public. notice, _these_ republicans were NOT at the gathering of white people in st paul last month. also, from nj, we sent our two best republicans to dc in the last adminstration; the crowd there wasn't too happy with the performance of christy whitman and tom kean, the former being the indistinguished secy of the EPA and the latter, the ever-popular nine-eleven commission. "say what you want, just not in front of a camera".
and not every democrat gets my knee-jerk support (mostly because my knees are so arthritic, one needs replacing), i've found these two truths about the republicans, one personal, the other i believe is general:
i've never met a republican who _needed_ my vote, and ...
never has an increase in public cynicism failed to benefit the republican.
cc: http://newsdarktime.blogspot.com
cc: mcgowanpolitics@yahoogroups.com
the letter (about 545 people -- it's really 535, but, as they say, "who's counting") is certainly one worth considering in this most ill-led of times.
on "voting all the bums out", one of the remarkable things about this electorate is we all want to get rid of every bum but our own. i'm working for linda stender, here in the NJ 7th. she ran a close race against mike ferguson 2 yrs ago, and he's _not_ running for re-election, which is one reason he can afford to vote _for_ the bailout. so, here in the nj 7th, one way or another, our bum is gone!
i'm very cautious about throwing all the bums out, just the bad ones. what's a bad one? for me, just about any republican, though i do see a few on the natl tube which give me some hope: chris shays (ct) -- the _last_ republican in the NE, who isn't sure he's in any party; richard shelby (ga) -- a no-nonsense guy who can also _listen_, a commodity in short supply inside the beltway, mitch mcconnell (ky) -- who can, and will compromise when the time demands. so, while i'm as partisan as you dare get, and still hope to retain sanity, there are a few on the other side, heck, i forgot dick lugar (in) -- one of the most _considerate_ people you'd ever hope to have working for the public. notice, _these_ republicans were NOT at the gathering of white people in st paul last month. also, from nj, we sent our two best republicans to dc in the last adminstration; the crowd there wasn't too happy with the performance of christy whitman and tom kean, the former being the indistinguished secy of the EPA and the latter, the ever-popular nine-eleven commission. "say what you want, just not in front of a camera".
and not every democrat gets my knee-jerk support (mostly because my knees are so arthritic, one needs replacing), i've found these two truths about the republicans, one personal, the other i believe is general:
i've never met a republican who _needed_ my vote, and ...
never has an increase in public cynicism failed to benefit the republican.
cc: http://newsdarktime.blogspot.com
cc: mcgowanpolitics@yahoogroups.com
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 11:39 PM, Dan Callahan <dancallahan@mindspring.com> wrote:
545 PEOPLE
By Charlie ReesePoliticians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 9:48 AM, Maura Domashinski <maura_domashinski@hotmail.com> wrote:
w.r.t.: http://www.google.com/search?q=voters+guide+for+serious+catholics
i was disappointed they didn't put "support capital punishment" in between say, abortion and euthanasia.
if you live in a state that has capital punishment, by inferrence, you support it. that's why i'm finally proud to be a nj citizen.
and as to "non-negotiable", all i can say is "who says?"
while it's most heartening people bring their religiously-born values to the public forum (see Stephen L Carter for all the wisdom you need on that point), it's quite another to say that "my list is non-negotiable".
one of the frustrating things about being a liberal is defending people's right to hold such views. certainly there are any number of people who will accept exactly that list because it's dressed in ecclesiastical garb; i grudgingly admit the view than you can bring a list of non-negotiable items to the public forum; i don't accept it on it's face. nor do i categorically endorse any of the five non-negotiable positions, though generally disagree with the stand against stem-cell research, and homosexual marriage (and generally agree with the others). if the catholic church doesn't want to sanctify same-sex marriage, it won't cause me to leave; if the state of nj were to pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting it, i'd think about relocating.
on the subect of who says this with what authority, since that aspect is important to a catholic, you will note the lack of official seal (imprimatur) on the document. while there are lots of quotes from cathoic teaching, they are editor's quotes, and selected to make political, rather than faith-based points. which is why no teacher of the faith (a bishop) has put his (sadly, only male) signature on the document. there are a handful of bishops who do endorse these points, and may consider this as the one non-negotiable list. though i'd chuckle to think if you considered those bishops of like mind that could all agree (without negotiation) the contents of the non-negotiable list.
and why hasn't this happened? becuase a sufficient plurality of catholic bishops, already financially strapped, would be loath to see the likely challenge to their tax-exempt status should anyone claim promulgating this list crossed the line of endorsing specific candidates. while they've cleverly avoided specific candidates, their implicit (and selective) endorsement by withholding sacraments is about as close as they dare go.
love,
+=+-- dad
cc: newsdarktime.blogspot.com
cc: mcgowanspolitics@yahoogroups.com
cc: liberalslikecrhist@yahoogroups.com
cc: cta-nj
maura,Dad,
I am curious to read/hear your thoughts on this.
Maura
w.r.t.: http://www.google.com/search?q=voters+guide+for+serious+catholics
i was disappointed they didn't put "support capital punishment" in between say, abortion and euthanasia.
if you live in a state that has capital punishment, by inferrence, you support it. that's why i'm finally proud to be a nj citizen.
and as to "non-negotiable", all i can say is "who says?"
while it's most heartening people bring their religiously-born values to the public forum (see Stephen L Carter for all the wisdom you need on that point), it's quite another to say that "my list is non-negotiable".
one of the frustrating things about being a liberal is defending people's right to hold such views. certainly there are any number of people who will accept exactly that list because it's dressed in ecclesiastical garb; i grudgingly admit the view than you can bring a list of non-negotiable items to the public forum; i don't accept it on it's face. nor do i categorically endorse any of the five non-negotiable positions, though generally disagree with the stand against stem-cell research, and homosexual marriage (and generally agree with the others). if the catholic church doesn't want to sanctify same-sex marriage, it won't cause me to leave; if the state of nj were to pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting it, i'd think about relocating.
on the subect of who says this with what authority, since that aspect is important to a catholic, you will note the lack of official seal (imprimatur) on the document. while there are lots of quotes from cathoic teaching, they are editor's quotes, and selected to make political, rather than faith-based points. which is why no teacher of the faith (a bishop) has put his (sadly, only male) signature on the document. there are a handful of bishops who do endorse these points, and may consider this as the one non-negotiable list. though i'd chuckle to think if you considered those bishops of like mind that could all agree (without negotiation) the contents of the non-negotiable list.
and why hasn't this happened? becuase a sufficient plurality of catholic bishops, already financially strapped, would be loath to see the likely challenge to their tax-exempt status should anyone claim promulgating this list crossed the line of endorsing specific candidates. while they've cleverly avoided specific candidates, their implicit (and selective) endorsement by withholding sacraments is about as close as they dare go.
love,
+=+-- dad
cc: newsdarktime.blogspot.com
cc: mcgowanspolitics@yahoogroups.com
cc: liberalslikecrhist@yahoogroups.com
cc: cta-nj
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Freedom
Ed,
without reading your reply, something i failed to mention in my last letter: recently on one of the movie channels, we saw Dr Zhivago. it was big when i was a lad, possibly before your time. as you know, it was written by boris pasternak, and if ever there was one to talk about the repressive soviet system, that evil against which we all struggle, it was pasternak. (or, ok maybe solzhenitsyn) well, there's a moment in the movie, when the ... family, with ralph richardson as the father and geraldine chaplin as the daughter, where they are herded onto a cattle car, "only 50 to a car, we don't want you crowded", and after the horrid sanitary rules are spelled out, a policeman shackles one of the "passengers", played by klaus kinski (i just checked) who has the line: "I'm the only free person on this train", as he struggles with his shackles.
so what did pasternak mean?
i think you confuse "freedom" with "security". those herded onto the cattle car not in shackles were simply going along. the prisoner was the only one fighting for "freedom". and, consequently, he was the only one who was free. i'd observe the defenders (and occupiers) of freedom, are those who struggle against the closer evil. it was _really_ interesting, the few lines in the movie, where the policeman/guard was assuring the human cattle that "the line is clear", sounds too much like the hollow assurances given by this, and a (not too likely) future republican administration. "the battle is far away, don't worry. "
i've put the movie "1984" on our netflix queue; it's not currently available. i wonder why? is it the news of the day looks too much like the perpetual state of war "far away". that's the thing which most disturbed me about this administration's raison d'etre: "we'll fight them over there so they don't come over here". that has much more to do with a false sense of security than anything passing for freedom.
--
+=+-- Citizen Marty McGowan
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Y0r71L7cojE & @ http://newsdarktime.blogspot.com/
http://www.netflix.com/BeMyFriend/PdUZrLhAauPuG3yRmZ2O
"you were so funny, it was all i could do to keep from laughing"
without reading your reply, something i failed to mention in my last letter: recently on one of the movie channels, we saw Dr Zhivago. it was big when i was a lad, possibly before your time. as you know, it was written by boris pasternak, and if ever there was one to talk about the repressive soviet system, that evil against which we all struggle, it was pasternak. (or, ok maybe solzhenitsyn) well, there's a moment in the movie, when the ... family, with ralph richardson as the father and geraldine chaplin as the daughter, where they are herded onto a cattle car, "only 50 to a car, we don't want you crowded", and after the horrid sanitary rules are spelled out, a policeman shackles one of the "passengers", played by klaus kinski (i just checked) who has the line: "I'm the only free person on this train", as he struggles with his shackles.
so what did pasternak mean?
i think you confuse "freedom" with "security". those herded onto the cattle car not in shackles were simply going along. the prisoner was the only one fighting for "freedom". and, consequently, he was the only one who was free. i'd observe the defenders (and occupiers) of freedom, are those who struggle against the closer evil. it was _really_ interesting, the few lines in the movie, where the policeman/guard was assuring the human cattle that "the line is clear", sounds too much like the hollow assurances given by this, and a (not too likely) future republican administration. "the battle is far away, don't worry. "
i've put the movie "1984" on our netflix queue; it's not currently available. i wonder why? is it the news of the day looks too much like the perpetual state of war "far away". that's the thing which most disturbed me about this administration's raison d'etre: "we'll fight them over there so they don't come over here". that has much more to do with a false sense of security than anything passing for freedom.
