The News' Dark Time

2009-01-08T18:49:00.002-05:00

Partisan -- "Non-" vs "bi-"

your call. which would you rather have?

this evening (1/8) Nancy Pelosi, on the News Hour, was always referring to "bi-partisan" action on the stimulus plan. which got me thinking. do you remember how republicans always spoke of "non-partisan", as if that were the value. at least the democrats recognize there is another party over there.

which got me further thinking: the republican natural philosophy is to see themselves as the modern federalists: you put us here to make the decisions for you. after all, the modern republican party shares a dimension with the founders: white, male, property holders. of course, we're non-partisan, we just told you so.

and Speaker Pelosi reminds us of one fight it's good that "we won". and that, according to her, according to Bush, was his highest attempt: the attempt to privatize social security. she didn't say it, but I'll give you the two-word refutation of why we need never consider it again: Bernie Madoff.

2008-12-27T19:55:00.003-05:00

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.

2008-11-05T08:18:00.004-05:00

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 end of politics of division.
The death of hate politics.
The influence of the religious right,
The Old GOP.

Politics of division

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.

2008-10-19T22:10:00.001-04:00

It must hurt!

Dear Ed,

how can a self-respecting supporter of our men and women who defend us, and are in harms way not be led by this most respected soldier-statesman of the last 25 years:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27265369/

2008-10-12T09:53:00.005-04:00

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.

2008-10-01T20:25:00.002-04:00

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

On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 11:39 PM, Dan Callahan <dancallahan@mindspring.com> wrote:

545 PEOPLE
By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

2008-09-28T12:39:00.002-04:00

On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 9:48 AM, Maura Domashinski <maura_domashinski@hotmail.com> wrote:

Dad,

I am curious to read/hear your thoughts on this.

Maura

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

Freedom

2008-09-16T21:07:00.001-04:00

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"

Re: ?? Obama on BAIPA

2008-09-15T22:00:00.001-04:00

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/

On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 3:01 PM, Wronka, Edward <ewronka@harris.com> wrote:

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.

Re: ?? Obama on BAIPA

2008-09-09T20:17:00.001-04:00

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:

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/

Are the Republicans Cynical

2008-09-04T09:38:00.001-04:00

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.

Before we Get Carried Away

2008-08-23T16:29:00.001-04:00

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?

RE: [Lib. like Christ:] Bush GIve Away State Secret!

2008-08-10T15:28:00.001-04:00

Today in Thailand, on the eve of the Bejing olympics (small Oh, please) G W (double-you) Bush gave away America's dearest State Secret:

"If you expect to grow into a 21st century, modern, world-leading country, you will have to allow your citizens full and unhampered free expression"

Holy Cow! I hope the Chinese weren't paying attention.

__._,_.___ And I hope the American corporate media WAS paying attention.

Harry Coverston,

Orlando

Bush GIve Away State Secret!

2008-08-07T21:39:00.001-04:00

Re: Climate Change

2008-07-24T22:10:00.001-04:00

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.

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.

Climate Change

2008-07-23T23:21:00.001-04:00

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.

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

Re: BBC E-mail: Ex-aide criticises Bush over Iraq

2008-06-10T23:01:00.001-04:00

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

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.

Bill Moyers on the Media

2008-06-07T16:49:00.001-04:00

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

Re: FW: Hey Ed

2008-06-07T11:06:00.001-04:00

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

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.)

Re: BBC E-mail: Ex-aide criticises Bush over Iraq

2008-06-03T20:37:00.001-04:00

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_?

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.....

I get very disappointed when I respond to your email, and hear nothing but crickets....

2008-06-01T13:14:00.001-04:00

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.

Re: BBC E-mail: Ex-aide criticises Bush over Iraq

2008-05-30T10:04:00.001-04:00

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

2008-05-30T09:49:00.001-04:00

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

2008-05-30T09:31:00.001-04:00

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

2008-05-29T20:50:00.001-04:00

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 >
>

Fwd: Integrity

2008-05-17T06:03:00.001-04:00

---------- 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>:

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:

...

Integrity

2008-05-15T21:47:00.001-04:00

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.

Gas Tax Plan -- An Alternative

2008-05-08T21:04:00.001-04:00

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.

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 ...

Re: Wrapping and clinging

2008-04-21T19:56:00.001-04:00

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:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2008/04/18/debate/index.html?source=rss&aim=/opinion/conason

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=slogin

Now 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

Impeach Cheney now

2007-12-28T13:38:00.001-05:00

Impeach Cheney now

The allegations that he abused power are credible.

(from the Philadelphia Inquirer: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20071227_Impeach_Cheney_now.html)
U.S. Reps. Robert Wexler (D., Fla.), Luis Gutierrez (D., Ill.) and Tammy Baldwin (D., Wis.)

are members of the Judiciary Committee

Last month, the House of Representatives voted to send a resolution of impeachment of Vice President Cheney to the Judiciary Committee. As members of the House Judiciary Committee, we strongly believe these important hearings should begin.

The issues at hand are too serious to ignore, including credible allegations of abuse of power that, if proven, may well constitute high crimes and misdemeanors under the Constitution. The allegations against Cheney relate to his deceptive actions leading up to the Iraq war, the revelation of the identity of a covert agent for political retaliation, and the illegal wiretapping of American citizens.

...
---------
follow any Wexler links...

Re: FW: Billion Here, Billion There

2007-12-13T13:35:00.001-05:00

you can read this on-line at
   http://newsdarktime.blogspot.com

it was the late, great, illinois senator, Everett DIrksen, who said that first in the present context:

   "A Billion here, a billion there,
    and pretty soon, you are talking _real_ money"

The amazing thing was he said that in the late 50s, and it's still true today. The only problem is, that now, as your example shows, we speak not in units of billions, but Tens, and Hundreds.

I taught algebra (and geometry) for two years. the thing that concerned me the most, is the sort of lesson your example shows.    many of us can (barely) remember a billion seconds ago, so, extending that to minutes, hours and days is an instructive way to make the point that a Billion is a _huge_ number.

In my lower wall street class room, i occasionally get to point out: if you could fill this room up (you could, barely) with a million dollars, you couldn't fit a billion dollars in this whole building ( it would take 3 forty
story buildings like it), and it would probably take all the financial district, and lower manhattan. below canal street, just to hold a Trillion. but, who's counting.

in the forwarded story. the assumption is that the money (however much) would be evenly distributed.   No, too much of the money is going to rebuild casinos, and manufacturers of flimsy mobile homes.    The new gov. of Louisiana, who ran on a "clean up the state" slate, once elected has backed down on his pledge to not meddle with the legislature's committee chair positions -- considered a major source of the patronage outflow in that state.