--
+=+-- Citizen Marty McGowan
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Y0r71L7cojE & @ http://newsdarktime.blogspot.com/
http://www.netflix.com/BeMyFriend/PdUZrLhAauPuG3yRmZ2O
"you were so funny, it was all i could do to keep from laughing"
Monday, September 15, 2008
Re: ?? Obama on BAIPA
other than your first two sentences, it was all drivel. i heartily agree that freedom is in jeopardy.
the biggest threat to our freedom is right here., bush-cheney in their campaign of fear and abridgement of civil rights in the name of "safety" have been the biggest threat to freedom.
stop listening to those arguments which are UNcritcal if you want to find out about loss of freedom.
your slavish alignment with this past administration is well detailed in "It Can't Happen Here", published > 70 yrs ago. _exactly_ the same arguments were being made by people as un-equipped as yourself to see what was really happening.
cheney and karl rove set out to increase, if not aggrandize the power of the executive. you would say "good, we need a strong firm hand on the ship of state." to which i say, "not unless it's aware of the waters it's sailing in" a subject manifestly clear to anyone who's ever taken even a dingy out of the smallest slip.
my motto:
reality over ideals
people over things
practical over all.
you still have yet to address how mccain represents change. or is he lying to us? are you willing to tolerate the lie?
McCain brings us
a. same campaign staff
b. same foreign policy, and
c. same domestic/economic policy
as the most miserable 8 years in the nation's history.
When you respond to this one, then we'll examine how (or not) your president (surely NOT mine) increased our freedoms over his tenure.
Since you took the trouble to write, I'll spare you the screed you deserve, except to offer this little insight. I'm not feeling too sorry for the boys down on wall street who were packing their bags today, especially the rather large number who applauded elliot spiitzer's demise. i feel badly, of course, of his betrayal of the public trust, but, i feel even worse that his demise, and loss of regulatory muscle was even a bigger tragedy for your daughter, my children and theirs than you care to acknowledge.
I hope you don't think the people who needed more regulation were likely Democratic, rather than Republican voters. I'll give you any odds you want that the boys who gamed the system, inflated the values, and passed on the risk while skimming the cream were at least 3 to 1 republicans vs democrats. Suggest i'm wrong there.
finally, since you raise the subject of "values", we can work on that one later; you've guessed that i'm no more "reasonable" than you are, and deal my arguments from "faith" as you do. _except_ i like my faith, which i "believe" really puts people first.
@ http://newsdarktime.blogspot.com/
the biggest threat to our freedom is right here., bush-cheney in their campaign of fear and abridgement of civil rights in the name of "safety" have been the biggest threat to freedom.
stop listening to those arguments which are UNcritcal if you want to find out about loss of freedom.
your slavish alignment with this past administration is well detailed in "It Can't Happen Here", published > 70 yrs ago. _exactly_ the same arguments were being made by people as un-equipped as yourself to see what was really happening.
cheney and karl rove set out to increase, if not aggrandize the power of the executive. you would say "good, we need a strong firm hand on the ship of state." to which i say, "not unless it's aware of the waters it's sailing in" a subject manifestly clear to anyone who's ever taken even a dingy out of the smallest slip.
my motto:
reality over ideals
people over things
practical over all.
you still have yet to address how mccain represents change. or is he lying to us? are you willing to tolerate the lie?
McCain brings us
a. same campaign staff
b. same foreign policy, and
c. same domestic/economic policy
as the most miserable 8 years in the nation's history.
When you respond to this one, then we'll examine how (or not) your president (surely NOT mine) increased our freedoms over his tenure.
Since you took the trouble to write, I'll spare you the screed you deserve, except to offer this little insight. I'm not feeling too sorry for the boys down on wall street who were packing their bags today, especially the rather large number who applauded elliot spiitzer's demise. i feel badly, of course, of his betrayal of the public trust, but, i feel even worse that his demise, and loss of regulatory muscle was even a bigger tragedy for your daughter, my children and theirs than you care to acknowledge.
I hope you don't think the people who needed more regulation were likely Democratic, rather than Republican voters. I'll give you any odds you want that the boys who gamed the system, inflated the values, and passed on the risk while skimming the cream were at least 3 to 1 republicans vs democrats. Suggest i'm wrong there.
finally, since you raise the subject of "values", we can work on that one later; you've guessed that i'm no more "reasonable" than you are, and deal my arguments from "faith" as you do. _except_ i like my faith, which i "believe" really puts people first.
@ http://newsdarktime.blogspot.com/
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 3:01 PM, Wronka, Edward <ewronka@harris.com> wrote:
when i ride the NJ Transit NE Corridor from Linden thru Elizabeth and Newark,
I see more "have nots" than you can imagine.
In my own words....
I believe that the freedom that we in the United States enjoy isn't
guaranteed. Indeed, mere circumstances prevented Hitler from directly
attacking our freedom--i.e. he was separated by an ocean and the
Japanese army woke our nation up to the threat he posed before Hitler
was in a position to overcome the distance of the Atlantic ocean.
...
When I look at the world I see a huge divide between the haves and the
have-nots....those which have human freedom and those who do not.
when i ride the NJ Transit NE Corridor from Linden thru Elizabeth and Newark,
I see more "have nots" than you can imagine.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Re: ?? Obama on BAIPA
Ed,
it's not that you are dumb; you've accepted your side's arguments on faith, which is not to be denied, a sound basis to take a position on, except, you refuse to admit it (therefore, i conclude you believe that somehow faith < reason)
the republican party is not dumb, indeed very smart, since it relies on it's ability to fool a great number of people to take positions contrary to their own best interests.
i'd be much more interested in your positions, faith-, and/or reason-inspired, if you told me what it was _costing_ you to take that position.
what i'm trying to tell you is that you're endorsing the positions of power brokers, who are asking _our_ people, yours and mine, to do the dying and financial sacrificing. to the extent you refuse to consider that possibility you are not dumb, simply ignorEnt.
ignorent: (adj) willful disregard of facts.
from Marty McGowan's Dictionary of Political Observation.
i'm really only interested in what _you_ have to say, not some self-serving quote from anywhere. you are yet to take on my observation that wrt the mccain campaign:
and that somehow these facts = change. I don't think so.
Now as for Obama, let's try civility for a while, even though his positions may represent some tired old liberal themes, not all that new (or liberal, according to the ubiquitous "some") , _except_ they haven't been tried for 8, or 28 years, take your pick, so i call it "change".
to mis-quote someone, "it all depends on what your definition of ``change'' is"
http://newsdarktime.blogspot.com/
it's not that you are dumb; you've accepted your side's arguments on faith, which is not to be denied, a sound basis to take a position on, except, you refuse to admit it (therefore, i conclude you believe that somehow faith < reason)
the republican party is not dumb, indeed very smart, since it relies on it's ability to fool a great number of people to take positions contrary to their own best interests.
i'd be much more interested in your positions, faith-, and/or reason-inspired, if you told me what it was _costing_ you to take that position.
what i'm trying to tell you is that you're endorsing the positions of power brokers, who are asking _our_ people, yours and mine, to do the dying and financial sacrificing. to the extent you refuse to consider that possibility you are not dumb, simply ignorEnt.
ignorent: (adj) willful disregard of facts.
from Marty McGowan's Dictionary of Political Observation.
i'm really only interested in what _you_ have to say, not some self-serving quote from anywhere. you are yet to take on my observation that wrt the mccain campaign:
- the staff is Rove re-treads (lincoln missed this one: "you can fool enough of the people enough of the time" -- K Rove)
- the foreign policy is indistinguishable from the last 8 years,
- the tax policy is " " " (mega-dittos -- B. F. R. Limbaugh)
and that somehow these facts = change. I don't think so.
Now as for Obama, let's try civility for a while, even though his positions may represent some tired old liberal themes, not all that new (or liberal, according to the ubiquitous "some") , _except_ they haven't been tried for 8, or 28 years, take your pick, so i call it "change".
to mis-quote someone, "it all depends on what your definition of ``change'' is"
http://newsdarktime.blogspot.com/
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Are the Republicans Cynical
I was think of sending this one to Ed, but he's a little fed up on my rhetorical challenges of late.
Are the Republicans cynical when they use arguments, that could be turned against them, when they hope that voters can't play a little mental role reversal. Let's see if this doesn't help answer the question.
The now-disgraced Phil Gramm had it right when he said we are a nation of whiners. Actually there aren't that many. Just enough to crowd into (fill?) the Excel Center in St Paul. As the Republican's listen to their red-meat wing, we are supposed to believe it's the media, and the sexist reportage that is the source of any anti-Palin sentiment. For some time, I"ve felt if someone was calling you a {something}IST, you should pay attention. Am I a sexist, racist, capitalist, communist, .... ? It used to be worth a gut-check. Maybe the criticism is justified. Not any more when it comes from a Republican. "Let me tell you what you are, I know. w.r.t. Palin any objection you have is because you are sexist. Don't bother me with any facts. That's the way it is." Isn't that whining?
but why cynical? a handful of people who orchestrate such simple drivel have thought it through; "We can use this argument since the Democrats don't _dare_ use it's flip side: they'd have to whine that the objections to Obama are racist. They're not that stupid." So that's where it lands. "We can whine sexist and they don't have a comeback"
And, the good news is: we stay off the issues.
Are the Republicans cynical when they use arguments, that could be turned against them, when they hope that voters can't play a little mental role reversal. Let's see if this doesn't help answer the question.