That's "Hope" down there, with her neck in the noose.
<hr>

On Dec 12, 2007 6:24 PM, Al Telford <alleetelford@yahoo.com > wrote:

>
> The next time you hear a politician use the
> word "billion" in a casual manner, think about
> whether you want the "politicians" spending
> YOUR tax money.
> A billion is a difficult number to comprehend,
> but one advertising agency did a good job of
> putting that figure into some perspective in
> one of its releases.
>
>
> A. A billion seconds ago it was 1959.
>
> B. A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive.
>
> C. A billion hours ago our ancestors were
> living in the Stone Age.
>
> D. A billion days ago no-one walked on the earth on
> two feet.
>
>
> E. A billion dollars ago was only 8 hours and
>
>
> 20 minutes, at the rate our government is
> spending it.
>
>
>
> While this thought is still fresh in our brain,
> let's take a look at New
> Orleans It's amazing what you can learn with some
> simple division . .
>
>
> Louisiana Senator, Mary Landrieu (D), is presently
> asking the Congress
> for $250 BILLION to rebuild New Orleans.
> Interesting number, what does
> it mean?
>
>
>
> A. Well, if you are one of 484,674 residents of
> New Orleans (every man, woman, child), you
> each get $516,528.
>
> B. Or, if you have one of the 188,251 homes in
> New Orleans , your home gets $1,329,787.
>
> C. Or, if you are a family of four, your family
> gets $2,066,012.
>
> Washington, D.C .. HELLO!!! ... Are all your
> calculators broken??
>
>

Iran's Nuclear Weapons Program?

2007-12-08T11:34:00.001-05:00

Keith Olbermann, last thursday night: 12/06, opined on the "what did you know, and when did you know it", addressed to Mr Bush about the NIE report that Iran has not pursued nuclear weapons since 2003.    See this report from Olbermann.

http://thenewshole.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/06/501450.aspx

I take a different view, challenging the way the intelligence is delivered (as well as the messenger), but importantly, an overlooked aspect on how we are supposed to consume this information.

Consider this: we are tantalized by the prospect that "they could resume the weapons program at any time".   Certainly true. Why no one has thought to ask, "yes, and if so, when would we know it?"   There are only two conclusions to draw from this reasoning:   first, it conceivably would take us another 4 years to find out the program has been turn on OR that we might find out about it the day after tomorrow, but we don't need to tell you.     In the first case, we are led to believe the intelligence community is really sluggish in developing a picture, in the latter we must assume the pressure to report is squelched by political consideration.   My personal belief is both have been the pattern of the Iraq years, and now, as Olbernan suggests, we need new enemies.   He carefully analyzes Bush's pronouncements on Iran over the last year, and points out a detectable shift between August 6 and August 9, when he believes a Mike McConnell briefing actually set him straight.   Olbermann, with this evidence, as he sees it, clearly believes Bush has been lying on this one, at least since that time, and used the intervening four months to shift the tone of the story so we might not notice, and could claim, "I was only briefed last week", claim which Olbermann smells a just enough truth.

The NewsDarkTime has for two years believed Bush (and Cheney) were well over the impeachment line;   those who cite congress' low approval rating don't explore the dissatisfaction: the 77% who are dissatisfied with congress don't necessarily approve of the administration, Probably fully half that number support impeachment, but can't muster the clout with congress. So we're simply added to the dissatisfied.

http://newsdarktime.blogspot.com

Re: Gun Vote

2007-12-06T21:47:00.001-05:00

Anna,
   congrats on being a veteran! be proud of your service. no one can take it from you, and it sounds like you're justly willing to let it inform the rest of your life.   since you're still asking questions you haven't adopted the all-too-frequent fault of the ex-military: my country right or wrong -- i don't question it.

    you question causes me to really consider what i'd like to see.   i used to belong to the "Brady Campaign", and have to agree in principal with them, that there is no good purpose for the pistol in the hands of a civilian.   but they want to ban them, and i'd rather leave the question to interpretation of the 2nd amendment:   we have to regulate, not abolish firearms. what i was getting at with the last letter was i'm more concerned with respect for the several bill of rights, as a group, than with any one in particular.   for example, the first and fourth amendments are under greater assault than the second.    1=freedom of speech, now that we've called campaign contributions as speech, this tends to allow corporate money to dominate the dialog. 4=unlawful search and seizure, the administration's lockup of so-called "enemy combatants" without due process threatens free people everywhere.

   but what about the 2nd amendment. i've already claimed that the rights are individual rights. some of my fellow liberals would claim the 2nd is only a "collective" right.   unfortunately, the law in the country is only contested, even all the way to the supreme court, as individual cases.   then, depending on how the justices write their opinion, other, lower courts are either directly instructed, or often are able to interpret how widely any decision applies to them. for example 1954's "Brown vs Board of Education" struck down the 1896 "Plessy vs Ferguson", which said education could be separate and equal. According to Plessy, it was possible to get an equal education in separate facilities. Brown V Board said there was no evidence that in practice, separate was ever equal. So, while Brown involved a Topeka KS school, and one other, there was little doubt from the ruling it was universal.

i believe the court has taken on cases this term which will test the 2nd amendment, and possibly the notion that it's an individual vs collective right, but i'm not really sure of the issues.   the nagging feeling i have though is that this is an "advocacy case", where there is no actual grievance, but a perceived one. e.g. a state may want to "regulate" the access of individuals to say, AK 47s, so they require people to be members of a gun club, secure those weapons, even though they belong to individuals, who are ultimately responsible, but they must accept the
club security. one can imagine someone can claim damage, but the guy in nebraska who's estranged son "stole" his weapon, and took it to the mall and killed 8 people might have used the help of the locked up gun in the club to secure it's proper use.

so, what would i consider effective regulation.   consider the needs of the public, to remain safe in their person: they should be able to go to the mall, and expect to be able to go home without being shot at, wounded, or killed. also, consider the need of sportsmen (and women) to exercise their interest in firearms.   let me confess, that as high school students, my brother and i took the MN firearms safety course, using a 22 rifle my dad had, and used it enough to qualify. i never felt the need to pick up a firearm since.   but i don't want to impose my lack of interest on those who do.   so, what to do.    well, those of us who are interested, but otherwise un-informed can see various categories of gun: pistols, rifles, shotguns, military, heavy artillery, ...   going up the scale, various degrees of automatic; manual, semi-, fully-.   there are various calibers, loads, historic, etc...    someone, the Atty General, the ATF, the FBI, ... will identify the useful categories of firearms, of which there might be a few hundred types.   every personal weapon will need to belong to one of these categories. no-one (incl the feds) needs to know the identities of all the weapons of every such category.   but some of those categories will be the ones which create more harm to the population at large then other categories, and most of the various categories will be otherwise harmless. if i had to guess, but i could be wrong, the harmful categories might include 9 mms and certainly the AK-47. 22 rifles, probably not, but the list of dangerous categories would be data driven: e.g. "these 6 categories of weapon were responsible for 80% of civilian fatalities in the last 3 years",for example.   the federal govt would provide a national registry, federally _funded_, administered by the states and registered gun dealers ( e.g. my NJ driver's license permits me to drive in MN,e.g., since my Toyota dealer "handles all the paperwork" for my new car). this registry would require periodic renewal for all the firearms in the few designated categories.    this could be handled in bulk, at no inconvenience to the individual through clubs, dealers, ...   so why do this at all?