The now-disgraced Phil Gramm had it right when he said we are a nation of whiners. Actually there aren't that many. Just enough to crowd into (fill?) the Excel Center in St Paul. As the Republican's listen to their red-meat wing, we are supposed to believe it's the media, and the sexist reportage that is the source of any anti-Palin sentiment. For some time, I"ve felt if someone was calling you a {something}IST, you should pay attention. Am I a sexist, racist, capitalist, communist, .... ? It used to be worth a gut-check. Maybe the criticism is justified. Not any more when it comes from a Republican. "Let me tell you what you are, I know. w.r.t. Palin any objection you have is because you are sexist. Don't bother me with any facts. That's the way it is." Isn't that whining?
but why cynical? a handful of people who orchestrate such simple drivel have thought it through; "We can use this argument since the Democrats don't _dare_ use it's flip side: they'd have to whine that the objections to Obama are racist. They're not that stupid." So that's where it lands. "We can whine sexist and they don't have a comeback"
And, the good news is: we stay off the issues.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Before we Get Carried Away
Ed,
before ... , i'd like to spend some more time on why you don't like Al Gore.
I think we will be able to conclude you don't like him for no other reason than you don't like him.
you won't like the conclusion i'd make as to the source of your dislike, but in the liberal spirit of all minds being open, you'll have to hear it.
and, i'll offer this much before we open the can of worms: you can apply my reason for "disliking so-and-so" to any republican(s) you chose, and you'll find the argument wanting. or stated more succinctly, you will not be able to use my argument against me, that "i don't like so-and-so because ... " for the reason why i don't like __________ (you can fill in the blank). (*) Lest you think i'm being unfair, you can conduct the argument in reverse.
that was issue #1.
issue #2. going back a month or so, you offered a vision for america and the world, the kind of world i'd like to live in. my current beat of the drum is, "and what do you expect of our government to make that happen?" and it's first corollary: "what do i expect the government to ask of me?" or "what am i willing to do if the government should ask?"
you can see where this may be going.
(*) an example:
You claim: A. "I don't like Al Gore"
i get to fill in the blank: e.g. B. "Ed you don't like Al Gore because he wears green socks"
you can claim C. "Marty, you don't like George W Bush",
then this will have to be true: D. "Marty, you don't like George W Bush because he wears green socks".
I will supply the "because he wears green socks" reason which will make D either patently false or absurd, where statement B won't be observed false by a simple denial. Get it?
before ... , i'd like to spend some more time on why you don't like Al Gore.
I think we will be able to conclude you don't like him for no other reason than you don't like him.
you won't like the conclusion i'd make as to the source of your dislike, but in the liberal spirit of all minds being open, you'll have to hear it.
and, i'll offer this much before we open the can of worms: you can apply my reason for "disliking so-and-so" to any republican(s) you chose, and you'll find the argument wanting. or stated more succinctly, you will not be able to use my argument against me, that "i don't like so-and-so because ... " for the reason why i don't like __________ (you can fill in the blank). (*) Lest you think i'm being unfair, you can conduct the argument in reverse.
that was issue #1.
issue #2. going back a month or so, you offered a vision for america and the world, the kind of world i'd like to live in. my current beat of the drum is, "and what do you expect of our government to make that happen?" and it's first corollary: "what do i expect the government to ask of me?" or "what am i willing to do if the government should ask?"
you can see where this may be going.
(*) an example:
You claim: A. "I don't like Al Gore"
i get to fill in the blank: e.g. B. "Ed you don't like Al Gore because he wears green socks"
you can claim C. "Marty, you don't like George W Bush",
then this will have to be true: D. "Marty, you don't like George W Bush because he wears green socks".
I will supply the "because he wears green socks" reason which will make D either patently false or absurd, where statement B won't be observed false by a simple denial. Get it?
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Re: Climate Change
ed,
all i see in your arguments are excuses for why you don't want to listen to him, not any evidence that he is misleading us.
all the arguments from your side of the aisle are merely justifications in your continued self-deception.
the economic arguments are stronger than you think. none less than T Boone Pickens thinks Al Gore is too soft on a time table. According to Pickens, if we are more cautious than Gore, we can count on $300/barrel oil in less time than Gore's timetable. He says "Gore and I differ on problems #1 and #2. I think it's COST, then Environment; Gore has it backwards." So, Ed, you tell me: are we willing to go to $300/bbl = $10/gallon. _please_ don't tell me that offshore drilling will reverse this. go check a chart of known vs. tapped oil reserves. you will see that further drilling is now in the bandage realm of healing, and not a cure.
you are DEAD WRONG on the economics on anything approaching you and your children's lifetime. but you, for reasons unfathomable to the reasonable would rather take your instructions from the oil industry and their paid minions.
and on you and gore: i don't know if you've figured this out yet, but it's possible he is right, and you are right, and i am right, too. in my philosophy, we _all_ are right. but, here's the deal: you think _you_ are correct when you say al gore is a joke. he is a joke to YOU, and i appreciate your sense of humor. but, are you asking me to believe that because it's true for you (that al gore is a joke to _you_) that he's a joke for _everyone_?
please help me with my gap in logic here.
all i see in your arguments are excuses for why you don't want to listen to him, not any evidence that he is misleading us.
all the arguments from your side of the aisle are merely justifications in your continued self-deception.
the economic arguments are stronger than you think. none less than T Boone Pickens thinks Al Gore is too soft on a time table. According to Pickens, if we are more cautious than Gore, we can count on $300/barrel oil in less time than Gore's timetable. He says "Gore and I differ on problems #1 and #2. I think it's COST, then Environment; Gore has it backwards." So, Ed, you tell me: are we willing to go to $300/bbl = $10/gallon. _please_ don't tell me that offshore drilling will reverse this. go check a chart of known vs. tapped oil reserves. you will see that further drilling is now in the bandage realm of healing, and not a cure.
you are DEAD WRONG on the economics on anything approaching you and your children's lifetime. but you, for reasons unfathomable to the reasonable would rather take your instructions from the oil industry and their paid minions.
and on you and gore: i don't know if you've figured this out yet, but it's possible he is right, and you are right, and i am right, too. in my philosophy, we _all_ are right. but, here's the deal: you think _you_ are correct when you say al gore is a joke. he is a joke to YOU, and i appreciate your sense of humor. but, are you asking me to believe that because it's true for you (that al gore is a joke to _you_) that he's a joke for _everyone_?
please help me with my gap in logic here.
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 1:43 PM, Wronka, Edward <ewronka@harris.com> wrote:
I woud argue that the economic arguments are much less flawed...
As to Global Warming...its getting warmer, but based on hurricanes, the frequency & strengths of hurricanes 100 years ago are consistent with what we see today.
Moreover I concede that there is some gobal warming, but as any REAL Vikings fan knows ...
From: marty.mcgowan@gmail.com on behalf of Marty McGowan
Sent: Wed 7/23/2008 11:21 PM
To: Wronka, Edward
Cc: mcgowanspolitics; applemcg.newsdarktime@blogger.com
Subject: Climate Change
Ed,
this is more like it. your words on his words.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Climate Change
Ed,
this is more like it. your words on his words.
from your own words, he's guilty until proven innocent. now that global warming has it's politically acceptable counterpart: climate change, and therefore unanimity among scientists, we can move on to whether or not there is real impact on the daily lives of people from weather events. so al's anecdotes, as such, and correctly from your point of view aren't real evidence, you still fail to be too inquisitive about them. i've heard ( i don't know where, but since you're curious, it might be worth checking ) that we can now begin to trace actual climate events to climate change // global warming.
i'm not _that_ much older than you are, but, ... i believe, and quite strongly, there will be found data to support this claim, that:
in the 60's, tornadoes were a midwestern summer afternoon,
since the 90s' tornadoes are a southeastern spring before dawn.
as they say, i _could_ be wrong, but, consider this. an afternoon tornado, which i witnessed two in my town, one as a lifeguard "clear the pool", and another with my dad, and next two sibs, at the fairground: "everybody off the grounds" ... there was no human injury or death in those. but now, since tornadoes are in the early morning hours (with everyone asleep) the likelihood of death is greatly increased.
i would be willing, since you seem to be, to discover if these different phenomenon are more than anecdotes, whether al gore _or_ marty mcgowan stories.
but, i will not listen to you call him a joke. (unless, of course, if you are trying to goad me into getting even)
and, before we proceed, i expect you to revisit some of your "the science isn't in" arguments in the 90's and early years of this administration (adult supervision, i believe you called it) which parroted the alternative view. so now calling al gore "chicken little" must be compared to his earlier warnings (and contrary epithets), since those warnings now are "accepted science". and _please_ don't ask me to accept that global warming didn't become accepted science until the last holdout went kicking and screaming to accept.
the accepted theory is that human activity, since the industrial revolution, and particularly since the last two decades of the nineteenth century (>1880) when both the united states (post civil war) and western europe (post franco-prussian war) grew industrial power at a rate never before seen and is thus raising the greenhouse gasses and average temperatures of the planet at unsustainable rates.
i'd offer that your judgement on gore's current alarm is based more on the type of argument the church gave on galileo's theory than a willingness to examine the argument closely.
note your first paragraph damns your logic. you don't like his words. having nothing to do with the possibility he _may_ be right.
+=+-- Marty
p.s. we'll have to postpone the economic arguments, on which you are even more flawed.
--
+=+-- Citizen Marty McGowan
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Y0r71L7cojE
this is more like it. your words on his words.
from your own words, he's guilty until proven innocent. now that global warming has it's politically acceptable counterpart: climate change, and therefore unanimity among scientists, we can move on to whether or not there is real impact on the daily lives of people from weather events. so al's anecdotes, as such, and correctly from your point of view aren't real evidence, you still fail to be too inquisitive about them. i've heard ( i don't know where, but since you're curious, it might be worth checking ) that we can now begin to trace actual climate events to climate change // global warming.
i'm not _that_ much older than you are, but, ... i believe, and quite strongly, there will be found data to support this claim, that:
in the 60's, tornadoes were a midwestern summer afternoon,
since the 90s' tornadoes are a southeastern spring before dawn.
as they say, i _could_ be wrong, but, consider this. an afternoon tornado, which i witnessed two in my town, one as a lifeguard "clear the pool", and another with my dad, and next two sibs, at the fairground: "everybody off the grounds" ... there was no human injury or death in those. but now, since tornadoes are in the early morning hours (with everyone asleep) the likelihood of death is greatly increased.
i would be willing, since you seem to be, to discover if these different phenomenon are more than anecdotes, whether al gore _or_ marty mcgowan stories.
but, i will not listen to you call him a joke. (unless, of course, if you are trying to goad me into getting even)
and, before we proceed, i expect you to revisit some of your "the science isn't in" arguments in the 90's and early years of this administration (adult supervision, i believe you called it) which parroted the alternative view. so now calling al gore "chicken little" must be compared to his earlier warnings (and contrary epithets), since those warnings now are "accepted science". and _please_ don't ask me to accept that global warming didn't become accepted science until the last holdout went kicking and screaming to accept.
the accepted theory is that human activity, since the industrial revolution, and particularly since the last two decades of the nineteenth century (>1880) when both the united states (post civil war) and western europe (post franco-prussian war) grew industrial power at a rate never before seen and is thus raising the greenhouse gasses and average temperatures of the planet at unsustainable rates.
i'd offer that your judgement on gore's current alarm is based more on the type of argument the church gave on galileo's theory than a willingness to examine the argument closely.
note your first paragraph damns your logic. you don't like his words. having nothing to do with the possibility he _may_ be right.
+=+-- Marty
p.s. we'll have to postpone the economic arguments, on which you are even more flawed.
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 8:21 AM, Wronka, Edward <ewronka@harris.com> wrote:
I'm confused.
What break does Al Gore get? I've read HIS words, not someone else's
words about him. I've read it and come to my conclusion about him.
I'm particularly irked by this part:
---------------------
And by the way, our weather sure is getting strange, isn't it? There
seem to be more tornadoes than in living memory, longer droughts, bigger
downpours and record floods. Unprecedented fires are burning in
California and elsewhere in the American West. Higher temperatures lead
to drier vegetation that makes kindling for mega-fires of the kind that
have been raging in Canada, Greece, Russia, China, South America,
Australia and Africa. Scientists in the Department of Geophysics and
Planetary Science at Tel Aviv University tell us that for every one
degree increase in temperature, lightning strikes will go up another 10
percent. And it is lightning, after all, that is principally responsible
for igniting the conflagration in California today.
----------------------
This is a ridiculous argument...."There seem to be more tornadoes than
in living memory, longer droughts, bigger downpours and record floods".
"seems to be"!!!????!!...well is there or not? Don't we have somewhat
definitive data on this stuff? Why the "seems"? Based on the importance
he is giving to this matter, shouldn't he speak with more certainty? In
my estimate, this lack of certainty breaks everything in the speech!
A lot of people compare Al Gore to Chicken Little---but this is worse
than Chicken Little!----he doesn't even have the guts to say "the sky is
falling"...instead he "boldly" declares that "the sky sure seems to be
falling, doesn't it?"
And then he proceeds to gloss over the actions we need to take to avoid
this pending disaster----i.e. switch entirely to renewable energy supply
in 10 years!!!???!?!? WTF!?!?!?! Does he bother to mention what that
even really means!?!?! Paying the cost to infrastructure changeover!?!?!
Where in the world is he coming from!!???
--
+=+-- Citizen Marty McGowan
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Y0r71L7cojE
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Re: BBC E-mail: Ex-aide criticises Bush over Iraq
i'm not asking you to change your beliefs. just dont try to pass them off as relevant to the larger issues of the day.
mcclellan was the United States President's spokesperson to the press;
"irrelevant to governing" -- like an informed public is not part of a responsible government?!
willey was what?
btw the _logical_ conclusion of your argument is bush can't pick a spokesperson. is dana perino worth listening to by that argument?
and this is your biggest joke to date: "more informed"!!! i guess he only got his information from the washington times, certainly _not_ the president, after all "informed", by whom? he was out there makin' stuff up, because he was "un-informed", and it took bush how long, three years, to figure out his press spokesman was uninformed. what it _does_ show is how little bush cared about the press. "Scotty's doin' a great job" -- W.
and to quote the great ronbo, "there you go again .. " what's the trinity church got to do with scott mcclellan and his service to the public? looks like another one of your red herrings, Ed.
just how far are you from Rush,Ann,Han. on _this_ one?!!!
keep your ideas; leave the "truthiness" to us liberals. :-)
-- MM
mcclellan was the United States President's spokesperson to the press;
"irrelevant to governing" -- like an informed public is not part of a responsible government?!
willey was what?
btw the _logical_ conclusion of your argument is bush can't pick a spokesperson. is dana perino worth listening to by that argument?
and this is your biggest joke to date: "more informed"!!! i guess he only got his information from the washington times, certainly _not_ the president, after all "informed", by whom? he was out there makin' stuff up, because he was "un-informed", and it took bush how long, three years, to figure out his press spokesman was uninformed. what it _does_ show is how little bush cared about the press. "Scotty's doin' a great job" -- W.
and to quote the great ronbo, "there you go again .. " what's the trinity church got to do with scott mcclellan and his service to the public? looks like another one of your red herrings, Ed.
just how far are you from Rush,Ann,Han. on _this_ one?!!!
keep your ideas; leave the "truthiness" to us liberals. :-)
-- MM
On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 12:57 PM, <ewronka > wrote:
Both McLEllan and Wiley had jobs that were irrelevant to governing.
Willey made an allegation regarding Bill CLinton and then---according to her---was subjected to threats from the Clinton handlers.
I believe her.
McLellan was a press secretary---a rother poor one at that. I think that Bush could have found a better press secretary by picking someone who was more informed. He has recently tried selling a book in which he criticizes the President.
Do I give his words any creedence? No.
But that is just my humble opinon. I put as much value in McLellan's criticism of Bush as I do in the criticism of Obama for his affiliation of the Trinity Church.
Both are completely irrelevant. I'm sorry if that leads you to believe I am a unreasonable biased advocate. I can't help but believe what I believe.
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Bill Moyers on the Media
this may disturb you as much as me; maybe for the same reasons:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Y0r71L7cojE
--
-=+-- Grandpa Marty McGowan 24 Herning Ave
908 230-3739, YIM: applemcg Cranford NJ 07016
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Y0r71L7cojE
--
-=+-- Grandpa Marty McGowan 24 Herning Ave
908 230-3739, YIM: applemcg Cranford NJ 07016
Re: FW: Hey Ed
maybe i do hate bush, but
possibly you mistake my dislike for his public policy as hate, not unlike your brothers (and sisters!!) who accuse us liberals of being traitors?
how can i be led by a person who can't (wont try to correctly) pronounce "nuclear".
especially in comparison to a president who was a nuclear engineer.
you can never take bush on the merit. only in comparison to the clinton of the moment.
that's what i fail to understand.
you are on the wrong side of history when you try to find any merit in the bush presidency. and what galls me about your stance is when you switched from being a mccain supporter to a bush loyalist when the bushies thoroughly trashed your man in '00 SoCarolina. had mccain been the republican candidate in 00, this country would have surely avoided the madness delivered by the bush selectancy.
you can't/won't admit the destruction of comity in the political arena is a direct result of the hate _you_ spew. by repeating coulter, hannity, rush, ... arguments. is there anything these people say you disagree with? assuredly, the _only_ thing they say I will ever agree with is when they deliver an ironic comment meant to deride. to paraphrase: "if we followed the hillary, hussein obama health care plans we'd actually have _socialized_ medicine, { accompanied by audible sneer } " how can a sentient person do anything but hate that thought (if you can call it thought), hate the person who delivered it, since they are being evil ( if not un-christian), and hate the persons who would profit, either politically or economically.
as to the "rant vs rant" approach, i can't _even_ begin to pay you back for the dreit you delivered during the clinton years, the problem with your arguments is they have nothing to do with todays problems,
and little to do with the problems of the moment when you made them.
pointing out that bush's tossing the kyoto protocol is a rant? you have much to learn.
" bush's assault on civil liberties ...
" bush's attempt to fool the working poor that a tax cut for the wealthiest 0.5% favors them ...
" bush's quashing veteran's benefits ...
" bush's gutting regulatory agencies in behalf of big donors ...
what you take as "rant" are legitimate disagreement with his complete disregard of public service in behalf of a narrow group of the powerful.
your actual rant against the clintons are hung on salacious behavior which has little to do with public policy.
what i'd like to know is, before the salacious became public, why did you hate him so. my hypothesis is the republican bile was building for years w.r.t. revenge for nixon, and not able to find a sticking point with carter. clinton, being a man of the flesh (not, say carter's spirit) was the perfect target. my data point on this are the republican mis-truths on why bork was turned down for the supreme court: the current myth is "because of his strong pro-life stance". nothing could be further from the truth. while it is a position of bork's, he was really refused the "thumbs up/down" because of his overtly political act of firing the one special prosecutor who was investigating official crimes against the public: namely Archie Cox. but _that_ little detail, like so many other items of "factiness" escapes capture by the republican myth machine.
you, my friend are on the wrong side of history.
witness your opening statement. "it is you who constantly ... " were i to lay out a time line of the 8 clinton years against the 8 bush years and and ask who was asking whom to "join you with a pitch fork and demand { }'s head on a stick" .. you could only conclude i had been the patient one.
i'll stop "rant"ing against bush when he is no longer president; though i will be writing my democratic majority to conduct a thorough investigation of his administration and recommending appropriate action by the world court
i'm looking forward to your rants against president obama. can we count on useless drooling rush-like-dwelling on his "non-christian" names hussein, obama. to the extent you don't repudiate the idiots who represent your views, you embrace them.
i'm not solicting your hate, just your finally honest appraisal of the failure he's been.