so many of the weapons used in crimes, holdups, .. not to mention fatal shootings are found to be "stolen". as it stands, there is little incentive to report stolen weapons.   so here's what would happen:   if your weapon is in the few categories requiring registry, you'd better report it stolen. Why?   if it's found to have committed a capitol crime, the registered owner of the identified weapon (thru ballistics) is the prime suspect.    my model for this is the all-too-typical shooting of a police officer, Joyce Carnegie, in Orange NJ, in April 1999:
      http://mcgowans.org/marty3/idea/carnegie.html
as we later came to know the shooter had stolen the gun from his cousin in GA, and the gun had legally been bought in VA.   it had been stolen more than 6 months and less than a year before it was used in a holdup, which was interrupted by Officer Carnegie.   were the real owner required to show proof of the safe custody of the gun, it's theft would have been quickly traced to the cousin, who the owner suspected, but had no incentive to pursue, since he had other similar guns, and the cousin had left town some time before.   the point is the owner had no incentive to act responsibly and report this dangerous weapon being at large.

an equally sad side-effect of this case was the death (i forget if it was suicide) of an un-involved suspect, arrested because he looked like the real suspect.   the gun was eventually identified by ballistics, but had it been on the "stolen" list, it's identity would have been immediately known and the wrong guy might only have been held overnight rather than nearly a week.   the multiple tragedies in this all-too frequent type of event would have been avoided, many observed at the time, would have been avoided with the simplest registry system.

   as a self-critique, you may have noticed my too cavalier claim that there would be only a few categories to register.   a natural fear from the gun-owning crowd is the government couldn't resist calling all firearms as "dangerous".   i'd restrict the list, by law, to the identifiable smaller list of categories in the following way: in any population, as you've probably observed, there's what's called the 80-20 law.   an example is the familiar "20 % of the people have 80% of the money, and 80% of the people only have 20 % of the money".   actually, since the regan ascendancy, barely interrupted by the clinton years, it's now more like 90 - 10!   so, in the case of firearms,
by statute, i'd restrict it to the 5% of the categories of weapons which are responsible for 95% of the deaths, or whatever the number is, but the categories would be severely restricted by law, provided the law was supported by those who i call "responsible" gun owners and dealers.   some of my liberal friends might want the 100-100 case, but, i would observe, if you don't aim for perfection, and are willing to "tolerate" a low level of gun violence, you will gradually see the "dangerous" categories change, and the total fatalities greatly reduce, to where the visible sources of gun death wouldn't be from these "random" sources. i.e. the problem will have long moved to where the responsible gun owners somehow don't feel they are the threatened ones.

thanks for the opportunity to think about this.

i've posted this and other comments on my weblog:   http://newsdarktime.blogspot.com/

please share this with site with your friends.

thank you.

On Dec 6, 2007 2:20 AM, Lilith Eventide Nightshade < lilith925@yahoo.com> wrote:

Mr. Mc Gowan,
I have been fascinated by your discourse. Please tell
me about your interpretation of responsible
regulation.
I am a veteran. I understand and appreciate the rights
and priveledges accrued to gun ownership.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Anna Ayres

Gun Vote

2007-12-05T21:35:00.001-05:00

my favorite part of the 2nd amendment is the "well-regulated militia" part.

the implication being, even if it's an _individual_ right, as all the rights
must be, is that it requires regulation.   today we witnessed an otherwise
law-abiding citizen in omaha take out 8 of his fellow americans (and
wounding a handful of others) before taking his own life, need i point
out, with a legally acquired gun (or could i be wrong here).

if you want to preserve the individual right, as i do, you will work _much_
harder than you have been willing to respect the "well-regulated part".

it should be up to gun advocates to advocate responsible regulation,
because coming from others, it would be irresponsible regulation.   today's
tragedy is blood on the hands of those who would have _NO_ regulation.

thus, _my_ poll would be:

    [ ] no regulation
    [ ] responsible regulation
    [ ] irresponsible regulation

-=-.. Marty McGowan

p.s. those of you who'd like to hear what i think is responsible regulation,
please write, and i'll post a response to those who inquire.

On Dec 5, 2007 7:46 PM, Al Telford < alleetelford@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: "Bob Mills" < bmillsuspsa@charter.net>
To: <Undisclosed-Recipient:;>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 17:33:03 -0600
Subject: Gun Vote

First - vote on this one.
Second - launch it to all the pro-gun folks and have THEM vote

To vote in the USA Today poll, click on the link below.

Does the Second Amendment give individuals the right to bear arms?

Vote here:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/quickquestion/2007/november/popup5895.htm

Fwd: FW: ONE OF THE BEST PICTURE'S EVER

2007-12-04T21:46:00.001-05:00

Date: Dec 3, 2007 8:43 PM
Subject: Re: FW: ONE OF THE BEST PICTURE'S EVER

what amazes me is why you'd oppose hillary who's no more likely to advocate a repeal of "2a",
much less make it happen than bush was likely to introduce a repeal of roe v wade, much less
see it happen!?

i suspect most poeple's revulsion of the clintons, not to mention the kennedys is that it's
tough to support people who's view of government is more noble than we'd like.

just a guess.

on keeping your guns: now that your car(s) are registered, aren't you worried someone's
coming to confiscate them? or is it the fact you've got a gun on the rack your insurance?

if you're still open for suggestions, here's some more practical issues:
trim the federal deficit (= bush's idiot war) so we can afford:
      + education,
      + jobs programs, training,
      + healthcare,
      + infrastructure: bridges!, levees,
      + housing !!!
      + other useful things for people like real crime fighting, ...

pardon me, i'm wound up: Kerry got laughed off the stage for suggesting bush's war
would cost 200 - 300 billion. when Cheney and Rumsfeld (snivling liars that they are)
promised it would be less than 50 B, by which time the oil would be paying for it. my
only complaint with Kerry is he was an order of magnitude too timid. today, the most
conservative, thats CONSERVATIVE, estimates are TWO TRILLION (if not THREE).

if people stopped to think what the war is costing them, it would have ended before it
started: kerry's price-tag was $1000 for everyone in your family. bush has mortgaged
you to the tune of $10,000 a head, for which your grandchildren will be paying: Merry
Christmas.

there's no point in vilifying hillary over, say bush, unless you value your ego more
than you value your wallet or your family. but, hey, as we liberals say: i could be wrong.