+=+-- Marty
possibly you mistake my dislike for his public policy as hate, not unlike your brothers (and sisters!!) who accuse us liberals of being traitors?
how can i be led by a person who can't (wont try to correctly) pronounce "nuclear".
especially in comparison to a president who was a nuclear engineer.
you can never take bush on the merit. only in comparison to the clinton of the moment.
that's what i fail to understand.
you are on the wrong side of history when you try to find any merit in the bush presidency. and what galls me about your stance is when you switched from being a mccain supporter to a bush loyalist when the bushies thoroughly trashed your man in '00 SoCarolina. had mccain been the republican candidate in 00, this country would have surely avoided the madness delivered by the bush selectancy.
you can't/won't admit the destruction of comity in the political arena is a direct result of the hate _you_ spew. by repeating coulter, hannity, rush, ... arguments. is there anything these people say you disagree with? assuredly, the _only_ thing they say I will ever agree with is when they deliver an ironic comment meant to deride. to paraphrase: "if we followed the hillary, hussein obama health care plans we'd actually have _socialized_ medicine, { accompanied by audible sneer } " how can a sentient person do anything but hate that thought (if you can call it thought), hate the person who delivered it, since they are being evil ( if not un-christian), and hate the persons who would profit, either politically or economically.
as to the "rant vs rant" approach, i can't _even_ begin to pay you back for the dreit you delivered during the clinton years, the problem with your arguments is they have nothing to do with todays problems,
and little to do with the problems of the moment when you made them.
pointing out that bush's tossing the kyoto protocol is a rant? you have much to learn.
" bush's assault on civil liberties ...
" bush's attempt to fool the working poor that a tax cut for the wealthiest 0.5% favors them ...
" bush's quashing veteran's benefits ...
" bush's gutting regulatory agencies in behalf of big donors ...
what you take as "rant" are legitimate disagreement with his complete disregard of public service in behalf of a narrow group of the powerful.
your actual rant against the clintons are hung on salacious behavior which has little to do with public policy.
what i'd like to know is, before the salacious became public, why did you hate him so. my hypothesis is the republican bile was building for years w.r.t. revenge for nixon, and not able to find a sticking point with carter. clinton, being a man of the flesh (not, say carter's spirit) was the perfect target. my data point on this are the republican mis-truths on why bork was turned down for the supreme court: the current myth is "because of his strong pro-life stance". nothing could be further from the truth. while it is a position of bork's, he was really refused the "thumbs up/down" because of his overtly political act of firing the one special prosecutor who was investigating official crimes against the public: namely Archie Cox. but _that_ little detail, like so many other items of "factiness" escapes capture by the republican myth machine.
you, my friend are on the wrong side of history.
witness your opening statement. "it is you who constantly ... " were i to lay out a time line of the 8 clinton years against the 8 bush years and and ask who was asking whom to "join you with a pitch fork and demand { }'s head on a stick" .. you could only conclude i had been the patient one.
i'll stop "rant"ing against bush when he is no longer president; though i will be writing my democratic majority to conduct a thorough investigation of his administration and recommending appropriate action by the world court
i'm looking forward to your rants against president obama. can we count on useless drooling rush-like-dwelling on his "non-christian" names hussein, obama. to the extent you don't repudiate the idiots who represent your views, you embrace them.
i'm not solicting your hate, just your finally honest appraisal of the failure he's been.
+=+-- Marty
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 10:56 AM, <ewronka@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
For the record, it is you who constantly barrage me with emails on how I should join you with a pitch fork and demand Bush's head on a stick.
In the spirit of getting along I usually offer up some level of agreement on a certain amount of short comings with the current President while chastising you for what amounts to wild-eyed over-the top-rhetoric which is far overstated and stipulate that for whatever shortcomings the current President has, they pale in comparison to the jokes offered up by the competing party, including the liar-in-chief and favor seller CLINTON crime family.
If you do not wish to talk about it, then leave me out any emails solicitating hate on Bush. I could do without it. I have never wavered once in my belief that George W. Bush is a far better President than Clinton, Gore, Kerry, or Clinton. The two improvements with Obama are he's honest and forthright about his policy positions (i.e. not taking both sides of every issue) and he keeps the dialogue on the substance of the issues. I watched his speech to AIPAC and found it refrreshing to hear him say that he doesn't think keeping troops in Iraq helps Iran-----I strongly disagreee with it---but its nice to hear him defend his own positions in comparison to last three Democrats who ran for President who would obfiscate such things.
Again---if you don't want to hear me rant against the Clintons or any other Democrat, the solution is simple, don't rant against Bush or McCain or any other Republican to me. (i.e. you started it, but I'm ending it.)
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Re: BBC E-mail: Ex-aide criticises Bush over Iraq
again ed, the whole context (Hitchens in Slate). can _you_ handle the difference of opinion with yours; your quote supporting _mine_ (i don' know why you thought this supports your view?)
When Bush's Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill defected from the Cabinet in 2002 and Ron Suskind told O'Neill's story of being surrounded by fools, Michael Kinsley observed that the president deserved all he got from the book. Anyone dumb enough to hire a fool like O'Neill in the first place ought to have known what to expect. So it goes with the ludicrous figure of Scott McClellan. I used to watch this mooncalf blunder his way through press conferences and think, Exactly where do we find such men? For the job of swabbing out the White House stables, yes. But for any task involving the weighing of words? Hah! Now it seems that he realizes, and with a shock at that, that there was a certain amount of "spin" or propaganda involved in his job description. Well, give the man a cigar. Beyond that, the book is effectively valueless to the anti-war camp since, as McClellan says of the president, "I consider him a fundamentally decent person, and I do not believe he or his White House deliberately or consciously sought to deceive the American people."
And let me ask you then, "Why did the White House castigate such a loyal supporter?"
(the pregnant phrase mcclellan politely omits is " ... ignorently sought to deceive ... ")
I can tell you where Bush finds these guys since Hitchens seems unable: TEXAS, where the IQ divided by the population is well below their daily high temps!
I don't know if i told you, but Regan will go down as the Great Prognosticator: His quote "The Government IS (there's that pesky word, again) the PROBLEM". and under his breath to nancy, "just wait for Bush's boy to take over, he'll make this one stick".
this ain't vitriol, it's merely using these incompetent's words against themselves or their ilk.
as to honest arguments, i opposed the iraq war from the start; read my prior list of "just" wars. and try to find a soul who agrees completely. if i'm swayed by any opinion makers on this point, it's the US bishops, in a _rare_ show of support on my part. this being the only issue i can think of where i agree completely with them.
I'm afraid it's too easy for me to answer your honest questions; i rarely see you take on mine, other than to call them "vitriol". and, in answering your questions, since you have no cogent retort, i guess you fundamentally agree:
is it possible that Bush is the most incompetent president _ever_?
When Bush's Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill defected from the Cabinet in 2002 and Ron Suskind told O'Neill's story of being surrounded by fools, Michael Kinsley observed that the president deserved all he got from the book. Anyone dumb enough to hire a fool like O'Neill in the first place ought to have known what to expect. So it goes with the ludicrous figure of Scott McClellan. I used to watch this mooncalf blunder his way through press conferences and think, Exactly where do we find such men? For the job of swabbing out the White House stables, yes. But for any task involving the weighing of words? Hah! Now it seems that he realizes, and with a shock at that, that there was a certain amount of "spin" or propaganda involved in his job description. Well, give the man a cigar. Beyond that, the book is effectively valueless to the anti-war camp since, as McClellan says of the president, "I consider him a fundamentally decent person, and I do not believe he or his White House deliberately or consciously sought to deceive the American people."
And let me ask you then, "Why did the White House castigate such a loyal supporter?"
(the pregnant phrase mcclellan politely omits is " ... ignorently sought to deceive ... ")
I can tell you where Bush finds these guys since Hitchens seems unable: TEXAS, where the IQ divided by the population is well below their daily high temps!
I don't know if i told you, but Regan will go down as the Great Prognosticator: His quote "The Government IS (there's that pesky word, again) the PROBLEM". and under his breath to nancy, "just wait for Bush's boy to take over, he'll make this one stick".
this ain't vitriol, it's merely using these incompetent's words against themselves or their ilk.
as to honest arguments, i opposed the iraq war from the start; read my prior list of "just" wars. and try to find a soul who agrees completely. if i'm swayed by any opinion makers on this point, it's the US bishops, in a _rare_ show of support on my part. this being the only issue i can think of where i agree completely with them.
I'm afraid it's too easy for me to answer your honest questions; i rarely see you take on mine, other than to call them "vitriol". and, in answering your questions, since you have no cogent retort, i guess you fundamentally agree:
is it possible that Bush is the most incompetent president _ever_?
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 3:42 PM, <ewronka@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
For a day when you feel bold enough to read an in-depth opinion that differs from your own:
...
http://www.slate.com/id/2192696/?from=rss
---- ewronka@rochester.rr.com wrote:
> Much like Reagan, I think history's verdict on George W. Bush will be much kinder than your vitriol.....
Sunday, June 1, 2008
I get very disappointed when I respond to your email, and hear nothing but crickets....
To change the subject a little...
What is your view of how the two candidates approach the underlying threat of this news story.
To me, I'm indifferent to almost any other issue...this is what I vote on:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080531/D910HKQO0.html
About the only other issue on my radar from a Presidential campaign point of view is the struggle between gov'ts which give their people a voice to affect the policy-making apparatus of their gov't vs. those who don't......
My take is all other issues will be inconsequential in a 50 year window of time if these two issues aren't approached correctly.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Re: BBC E-mail: Ex-aide criticises Bush over Iraq
By the way, what do you consider to be the most serios charge made by Mr. McLellan?
Also, are you 100% convinced that the world would be a better place if the United States had not gone to war in Iraq?
---- ewronka@rochester.rr.com wrote:
> Not that you care, but in case you did look into it, I apparently spelled the
> name wrong:
>
> Mary Caity Mahoney OR Mary Caitrin Mahoney OR just Mary Mahoney
>
> Former Whitehouse intern shot at a Starbucks in the week before the Monica story
> borke....
>
> There is a video on the web of her jogging with BC, and then in the office with
> him and the two alone ducking off into a hallway off the Oval office,
> Monica-style.
>
>
>
>
>
> Lets hope the CLINTONs name disappears from politics...or at least when it comes to Presidential Politics. Meanwhile I look forward to a campaign focussed on differences between Obama and McCain and their respective views on the role of the Federal Gov't in our lives and in the world at large. Heres to hoping the campaign can stay focussed on such important issues and not drift onto any sideshows like Jeremiah Wright or Haggee, or whether this person knows that person etc.,.. I really want our country to get together and speak with one voice on how we as a nation proceed to attacking the threats that face human freedom in the world.