Cheers,

-=-.. Marty McGowan

On Dec 3, 2007 7:42 PM, Eileen Burgess < bean@fedteldirect.net> wrote:

I'm unaware of who this is from. However, thanks for giving me the opportunity to vent also,

AS A PROUD AMERICAN GUN OWNER, HUNTER AND SHOOTER, THIS "WOMAN" COULD BE THE ABSOLUTE WORST NIGHTMARE YET IF SHE WERE TO GET INTO OFFICE. The 2A issue is extremely important to me and I will make no apologies for it.

Thank you,

Eileen

Who supports Hillary?

2007-12-04T21:22:00.001-05:00

you can tell lilith i've only sent money to the edwards campaign.
others on my "inside" list are: richardson, kucinich, & maybe dodd.

nothin' better than a big change, emphasis _big_.

two of my constant opinions:
   "i've never met a republican who _needed_ my vote" -- which doesn't mean
         i haven't voted for a republican, and ...
   "never has an increase in public cynicism failed to benefit the republican"

the practical example of the last one, and i hate to admit that i agree with
ronald regan, but he "predicted": "the government's the problem, not
the solution".   how did he know george w bush would ever be president?!

On Dec 4, 2007 8:09 PM, Al Telford <alleetelford@yahoo.com> wrote:

mickey. one of my girl friends, lilith925 ,was very glad i hooked her up with your e mail . she thinks your the most intelegent person that she has meet on the internet. she also is a hilery fan. im not i favor of her as you have probley guessed already. i dont know who is worth voting for yet. all i know is that we need a big change in this country. al

Fwd: FW: ONE OF THE BEST PICTURE'S EVER

2007-12-04T19:15:00.001-05:00

Date: Dec 4, 2007 6:57 PM
Subject: Re: FW: ONE OF THE BEST PICTURE'S EVER
To: Al Telford <alleetelford@yahoo.com>

i couldn't agree with you more. as you may have noted, she's no higher than
4th or 5th on my list.     hillary has more 'balls' than many republicans.

what i'd like to know is how is anyone who voted for bush is in a position
to identify who's smart or not.   your last statement is all the truth we
need. i assume that calling it a "no win situation", you knew, well in
advance of our Selected Acting President ( e.g. SAP for short), that
it wasn't "Mission Accomplished", but Hell on Earth.

As to Hillary, there are any number of issues on which I agree with her,
but, to me, she is "Cheney light", -- just like Cheney, she is way to coy
with her answers, more like an evasion.   take for example her recent
vote (to support this failed administration) that Iran is a current nuclear
threat.   you should like her more than I do.

to be real for a moment, consider that the republicans have shown
they are incapable of selecting a presidential candidate.   i have a
friend from the last decade who blindly insists bush will go down as
one of the greatest.   i don't write to him any more as i consider him
blind to observable data.   so, you will have to get used to it; the
next president will be the Democratic nominee. i didn't vote for
Bill twice, and i consider anyone who voted for bush twice in need
of redemption.   i may be lucky enough to _never_ have to vote
for hillary, but, at the risk of getting you started, there is no
republican candidate worth listening to anymore.

consider mccain. had he been president, we would likely NOT
have had to deal with iraq.   now he supports an indefinite extension
of the troops.   not unlike nixon, who was elected because of
dissatisfaction with LBJs handling of vietnam, who really prolonged
and deepend that conflict. there is no other republican who has
_any_ credibility, huckabee and paul included.    there are plenty
of good republicans out there, all of whom are too smart to get
in the meat-grinder bush has made of presidential politics:   colin
powell would have made a much better president than bush, but
i'll bet you didn't hear how b-c made him the lap-dog who would
do their bidding: they locked the doors of the cabinet meeting
when they told all the others to be there ten minutes early or
get locked out.

and on to rudy g:   as he was leaving the mayors office and
facing an opportunistic mike bloomberg take over, he was heard
to say "there have to be 50 people here who can do the job better
than I". i agree completely, and it's still true.   where i disagree,
why aren't those people running?

as a liberal, i say, rhetorically, "i could be wrong". implicit in
that statement is the challenge: "until you show me some
evidence".   i'm not cowed by your suggestion my "support"
for hillary is evidence of ignorence. take your pick: show me
why, or take the easy alternative: show me why support for
bush isn't!

-=-.. Marty

On Dec 3, 2007 9:44 PM, Al Telford < alleetelford@yahoo.com> wrote:

mickey,when we were in school i thought you were suposed to be smart. if you are for hillery, your not as smart as i thought you were. we dont need a woman leader in this country, at least not her. what we need is a pres. with a pr. of balls and not an oil man. irac is just another viet nam. a no win sit. .
al

2007-11-11T09:33:00.001-05:00

Reagan Was Right!

.. when he said "the government is the problem!" and give him credit for his ability to see the future. His administration "morning in America", gave us the likes of Cheney, Rumsfeld, the Bush family, ... who have given us "government" for the last 7 years (any mirrors breaking?), and nothing but problems. Look for a solution. Just one. Can you think of any? Heck, even Nixon gave us 55 mph, which, at the time did more for our dependence on foreign oil than any effort since!

Your NDT ed repeats his assertion: never has an increase in public cynicism failed to benefit the Republican Party.

The latest cave-in by Sens Schumer and Feinstein on the Mukasey nomination is another low moment in our history. All the discussion about rancor across the political aisle suggests this is a tw0-way street. The recent round (post-Bork) began with the throw up of Clarence Thomas. I blame Joe Biden, then chairing the Senate Judiciary for giving this guy a pass. Talk about greasy slope! While I might support Joe's tri-partite Iraq, and other things, Thomas was the unforgivable sin. As for Schumer and Feinstein, they think they can "build bridges" with this kind of support. That Mukasey wasn't a "loyalist" and shows some competence, he still showed too much political savvy in his hedged answer on waterboarding as torture. Don't even get me started on the administration's offer that "since he hasn't been briefed, how can he know". Let me offer this: First, ask him to tell us what he thinks torture is. Does it comport to the Gonzalez definition: "duress to near death". Somewhere between "Name, Rank, and Serial number", and the electric chair, one could begin to discern elements of torture, to the point of sharing that with Americas elected officials.

So, in the future, I hope a few things happen. Most, that Mukasey's performance comports with the law better than Thomas' hewing to political ideology, and that neither Schumer nor Feinstein need to be reminded that it was their opportunity to prevent the as yet unseen tragedy of another Bush nominee.

Today's Bad News

2007-07-24T20:58:00.001-04:00

Steve, John,

let me share this "fan" mail with you both, and then
individually. the 6:32 out of Linden gives me time to
do a thorough job on the Star Ledger, of which you
both are on my regular stops. today's (7.24) was no
exception. now individually:

Steve,
(from the note i penned on the Donaghy-McGrady
photo under your byline): Your article helped me
understand why I stopped following the NBA at the
end of the season ('64?) in which Hondo stole the
inbound pass at the Gahden. The most I've given
it for 30 yrs is the 4th quarter of any Finals round
elimination game. For me, the basketball season
ends in March.

John,

Agent 86 = 2 * Pres 43! how clever. novel comparisons,
which on reflection aren't a stretch. funny _and_
sad. his latest retreat: "we're here to fight al Queda
in Iraq"! permit an observation: anyone who voted
for Bush twice should be forever disqualified from
voting for president. a few weeks back you noted
it's probably too late to remove B & C from office, and
actually cautioned against it. do you really think we
can last that long? i'm ordering my
"President Pelosi" bumper stickers now.

--
-=-. Marty McGowan mcgowan@alum.mit.edu
Bell: 908 230-3739 IM: yahoo:applemcg
USPS: 24 Herning Ave, Cranford NJ 07016
i work the fop floor of the curved blue building!!!:
http://www.pbase.com/jimmski/image/51996052

p.s. to cc'd Steve Politi and John Farmer of
the Newark Star Ledger

Lets hear about Iran

2007-03-24T13:47:00.001-04:00

I read the email from your friend Marty and found it interesting that your friend wanted to know what Iranians in general think of the current affairs in our country.

While I am no expert or have any academic credentials in political science, but as some one who has been very much affected by politics of our country such as yourself, I tend to keep up and have a natural inclination and obligation to better understand political matters in order to make some sense of the personal tragedy that we endured to answer some lingering questions.

With that being said, my view of the current hostile position of the American government towards Iran and that of Iran to the US government differs from that of the main stream belief that these two "enemies" will have a show down and that they threaten one another for regional power, etc……..

Without going into details on the birth of the "Islamic Government" the involvement of foreign elements in helping to structure this until then unknown form of state titled "Islamic republic"* .I will simply make one suggestion on the current affairs and that is; the rhetoric and the aggressive tone of the Bush administration has been a true blessing for the Iranian government and its current front man Ahamdi Nejad. Iranians are living in the darkest period of their modern history, excepting a very small minority directly tied to the "religious" government. The average person is and has been suffering from a collapsed economy, lack of higher education, high unemployment rate, out of control inflation, extremely poor medical and health care system, wide spread corruption in every branch of government, political, intellectual and cultural repression, over population not too mention a very seriously threatening pollution problem.

Mr. Bush's continuous threats in regards to attacking Iran or sounding off boldly about its nuclear plans, has caused not only the average person on the streets of Tehran to side with his or her government but more interestingly even many Iranians living in exile are acting out of nationalistic fervor and defending the position of the otherwise hated Mullahs against the foreign bully. We have witnessed this through out the course of the history and more recently in the United States itself, when a failing government uses a war or threat of a war (terrorist) to sir up nationalistic movements and create support for its otherwise failed, repressive policies.

Is this just a coincidence? Hardly, when reviewing the events since the occupation of Iraq and installation of the US backed Iraqi government one can not wonder; why is it that almost all of the new ministers and official selected by the Americans have had long standing ties with the current regime in Tehran? And in some cases lived as exiles in Iran during the saddam ruling! Furthermore, why is it that one of the first countries that the US backed Iraqi government established political ties with was Iran! And the first official visit outside by the Iraqi prime minister was to Iran!

Conspiracy theories are one thing, but here we are dealing with raw facts. The "Islamic republic of Iran" was the first of its kind created nearly thirty years ago not by a group of illiterate mullahs out of the holly city of Ghom, but by think tanks in Washington, London, Rome and Tel Aviv.

All one has to do is to look at the map of this region since to see that every secular government has been replaced or is being threatened to be replaced by an "Islamic" government or one heavily influenced by fundamentalist. In the mean time the US has managed to set up a military bases in almost every country in the region, excepting the original bad boy of the Middle East Iran!

*Please read: From "Hostages to Khomeini" available on Amazon used books.

-- from "Anonymous"

Re: You Support our Troops

2007-03-17T22:47:00.001-04:00

Here's a review of that book, (those that are flattering point out the this
McGowan is at a conservative Manhattan institution -- carefully avoiding
the misnomer of a "think tank"):

not the whole story, Billy, August 20, 2004

Reviewer:

T. Martin "mart0063" (kingston, new york United States) - See all my reviews

Suggesting that the press is liberal by looking at journalists is a little like suggesting the automotive industry is left wing by observing the work force. There are, of course, the CEOs and board of directors who decide what to make and how much. In viewing the press Mcgowan ignores the editors and corporate owners who went for Bush 2:1 last election. They of course have the ultimate say in what is reported and those distortions can be, and have been, more pernicious. Moreover, their bias is a market bias that seeks not to offend not because of a liberal bias but because of a bias for the bottom line.

Comment | Was this review helpful to you?

( Report this)

Report this

If Bush is among the "most revered" it will also be "by the fewest # of people".

This man's purpose in life is to raise the stature of 3 republicans of the '20s
(Coolidge, Harding, and Hoover), from "mediocre" to "there was ONE worse".

Bush the First didn't say it, but Reagan did,   "The government IS the problem".
Bush II makes it simple.   "I'm the Problem".

What has puzzled me all these years is your fanatical loyalty to Reagan. The
statement above that he frequently made is absurd.   His next logical step
should have been, "I'd like to fire all the incompetent bureaucrats, but I can't".
Since he was the _chief_ executive, all the incompetents worked for him.
Bush II's job has to make that so-called incompetence visible throughout
the government,   right up to himself.

His one good point last week was recalling something his boy "Al" had
told him, that "Al" wasn't able to remember.

You are on the wrong side of history on this one.   I don't suppose you
caught the votes last week, where Bush wanted to skirt the Freedom
of Information act, as regards his "presidentail library" at SMU?   The
closest he came to getting his way in the House was 310 - 110 against
sealing the records to the public.   Other votes were 390 - 30 AGAINST.
By my count, that's at least 175 republican congressmen (and women)
who don't share your universal acclaim.