>
>
> ---- ewronka@rochester.rr.com wrote:
> > Actually there is a much simpler explanation....controversy sells. A book that attacks Bush will make him an easy million! A book that rubber stamped wouldn't have broke the best seller's list. It doesn't get simpler than that.
> >
> > Here is an excerpt from HIS book I find particularly revealing:
> >
> > ----------------------------
> > Writing it wasn't easy. Some of the best advice I received as I began came from a senior editor at a publishing house that expressed interest in my book. He said the hardest challenge for me would be to keep questioning my own beliefs and perceptions throughout the writing process. His advice was prescient. I've found myself continually questioning my own thinking, my assumptions, my interpretations of events. Many of the conclusions I've reached are quite different from those I would have embraced at the start of the process. The quest for truth has been a struggle for me, but a rewarding one. I don't claim a monopoly on truth. But after wrestling with my experiences over the past several months, I've come much closer to my truth than ever before.
> >
> > -----------------------
> > I appreciate Scott taking the time to tell me "his" truth. But given his unwillingness to take a stand that his truth is THE truth, I'll leave it alone.
> >
> > Whether in fact he was lying then or lying now, you've already conceded he is a liar yourself. Nothing more needs to be said.
> >
> > I myself am far more concerned with the intimidation the Clintons used against Kathleen Willey, including stalking her, and killing her cat. Pretty scary when you look into the fate of an intern who has been videotaped breaking into a side hall off of the Oval office. Go look into what happened to a young lady named Mary Caterin Mahoney on the week before the Monica Lewinsky story broke.
> >
> > It may make you think a little more about possible alternative meanings to HILLARY's reference to the RFK Assasination.
> >
> >
> >
> > ---- Marty McGowan <mcgowan@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 10:31 PM, <ewronka@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > It just goes to show what a partisan nation we've become...I believe in
> > > > Scott McLellan as much as you believe Kathleen Willey.
> > >
> > > =========
> > > except Scott McClellan once spoke for the (acting) President of the
> > > United States. one might ask then if you _ever_ believed him. that's what
> > > wrankles you. the prosecutor, armed with your reasoning would eat you up:
> > > are you lying now or were you lying then. an intellectually honest person
> > > would agree with the later statements.
> > >
> > > your parallels are as weak as your argument: totally insubstantial.
> > > "grasping at straws", i believe it's called.
> > >
> > > * McClellan has discovered his conscience. Is there a simpler
> > > explanation? the question stands. answer it or tuck your tail.
> > > *
> > > +=+-- Marty
> > >
> > > p.s. i have little patience for you "excusers", right down there with
> > > the "appeasers"
> > >
> > > p.p.s let me give you credit for "what a partisan nation we've become".
> > > and who can we thank for that:
> > > Bob Barr, Hank Hyde, Ken Starr, ... Newty, and the parade of
> > > pecadillos who your party put in leadership roles,
> > > don't blame a democrat for advancing partisanship when your boys have
> > > held the reins for >12 yrs..
> > >
> > > "never has an increase in public cynicism failed to benefit the
> > > republican", -- Marty McGowan (c) 1976 - 2008
> > >
> > >
> > > > ---- marty <mcgowan@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > > > > marty saw this story on the BBC News website and thought you
> > > > > should see it.
> > > > >
> > > > > ** Message **
> > > > > it's ok ed. you can come out now too.
> > > > >
> > > > > perino's "this is not the scott we knew". of course not! this scott has
> > > > discovered his conscience. is there a simpler explanation?
> > > > >
> > > > > ** Ex-aide criticises Bush over Iraq **
> > > > > Ex-White House spokesman Scott McClellan says President Bush was not
> > > > forthright on the Iraq war.
> > > > > < http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7423099.stm >
> > > > >
Re: BBC E-mail: Ex-aide criticises Bush over Iraq
Not that you care, but in case you did look into it, I apparently spelled the
name wrong:
Mary Caity Mahoney OR Mary Caitrin Mahoney OR just Mary Mahoney
Former Whitehouse intern shot at a Starbucks in the week before the Monica story
borke....
There is a video on the web of her jogging with BC, and then in the office with
him and the two alone ducking off into a hallway off the Oval office,
Monica-style.
name wrong:
Mary Caity Mahoney OR Mary Caitrin Mahoney OR just Mary Mahoney
Former Whitehouse intern shot at a Starbucks in the week before the Monica story
borke....
There is a video on the web of her jogging with BC, and then in the office with
him and the two alone ducking off into a hallway off the Oval office,
Monica-style.
Lets hope the CLINTONs name disappears from politics...or at least when it comes to Presidential Politics. Meanwhile I look forward to a campaign focussed on differences between Obama and McCain and their respective views on the role of the Federal Gov't in our lives and in the world at large. Heres to hoping the campaign can stay focussed on such important issues and not drift onto any sideshows like Jeremiah Wright or Haggee, or whether this person knows that person etc.,.. I really want our country to get together and speak with one voice on how we as a nation proceed to attacking the threats that face human freedom in the world.
---- ewronka@rochester.rr.com wrote:
> Actually there is a much simpler explanation....controversy sells. A book that attacks Bush will make him an easy million! A book that rubber stamped wouldn't have broke the best seller's list. It doesn't get simpler than that.
>
> Here is an excerpt from HIS book I find particularly revealing:
>
> ----------------------------
> Writing it wasn't easy. Some of the best advice I received as I began came from a senior editor at a publishing house that expressed interest in my book. He said the hardest challenge for me would be to keep questioning my own beliefs and perceptions throughout the writing process. His advice was prescient. I've found myself continually questioning my own thinking, my assumptions, my interpretations of events. Many of the conclusions I've reached are quite different from those I would have embraced at the start of the process. The quest for truth has been a struggle for me, but a rewarding one. I don't claim a monopoly on truth. But after wrestling with my experiences over the past several months, I've come much closer to my truth than ever before.
>
> -----------------------
> I appreciate Scott taking the time to tell me "his" truth. But given his unwillingness to take a stand that his truth is THE truth, I'll leave it alone.
>
> Whether in fact he was lying then or lying now, you've already conceded he is a liar yourself. Nothing more needs to be said.
>
> I myself am far more concerned with the intimidation the Clintons used against Kathleen Willey, including stalking her, and killing her cat. Pretty scary when you look into the fate of an intern who has been videotaped breaking into a side hall off of the Oval office. Go look into what happened to a young lady named Mary Caterin Mahoney on the week before the Monica Lewinsky story broke.
>
> It may make you think a little more about possible alternative meanings to HILLARY's reference to the RFK Assasination.
>
>
>
> ---- Marty McGowan <mcgowan@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 10:31 PM, <ewronka@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > > It just goes to show what a partisan nation we've become...I believe in
> > > Scott McLellan as much as you believe Kathleen Willey.
> >
> > =========
> > except Scott McClellan once spoke for the (acting) President of the
> > United States. one might ask then if you _ever_ believed him. that's what
> > wrankles you. the prosecutor, armed with your reasoning would eat you up:
> > are you lying now or were you lying then. an intellectually honest person
> > would agree with the later statements.
> >
> > your parallels are as weak as your argument: totally insubstantial.
> > "grasping at straws", i believe it's called.
> >
> > * McClellan has discovered his conscience. Is there a simpler
> > explanation? the question stands. answer it or tuck your tail.
> > *
> > +=+-- Marty
> >
> > p.s. i have little patience for you "excusers", right down there with
> > the "appeasers"
> >
> > p.p.s let me give you credit for "what a partisan nation we've become".
> > and who can we thank for that:
> > Bob Barr, Hank Hyde, Ken Starr, ... Newty, and the parade of
> > pecadillos who your party put in leadership roles,
> > don't blame a democrat for advancing partisanship when your boys have
> > held the reins for >12 yrs..
> >
> > "never has an increase in public cynicism failed to benefit the
> > republican", -- Marty McGowan (c) 1976 - 2008
> >
> >
> > > ---- marty <mcgowan@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > > > marty saw this story on the BBC News website and thought you
> > > > should see it.
> > > >
> > > > ** Message **
> > > > it's ok ed. you can come out now too.
> > > >
> > > > perino's "this is not the scott we knew". of course not! this scott has
> > > discovered his conscience. is there a simpler explanation?
> > > >
> > > > ** Ex-aide criticises Bush over Iraq **
> > > > Ex-White House spokesman Scott McClellan says President Bush was not
> > > forthright on the Iraq war.
> > > > < http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7423099.stm >
> > > >
Re: BBC E-mail: Ex-aide criticises Bush over Iraq
Actually there is a much simpler explanation....controversy sells. A book that attacks Bush will make him an easy million! A book that rubber stamped wouldn't have broke the best seller's list. It doesn't get simpler than that.
Here is an excerpt from HIS book I find particularly revealing:
----------------------------
Writing it wasn't easy. Some of the best advice I received as I began came from a senior editor at a publishing house that expressed interest in my book. He said the hardest challenge for me would be to keep questioning my own beliefs and perceptions throughout the writing process. His advice was prescient. I've found myself continually questioning my own thinking, my assumptions, my interpretations of events. Many of the conclusions I've reached are quite different from those I would have embraced at the start of the process. The quest for truth has been a struggle for me, but a rewarding one. I don't claim a monopoly on truth. But after wrestling with my experiences over the past several months, I've come much closer to my truth than ever before.
-----------------------
I appreciate Scott taking the time to tell me "his" truth. But given his unwillingness to take a stand that his truth is THE truth, I'll leave it alone.
Whether in fact he was lying then or lying now, you've already conceded he is a liar yourself. Nothing more needs to be said.
I myself am far more concerned with the intimidation the Clintons used against Kathleen Willey, including stalking her, and killing her cat. Pretty scary when you look into the fate of an intern who has been videotaped breaking into a side hall off of the Oval office. Go look into what happened to a young lady named Mary Caterin Mahoney on the week before the Monica Lewinsky story broke.
It may make you think a little more about possible alternative meanings to HILLARY's reference to the RFK Assasination.
---- Marty McGowan <mcgowan@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 10:31 PM, <ewronka@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > It just goes to show what a partisan nation we've become...I believe in
> > Scott McLellan as much as you believe Kathleen Willey.
>
> =========
> except Scott McClellan once spoke for the (acting) President of the
> United States. one might ask then if you _ever_ believed him. that's what
> wrankles you. the prosecutor, armed with your reasoning would eat you up:
> are you lying now or were you lying then. an intellectually honest person
> would agree with the later statements.
>
> your parallels are as weak as your argument: totally insubstantial.
> "grasping at straws", i believe it's called.
>
> * McClellan has discovered his conscience. Is there a simpler
> explanation? the question stands. answer it or tuck your tail.
> *
> +=+-- Marty
>
> p.s. i have little patience for you "excusers", right down there with
> the "appeasers"
>
> p.p.s let me give you credit for "what a partisan nation we've become".
> and who can we thank for that:
> Bob Barr, Hank Hyde, Ken Starr, ... Newty, and the parade of
> pecadillos who your party put in leadership roles,
> don't blame a democrat for advancing partisanship when your boys have
> held the reins for >12 yrs..
>
> "never has an increase in public cynicism failed to benefit the
> republican", -- Marty McGowan (c) 1976 - 2008
>
>
> > ---- marty <mcgowan@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > > marty saw this story on the BBC News website and thought you
> > > should see it.
> > >
> > > ** Message **
> > > it's ok ed. you can come out now too.
> > >
> > > perino's "this is not the scott we knew". of course not! this scott has
> > discovered his conscience. is there a simpler explanation?
> > >
> > > ** Ex-aide criticises Bush over Iraq **
> > > Ex-White House spokesman Scott McClellan says President Bush was not
> > forthright on the Iraq war.
> > > < http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7423099.stm >
> > >
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Re: BBC E-mail: Ex-aide criticises Bush over Iraq
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 10:31 PM, <ewronka@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
It just goes to show what a partisan nation we've become...I believe in Scott McLellan as much as you believe Kathleen Willey.
=========
except Scott McClellan once spoke for the (acting) President of the United States. one might ask then if you _ever_ believed him. that's what wrankles you. the prosecutor, armed with your reasoning would eat you up: are you lying now or were you lying then. an intellectually honest person would agree with the later statements.
your parallels are as weak as your argument: totally insubstantial. "grasping at straws", i believe it's called.
McClellan has discovered his conscience. Is there a simpler explanation? the question stands. answer it or tuck your tail.
+=+-- Marty
p.s. i have little patience for you "excusers", right down there with the "appeasers"
p.p.s let me give you credit for "what a partisan nation we've become". and who can we thank for that:
Bob Barr, Hank Hyde, Ken Starr, ... Newty, and the parade of pecadillos who your party put in leadership roles,
don't blame a democrat for advancing partisanship when your boys have held the reins for >12 yrs..
"never has an increase in public cynicism failed to benefit the republican", -- Marty McGowan (c) 1976 - 2008
except Scott McClellan once spoke for the (acting) President of the United States. one might ask then if you _ever_ believed him. that's what wrankles you. the prosecutor, armed with your reasoning would eat you up: are you lying now or were you lying then. an intellectually honest person would agree with the later statements.
your parallels are as weak as your argument: totally insubstantial. "grasping at straws", i believe it's called.
McClellan has discovered his conscience. Is there a simpler explanation? the question stands. answer it or tuck your tail.
+=+-- Marty
p.s. i have little patience for you "excusers", right down there with the "appeasers"
p.p.s let me give you credit for "what a partisan nation we've become". and who can we thank for that:
Bob Barr, Hank Hyde, Ken Starr, ... Newty, and the parade of pecadillos who your party put in leadership roles,
don't blame a democrat for advancing partisanship when your boys have held the reins for >12 yrs..
"never has an increase in public cynicism failed to benefit the republican", -- Marty McGowan (c) 1976 - 2008
---- marty <mcgowan@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> marty saw this story on the BBC News website and thought you
> should see it.
>
> ** Message **
> it's ok ed. you can come out now too.
>
> perino's "this is not the scott we knew". of course not! this scott has discovered his conscience. is there a simpler explanation?
>
> ** Ex-aide criticises Bush over Iraq **
> Ex-White House spokesman Scott McClellan says President Bush was not forthright on the Iraq war.
> < http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7423099.stm >
>
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Fwd: Integrity
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <stephen.carter@yale.edu>
Date: Fri, May 16, 2008 at 8:16 AM
Dear Mr. McGowan:
Thanks for your thoughtful note, which happened to catch me at my desk.
Perhaps you are right, and I slightly overwrote. I think a better way of
putting the point is that lying to obtain information is morally complex. I
cannot accept the idea of a simple balancing test involving the value of the
information obtained. I am well aware that law enforcement personnel lie, and
we spend a week on this in my course on Law, Secrets, and Lying. We also study
lies by politicians (including whoppers on the subject of war by FDR, Lincoln,
Polk, and others). The trouble is, any one of these lies can be justified if
we ask only about the end in view versus the utility to be gained. But I tend
to agree with Sissela Bok, who, in her book "Lying" (which stands up very well
over the years), argues that precisely because lies are so easy to justify, it
is important to resist the temptation. Otherwise, says Bok, we create a
culture in which cynicism reigns, trust is difficult, and ordinary life grows
increasingly coarse.
Again, than you so much for taking the time to write.
Best,
Stephen Carter
Quoting Marty McGowan <mcgowan@alum.mit.edu>:
...From: <stephen.carter@yale.edu>
Date: Fri, May 16, 2008 at 8:16 AM
Dear Mr. McGowan:
Thanks for your thoughtful note, which happened to catch me at my desk.
Perhaps you are right, and I slightly overwrote. I think a better way of
putting the point is that lying to obtain information is morally complex. I
cannot accept the idea of a simple balancing test involving the value of the
information obtained. I am well aware that law enforcement personnel lie, and
we spend a week on this in my course on Law, Secrets, and Lying. We also study
lies by politicians (including whoppers on the subject of war by FDR, Lincoln,
Polk, and others). The trouble is, any one of these lies can be justified if
we ask only about the end in view versus the utility to be gained. But I tend
to agree with Sissela Bok, who, in her book "Lying" (which stands up very well
over the years), argues that precisely because lies are so easy to justify, it
is important to resist the temptation. Otherwise, says Bok, we create a
culture in which cynicism reigns, trust is difficult, and ordinary life grows
increasingly coarse.
Again, than you so much for taking the time to write.
Best,
Stephen Carter
Quoting Marty McGowan <mcgowan@alum.mit.edu>:
Professor Carter,
I'm writing you this brief note as a self-motivator to write a thorough
review of "Integrity". I'd read "Culture of Disbelief" when it was new,
and find myself in general, if not considerable agreement with your
arguments.
However, this note is to call into question one thought in the book, on
p. 99 where you say:
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Integrity
Professor Carter,
I'm writing you this brief note as a self-motivator to write a thorough review of "Integrity". I'd read "Culture of Disbelief" when it was new, and find myself in general, if not considerable agreement with your arguments.
However, this note is to call into question one thought in the book, on p. 99 where you say:
"That this is so is probably obvious to the reader; indeed, only a journalist or an undercover spy would imagine for a moment that there is nothing morally bankrupt about lying or breaking one's word in order to obtain information".
I trust you have had others point out to you that this must be among the most outrageous statements in your book. I see no way to interpret this other than _only_ journalists _and_ undercover spies lie without moral restraint. I accuse you of lazy thinking. To go unchallenged, your statement, if true implies the frequent examples of prevarication for information I see on "Law and Order" are the figments of a screen-writers imagination. Is there not a profession, many detailed in the book, which could not be included in this select list?
I think you'd like to update this book, if not to correct this rather absolute pronouncement; there are scant few others, giving your appropriate willingness to characterize some of your frank opinions. The other area needing updating is your non-partisan naivete, born of the '90s origin of the book that both political parties are equally culpable in the demise of comity. We liberal Democrats have been weak and ineffective at responding, and our leaders are still behind what the public demands. No, I don't _need_ a Bush/Cheney impeachment, but it would be just. I think the Republican Party owes the republic an apology for their assault on democracy. As a practicing Catholic, I'm holding out hope that a great number of our bishops will precede their resignations by humble, heartfelt apologies for the damage they have done. From the Republicans, for equally grave sins in their own sphere, I hold out no such hope or expectation.
You should know that I come from a family of rural journalists, persons whose integrity i never felt the need to question, notably my grandfather, and father, not to overlook my grandmother and mother. I also spent my first seven years from college working for our nation's intelligence services. So I naturally take exception to both sides of your characterization.
-- Marty McGowan 24 Herning Ave
Cranford NJ 07016
p.s. i've copied my weblog: newsdarktime.blogspot.com and share this with some of my correspondents.
I'm writing you this brief note as a self-motivator to write a thorough review of "Integrity". I'd read "Culture of Disbelief" when it was new, and find myself in general, if not considerable agreement with your arguments.
However, this note is to call into question one thought in the book, on p. 99 where you say:
"That this is so is probably obvious to the reader; indeed, only a journalist or an undercover spy would imagine for a moment that there is nothing morally bankrupt about lying or breaking one's word in order to obtain information".
I trust you have had others point out to you that this must be among the most outrageous statements in your book. I see no way to interpret this other than _only_ journalists _and_ undercover spies lie without moral restraint. I accuse you of lazy thinking. To go unchallenged, your statement, if true implies the frequent examples of prevarication for information I see on "Law and Order" are the figments of a screen-writers imagination. Is there not a profession, many detailed in the book, which could not be included in this select list?
I think you'd like to update this book, if not to correct this rather absolute pronouncement; there are scant few others, giving your appropriate willingness to characterize some of your frank opinions. The other area needing updating is your non-partisan naivete, born of the '90s origin of the book that both political parties are equally culpable in the demise of comity. We liberal Democrats have been weak and ineffective at responding, and our leaders are still behind what the public demands. No, I don't _need_ a Bush/Cheney impeachment, but it would be just. I think the Republican Party owes the republic an apology for their assault on democracy. As a practicing Catholic, I'm holding out hope that a great number of our bishops will precede their resignations by humble, heartfelt apologies for the damage they have done. From the Republicans, for equally grave sins in their own sphere, I hold out no such hope or expectation.