I expect the senate to start to swing away from him, too.. as has Norm
(Chameleon) Coleman, who now wants us to believe he is a moderate.
("My 95% bush-aligned vote is a coincidence"). Since the republcans have
a sufficient number of seats up for grabs to loose the filibuster opportunity,
not to mention give the Democrats veto-override power in the unlikely
event we are saddled with another republican president!

Other than your "faith", what evidence can you offer that this guy
is doing a "remarkably brilliant job"?

-=- Marty
p.s. on the "liberal bias" subject, I"'m still trying to figure out if it matters
or not.   You see, everytime i hear it, it's offered as fact, e.g. as if the
observer were stationary.    you will hear more on this later; the data
is coming in!
.

On 3/15/07, EWRONKA@rochester.rr.com <EWRONKA@rochester.rr.com> wrote:

I like your brother's book on Liberal Bias:

http://www.amazon.com/Coloring-News-Crusading-Diversity-
Journalism/dp/1893554287/ref=sr_1_2/103-7913563-2383832?
ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173961608&sr=8-2

I think the obervation of bias in the news is like the observation of
velocity.

If your in a car driving 5 MPH to thge right and looking at a car
driving 25 MPH to the left, Its understandable you see the car as
moving swiftly to the left.

Conversely if your driving 50 MPH to the left and looking at a car
going 25 MPH to the left, it would appear that its actually moving in
the other direction...

As I said it doesn't matter. Its all subjective. I think the press is
free and is where it is for extremely natural reasons, and expect it to
propagate around.

And as for waiting on repudiation by me of Bush & Cheney, I would not
advise you to hold your breath. I believee he is doing a remarkably
brilliant job and believe he will go down in history even more revered
than Reagan or Roosevelt.

Re: Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War

2007-03-17T16:41:00.001-04:00

for the full report, follow the link:

Study Finds Widespread Misperceptions on Iraq
Highly Related to Support for War

Full Report
Questionnaire

A new study based on a series of seven US polls conducted from January through September of this year reveals that before and after the Iraq war, a majority of Americans have had significant misperceptions and these are highly related to support for the war in Iraq.

The polling, conducted by the Program on International Policy (PIPA) at the University of Maryland and Knowledge Networks, also reveals that the frequency of these misperceptions varies significantly according to individuals' primary source of news. Those who primarily watch Fox News are significantly more likely to have misperceptions, while those who primarily listen to NPR or watch PBS are significantly less likely.

....

--
Marty McGowan
24 Herning Ave, Cranford NJ 07016
Mailbox: mcgowan@alum.mit.edu
Shaken, not Stirred: threemartinis.blogspot.com

2006-06-30T07:31:00.000-04:00

Let's Have it Both Ways.

Conservatives, of the neo- variety will have a hard time with this one. Now that Global Warming is no long in need of more data, a silver-lining for the do-nothing crowd had been, "Oh well, the increased carbon dioxide will be good for agriculture. It will increase the food supply".

Today Michael Hawthorne of the Chicago Tribune reports on an article in the journal Science from the University of Illinois. From the Hawthorne article:

But a new study with field tests in Illinois and other spots around the globe is challenging that assumption, suggesting that any increase in crop yields due to the buildup of greenhouse gasses would be modest or nonexistent.

No longer can the radical right hoodwink the rest of us on this one.

After reading the article, I recalled having a thought how the right likes to have it both ways: natural resources are basically inexhaustible, or since resources are limited, I'm not likely to share them. Which is it? If the planet is so endowed we can keep sucking it's fruit at an ever-increasing rate in perpetuity, or realizing the fruits have to be parceled out, I"m making sure me and my heirs are getting the limited share.

The lie is preaching one and acting the other. Conservatives know the resources are limited, which is why they hoard them, and blanch when a Warren Buffet gives 90+% of his wealth away, setting a bad example for the rest of theim. So the "we need more data" chant has been a smoke screen for continued obfuscation, and holding the line on needed reform of how we consume the planet's limited resources.

This latest news from the U of Illinois should strip them of their last shred of their emporer's new clothes.

2006-03-08T18:23:00.000-05:00

Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Port (Deal)

Maybe it's lack of reporting, or even lack of proper objection, but your News' Dark Time wonders why objection to the Dubai Ports ownership of US seaports isn't based on more fundamentally conservative principle: Government Ownership!

The NDT staff is yet to hear one conservative commentator or report of same who objects not to our ports being owned by "an ally of questionable commitment", but rather owned by the government of a foreign power. If one wanted to craft a piece of legislation to distinguish between the previous owner, a British company, and the proposed new owner, one would look no further than the question of state ownership. Have our staunch conservatives thrown in the towel on this one? Imagine if the deal goes through. The selected-acting-president has put himself four-square with the principal of expanded government ownership. Not something your good conservatives want to support, regardless of the preferred head-gear of the owners.

Heck, if our administration wants to sell the ports to a government, why not just buy them for usaCo, a wholly owned (for the moment, anyway) subsidiary of the closely held bushCo? And, while you're at it, give a tax break of equal magnitude to the fat cats who will buy the ports. Would that make it any more difficult to fathom than other tax cuts in the face of spending increases we've learned to expect.

is the current deal going through only because the level of indirection from bushCo to Dubai Ports hasn't been unwound by the so-called major media? Or will a Frist-engineered 45 day "cooling off" period allow the republican hill-mongers to buy the time to sink their paws into some of the loose cash likely to flow?

yes, children (in the voice of Fiorello LaGuardia), that's not grandma under the covers, it's the Big Bad Wolf!

2006-01-27T08:42:00.000-05:00

It's Hillary Time?

With the Molly Ivins un-endorsement of Hillary recently, I've seen quite a bit of pros and cons on Hillary as representative of the Democratic Party, especially her place on the (top of) the 2008 Presidential ticket.

I've opened up the comments, and will try to moderate. Let's hear what you think.

2005-12-08T09:53:00.000-05:00

Why Do We Have any Right?

With the approaching likely execution of Tookie Williams next week, we're hearing lots of commentary on his worthiness for clemency. Gov Schwarzenegger is the only person who needs to make that judgment. I suggest it's not whether Williams is worthy or not, it's whether we, or anyone can makes the judgment. Are we worthy of the role of taking anyone's life so blatantly.

We can avoid the long litany of his crimes and the work Williams has done to steer our young away from the gangs. We can avoid the debate over whether his future anti-gang efforts will compensate for lives he may be responsible for. Rather, we can ask ourselves how, other than our ever-changing laws, we have any right to pass judgment on his, or anyone's life.

2005-12-01T19:00:00.000-05:00

Support our Troops, Here's How:

I've sent a letter with the following points to my Congressman, Mike Ferguson, and Senator, Frank Lautenberg, and Cousin, Nora Slawik, MN House. I'm suggesting, to the extent possible, they advocate the following "modest proposals":

The surviving family of a soldier killed in the line of duty shall pay no income taxes for their life. These include parents, current spouse, current and unborn children.
Any wounded veteran shall have all medical expenses paid for the remainder of their life.
Any veteran of a combat zone shall have all psychiatric expenses covered for the remainder of their life.

I didn't offer this in their letters, but it is very much in the spirit of the late Senator Paul Wellstone. I'll follow up with his sons' organization.

2005-09-12T18:25:00.000-04:00

The Umpire Analogy

Today, in his confirmation hearing, John Roberts offered his role on the Supreme Court (capitalization used advisedly) would be that of a baseball umpire. He specifically alluded to the principal role of the umpire; calling balls and strikes. He, the umpire, is neither the pitcher nor the batter.

Very clever, John. On closer inspection, you chose badly.

Let's look at what the umpire does. Many of us are not aware of the history of umpiring. Until just a few years ago, there were National League and American League umpires. There are two sets of ground rules, the most apparent of which is the "designated hitter": the American League uses it; the National doesn't. Guess which league's games I'd rather watch.

In the last few years, Major League Baseball (MLB) has been slow to reorganize itself. For way too long, the "commissioner" of MLB has been an owner, Bud Selig of the Milwaukee Brewers. This is akin to the prosecutor serving as the judge, not to tread on the baseball - legal metaphors _tooo_ heavily. My agida for Bud Selig is best left to a sports blog, not here. But what remains is my difficulty with the "umpire" analogy. One of the good things "commissioner" Selig did a very few years ago was to break a long-standing tradition of the umpires union and merge the umpires of the two leagues. A strike and rancorous settlement settled the issue.

Do you know what the biggest issue, at least as perceived by this fan was: There were _two_ different versions of the strike zone. It was long apparent to any careful watcher of the game that each league had it's own idea of a ball or strike. Let me tell you what I think the rules say: a pitched ball, any part of which passes over any part of the home plate, above and including the batters knees and below the armpits is a strike; failing this, the pitch is a ball.

This shouldn't be difficult to interpret. But, over the years it seems, the American league took what should be a vertical box (higher that it was wide) and converted it to a horizontal box (wider than high). As an insight to what has happened, watch an American League game, yet today. And look at those pitches just over the batters belt: you can pick them out easily. The catcher doesn't move his glove in the least. It's still often called a high pitch. Sending umpires to one school is clearing up the cross-league incongruity. But, hey folks, let me tell you a secret: Rookies and 2nd year players are asking the veterans, has this ump come up in our league?

So, let's turn this analogy back on John Roberts: which league did you come up in? The one that views individuals as the arbiter or the one that views institutions as such?

If you have some time on your hands, follow this link to umpire Bill McGowan.

2005-09-02T20:56:00.000-04:00

Dear Readers,

( I posted this on the email list last week; since someone observes that 88% of the obese live in red states, I thought I'd support the allegation. )

Today, (8/24/05) tne Newark Star Ledger published an article, listing "Fat American" by state. The table rank orders a state and the percent of the population considered "obese", by the Trust for America's Health. A Body-Mass-Index of 30 (or greater) is considered obese. In full disclosure, your editor flirted with this number last year; now there's no question; i've got obese well in hand, "as they say".

To the data. I then pulled up the Federal Election Commission data for Bush-Gore 2000 (it was easier to find than Bush-Kerry), and calculated Bush's percent of the two candidates vote for each state. Both these data are tabulated on the "states" spreadsheet. The sheet titled "obesity,Bush Vote" is a chart showing the tabulations. The Bush percent is the Y axis, the Obesity is the X axis.

You get a general sense from the data that the more obese you are, the more likely you are to be a Bush voter regardless of the state you live in. Overall, in the US, the number is 30% cooreleation. I guess this says, if you are obese, you are 30% more likely to be a Bush voter.

On closer inspection, there are five states which are almost "off the charts". They show high Bush vote percent, and generally lower obesity. Interestingly, if these states are separated from the rest, their coorelation cooeficient is 94%, nearly a straight line! And these are not co-incident, or scattered around the country. On the "states" sheet, they are identified by a key of 1, from highest obese incidence to lowest: Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Montana, and Colorado. This would testify to a culture which is both more fit and more likey Bush voters. The coorelation for the other states with both data is 64%. If you don't live in the high country, you are nearly two-thirds more likely to be a Bush voter if you are obese.

Please comment, and help me give this some exposure.
-- Marty McGowan The News' Dark Time

2005-07-29T19:02:00.000-04:00

The Last Free Trade Agreement: GIFTA

A few days ago, your NDT editor offered what he thought ws the last name in the plethora of X FTA's: UFTA, prononced "oof -dah". This notice was shared with the aforementioned editor's Minnesota relatives, who along with their quite Scandanavian neighbors, share an appreciation for "oof-dah".

This evening, Mrs "ed", while sharing the horror of the narrow passage of the CAFTA with yours truly offered the best-and-final-name for any of these "Free" trade agreements. Simply, it's:

the Global International Free Trade Agreement, or "GIFTA"

This may be pronounced a variety of ways: Mrs ed suggests "gift - duh", indicating a certain mindlessness on the part of us givers. Ed himself offers Gift A. This suggests a long list of gifts from us to you.

Whatever the interpretation, the name "GIFTA", belongs to Mrs ed, her insight, and the world is now the wiser for what our "leaders" are doing for (to!) us?

2005-07-19T18:13:00.000-04:00

Supreme Court Nominee:

a. woman,
b. minority ( e.g. hispanic )
c. conservative

Sorry folks, she (Linda Chavez) has better things to do.

2005-07-01T18:02:00.000-04:00

Financial Goals

One of the "sponsors" of the PBS News Hour advertises, "there are as many financial objectives as there are people". I beg to differ. I would assert there is only one financial goal: "maximize my net worth at any time, within the limits of my conscience".

In this way, my more modest financial goals are identical to those of, say, Bernie Ebbers.

The difference is not the financial goal, it's the limit of one's conscience.

I offer these insights as the Mrs and I approach the moment of "fixed income". I think we will be comfortable: our social-security-as-a percent-of-retirement-income figure is in the range of 25%. I'd be happier if that figure were lower; I know too many people for whom it's much closer to 100%.