You should know that I come from a family of rural journalists, persons whose integrity i never felt the need to question, notably my grandfather, and father, not to overlook my grandmother and mother. I also spent my first seven years from college working for our nation's intelligence services. So I naturally take exception to both sides of your characterization.
-- Marty McGowan 24 Herning Ave
Cranford NJ 07016
p.s. i've copied my weblog: newsdarktime.blogspot.com and share this with some of my correspondents.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Gas Tax Plan -- An Alternative
there are two ways to cheat. this detects the least likely way.
where do you get confirmation that you actually _pumped_ 10 gallons?!,
OR so why bother with this one, Duh?
b.t.w. here's marty's gas tax amnesty plan.
ration gas to every social security card holder over the legal driving age in every state.
send out monthly coupons which give the holder the right to buy
X gallons, say x = 30, at
Y $/gallon, say y = $2.
the holder would be free to sell said coupons for any price, and when presented at a gas station,
the station holder would charge the price on the coupon, collecting
the coupon with payment.
the station would be free to charge any price they wanted for gas not covered by a coupon, so...
the feds would pay the station for the difference, between their average monthly charge and the coupon price, with
the difference picked up in a tax on the oil companies.
the oil companies would be free to "pass the cost along" to the consumers, and
the unrationed price would necessarily rise.
the free market would work, and
the people who need inexpensive gas would be subsidised by
the people who could afford the gas guzzling suv's and by
the rapacious oil companies.
the feds would routinely adjust
the values of X and Y to suit conservation goals and
the cost of administering the program.
where do you get confirmation that you actually _pumped_ 10 gallons?!,
OR so why bother with this one, Duh?
b.t.w. here's marty's gas tax amnesty plan.
ration gas to every social security card holder over the legal driving age in every state.
send out monthly coupons which give the holder the right to buy
X gallons, say x = 30, at
Y $/gallon, say y = $2.
the holder would be free to sell said coupons for any price, and when presented at a gas station,
the station holder would charge the price on the coupon, collecting
the coupon with payment.
the station would be free to charge any price they wanted for gas not covered by a coupon, so...
the feds would pay the station for the difference, between their average monthly charge and the coupon price, with
the difference picked up in a tax on the oil companies.
the oil companies would be free to "pass the cost along" to the consumers, and
the unrationed price would necessarily rise.
the free market would work, and
the people who need inexpensive gas would be subsidised by
the people who could afford the gas guzzling suv's and by
the rapacious oil companies.
the feds would routinely adjust
the values of X and Y to suit conservation goals and
the cost of administering the program.
On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 5:27 PM, davisdj456 <davisdj456@comcast.net> wrote:
I don't know if calibrating a pump is even possible to this degree, but this is one way to find out the truth about it.Cheating at Gas Pumps
This is a true story, so read it carefully. On April 24, 2008 ...
Monday, April 21, 2008
Re: Wrapping and clinging
the "tested by fire" argument is like too many republican arguments;
"I made him stronger by his having to work thru my hatred".
and you must not have seen hillary's latest PA ads: every negative symbol except willy horton. (wherein she abused harry truman's phrase: "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen")
don't tell me how profound or not barak was on his "bitter" quote. just now on the news hour, the central PA reporter, admitting that harrisburg, _york_(*) , etc were conservative, used every word _but_ bitter to describe the rural PA voter: he said their issues were god, guns, and government, yes, yes, and no! and he was _hardly_ a barak support _or_ anti-hillary. he was, if anything, a mccain guy!
barak, on this issue demonstrated more insight that george S could ever muster.
(*) york: where kitzmiller vs dover was decided, in which the dover board of ed was sued for insisting the biology teachers paste into their science books a disclaimer that evolution is only a theory. don't tell me that rural america isn't "clinging" to religion, among other things. the case was decided when judge jones said the defendant's support for "intelligent design" was based solely on religion, and had no scientific merit. i would suggest that a _majority_ of america bases its views on the guns and god than good government.
On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 10:59 PM, Meg McGowan <mcgowan@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
I think instead of making a profound point about American society, Barak was trying to explain to potential funding sources why he is having trouble beating Clinton in PA despite outspending her at least 2 to 1. He might have been trying to say some Hillary supporters are racists (he did say something about, they are skeptical about a message coming from a young African American).Yes, ABC did scour PA for a voter to ask him about the flag lapel pin, and I don't think George Stephanopolous asked John McCain today why he wasn't wearing one. But Obama supporters have been enjoying and egging on the media trashing of Hillary Clinton and wonder now why media scrutiny is directed at their wonderful candidate. Joe Conason had the right take on this in Salon:A small example worse than the flag lapel question, was Steve Croft's interview with Hillary Clinton on 60 Minutes when he asked her at least three times whether she thought Barak Obama was a Muslim. Her first and second responses were "Of course not." On the third response, perhaps wondering where the "gotcha" point was, she added, something like . . .at least, I don't have any reason to think so. So what was repeated endlessly in the media the next day, Hillary Clinton not sure whether Obama is a Muslim. And the Obama camp and its "progressive" supporters pilloried her for her response.Hillary has said she will urge her supporters to vote for Obama if he is the nominee, but all are worried how he will handle the right wing slime machine like Kerry, Gore, and Dukakis, since he has never really had to face Republican opposition (only Alan Keyes).
On Apr 19, 2008, at 2:32 AM, Marty McGowan wrote:
i used 'familiar', well aware he didn't use any term like that.
he might have said "guns, religion, the flag, ... " he nailed it perfectly. the reason
he didn't throw the flag in there was
a. that would have been _too_ obvious, and
b. it would have been political suicide. "how dare you impugn the flag and those who love it."
what barak is saying, let's be plain, is that when hope (in the government) is gone, people cling to things, simple things, single things, they can find comfort in. some of this"clinging" is in things not of themselves good, i.e. hating those "other" people.
but some of the things are not necessarily evil by themselves: religion, the flag, guns. some of us
liberals think there is nothing but evil with guns; while i can see no good use for a handgun, a "gun-lover" will defend his right to that gun in the belief that if i can take it away from his friend, next i'll be coming for his shotgun.
but, back to the issue at hand; are there, or are their not people who "cling" to simple, single things, good or bad, out of frustration with some part of their life, expressed (consciously or not) in distrust of the government, and with bitterness.
now, in case you missed it. John Stewart, the night before last, pointed the finger right where it belongs. and think about it. they easily found a PA voter who was a. clinging, and b. bitter. not that she came off that way, abc could easily have interviewed 40 bitter souls and found the one who could sell the phrase "not that i am challenging your patriotism ..." with some flair. stewart, in his own inimitable way retorted, "then what _ARE_ you doing?"
i didn't watch the debate, but am going to review shields and brooks take on it on the Tivo in a few minutes. i hope they are as appalled as the rest of civilized america at abc's performance in the guise of george s and c gibson. i further hope that the democratic nominee, if not both hillary and barak before the nomination, can say to a questioner in a debate,
"not to be dismissive of your question george, but how does that question advance the public interest?"
or
"could we discuss first for a moment, my impression your question is nothing but a ratings ploy?"
The real debate, at least in the primary, is _not_ between the candidates. That is what the media would have us believe, the real debate is between their (the media's) interests and the public interest. now, i don't pretend to speak for the public, but stewart also pointed out that it was 63 minutes into the two hour debate when george s asked this question:
"this is the most important question on the public's mind today: the economy, so what is your take .... "
the point being that we need not take them (the media's) interests seriously if it takes them over half the debate to get down to our (the public's) interest.
on your point about obama's flag lapel, the factcheck.org rep on the news hour pointed out that he's "not accurately representing his original position" on his reasoning. to which i'd add that further investigation of his reasoning embarrasses not him, but those who he originally pointed at. the reason barak needn't pursue that line is he doesn't want to be the source of further embarrassment.
to wrap up, barak might have substituted "use a single issue", in place of "cling", but the sad truth is, regardless of what you call it, some people do exactly that. his choice of words was only a political error, not one of insight or judgement.
On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 3:47 AM, Meg McGowan <mcgowan@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
To continue to beat this dead horse, Marty, I don't have Obama's exact response to the lapel pin question, but at least one prominent media scribe, Paul Krugman, did counter Obama's earlier comment, "And it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them."
Krugman says: "Mr. Obama's comments combined assertions about economics, sociology and voting behavior. In each case, his assertion was mostly if not entirely wrong. . . .Does economic hardship drive people to seek solace in firearms, God and xenophobia?" (Is this wrapping themselves in the familiar?)Data on church attendance shows that although much of the South is both church-going and poor, "some poor states outside the South, like Maine and Montana, are actually less religious than Connecticut. Furthermore, within poor states, people with low incomes are actually less likely to attend church than those with high incomes."The complete Krugman column: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/opinion/18krugman.html?_r=1&oref=sloginNow the fact that Obama may have gotten his economics/sociology wrong is not going to stop me from voting for him as the nominee. (I bet even Paul Krugman will vote for him over McCain.) I just wish Obama's worshippers would take a step back. And if we are going to criticize the press for trivializing the campaign, we should be consistent and point out all attacks on or falsehoods about all Democratic candidates.(Incidentally, I liked Obama's original point about the flag lapel pin, in which he said he didn't wear one because it has become a substitute for real patriotism. He has since backed off from this remark.)
>>> "Marty McGowan" <marty.mcgowan@gmail.com> 4/17/2008 6:49 PM >>>
i just did, too thanks,
i took the time to point out that the "american flag" question proved
barak's point:
when people aren't served by their govt, they wrap themselves in the
familiar.
it's interesting that neither the media, nor the cynics they play to will
admit barak
hit this nail on the head.
--
-=+-. Grandpa Marty McGowan 24 Herning Ave
908 230-3739, YIM: applemcg Cranford NJ 07016
--
-=+-. Grandpa Marty McGowan 24 Herning Ave
908 230-3739, YIM: applemcg Cranford NJ 07016
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