In a side note, Brother Dan, along with other liberal commentators on the latest assault by the Bushites, is that there should be _no_ means testing for social security. The options are either a wellfare program, or, as originally conceived, a social security safety net.

Let's leave it at that. Social security = safety net. The less of that net we rely on, the better.

2005-06-06T18:00:00.000-04:00

Let's call it G-BAY.

You've heard of eBay; heck you may be using it. What I'm proposing here should lock down every remaining letter from A to Z. What is G-Bay?

Why Guantanimo Bay, soon to be widely recognized by its alternate name: Gulag Bay. Ergo G-BAY!

Your editor's father toured G-Bay in the summer of '52, as one of six editors touring the Atlantic, courtesy of the US Navy and the taxpayer. Since Malcolm Forbes was along for star-power, the Navy of those days needn't worry about media scrutiny. And since my dad's biggest organ (news-speak) was the "National Rabbit Raiser" (no kidding), his clout didn't rise to that of Sir Malcolm's.

Flash to the present moment. The current news media is head-in-sand over the allegations of Gulag. St Ronbo defeated the Gulag; they can't be talking about us, can they? Well Virginia, there is a Gulag, and in the words of Pogo, "We've met the Gulag, and the Gulag is US".

Let's go forth from this time and place, and proclaim the vision the world holds: G-Bay, Gulag Bay, or Guantanimo Bay, what ever you call it is the stain on our national ideals.

2005-03-02T16:12:00.000-05:00

Advise and Consent

With typical double-speak, the Republicans, this time Bill Frist, are showing how to redefine the language to suit their ends. Everyone on the right side of the aisle jeered, and many on the left groaned, when Clinton needed to be told the definition of "is". Since it's a simpler word that "consent", one could forgive them for taking issue. One could go philosophical on them and challenge the definition of "being", etc... but it seems pointless in the present redefinition milieu.

When I hear "consent", I think consensus. For nearly 30 years now (make that since the late '70s), I've been involved in one group or another where the word "consensus" was the decision model. Early in that game, I recall learning to arrive at consensus, you had to avoid straw polls, show-of-hands, and certainly ballots. So, for years, the senate has had a few flavors of super-majority votes, as they are want to call them. Either 60 or 66 senators have been, or still are required for these super-majorities. The fuss arises over confirmation of flaming conservative judicial appointments, some of whom have been rejected in Bush's last court-packing attempt. Frist, giving his portrayal of the simple, moral man, "just want[s] an up or down vote". This of course is the simple majority. Simple majorities for simple folks. He thinks a simple majority is consensus. Time to visit the definition of "is", it seems. The "consent" of the senate should approach "consensus", so I'd say, one thing consent is not -- there's that messy "is" again -- is not one vote over half. That is not consensus. Nor consent.

Since we're picking on the whole package, let's dispel the Advise part too. If the senate is to speak with one voice, which it doesn't, its "advice" would be "send us confirmable judges". Failing that, and getting practical, they say things like "If you send us this name, we'll hold up the others. Is that what you want?" It doesn't take a super-majority to do this, rather the complement of the super-majority. We probably need a word for the super-minority! Their advice is delivered in necessarily negative terms. No reasonable person expects the recommendations of the minority to show up on the list of nominees.

So why is the media giving the Republican leadership a pass on their Orwellian twisting of Consent into meaning a simple majority. I'm sure the major media have writers who can make this simple argument much simpler:

Consent ~ Consensus

consensus >> majority

By the way, I think consensus is achieved when those who will always object, the remaining few see a sufficient number of their ideological brethren accede, probably not without some quid for their quo. But consensus is never "one more than half".

2005-02-25T18:23:00.000-05:00

What Changed on 9/11?

Dr Khatemi, brother of the outgoing Iranian president offers this insight about 9/11: What changed on 9/11? Up until that date, the major supporter of repressive regimes was the United States.

This on tonight's News Hour.

One more time: the MAJOR Supporter of REPRSSIVE Regimes in the Middle East up until 9/11 was the United States.

Lest you think this Khatemi is some religious fundamentalist -- like Jerry Fallwell, James Dobson, ... -- think again. This Khatemi is a member of the liberal opposition.

2005-02-21T17:15:00.000-05:00

Here's a nomination for Misleader-1st-Class: Doug Forrester who is papering the airwaves with his ads for the Republican nominee for NJ Governor. You can find him at doug.com.

One note I've picked up from his TV ads, not readily available on his web site, but he notes he build a "family business on cutting drug costs". You'd think this would qualify him for one of the problems of the day -- controlling drug costs. Think again. A business, presumably for profit, that survived by cutting drug costs. Does that mean Doug will be committed to cutting drug costs from the public, not-for-profit sector. I think not. (Imagine Descartes vanishing in a puff of smoke:-) What this does tell us is that while a profit may be made by fighting drug costs, from a New Jersey citizen, no less, someone, somewhere in government is not doing their job.

If Doug were running on a record of cutting future drug costs, I'd still be listening (for other prevarications), but, as it is, this one is disingenuous enough for me to toss him on the too-fat, too-white pile that defines the modern Republican.

2005-02-18T18:17:00.000-05:00

Iran's Nukeular Capability

Contrary to selected acting president bush's assertions, Iran will never have a nukeular weapons capability. To be blunt no one will ever have a nukeular weapons capability. There is no such thing as a nukeular anything.

So long as our illiterate s.a.p. bush insists on trying to describe nuclear power as a nukeular capability, I'll take every opportunity to point out the difficulty I have in following an illiterate. I have this thesis: listen to those who are proponents of the simplistic "west-good, east-evil" view of international politics, and pay particular attention to their attempt at pronouncing nuclear. The word sylabificates: nu - clee -ahr. Those who are most likely in favor of a western control of all aspects of nuclear energy, particularly its use in weapons, have the nauseating habbit of calling it nukeular, sylabificated: nuke - you - lahr. Illiteracy at best.

2005-02-10T18:40:00.000-05:00

Carly, Where Are You?

OK, Carly (Carleton, since her dad was expecting a son!?) is out at HP. Shame, Shame. Someone, somewhere had better connect the names of Rich McGinn and Carly Fiorina. In my short life at AT&T Bell Labs, both these icons of the New Economy were close at hand for many peers. Sadly, it took the higest levels of corporate America to realize the hollow shells these mere suits have been.

In the News Hour piece tonight (2/10/05), they exposed Carly as a marketeer, not an inventor. Hewlett Packard just prides itself as an inventor. Your editor has seen the demise of American intellect at the hands of American marketing from firsthand.

Carly and Rich grew up (corporatley) in an environment that valued the quarterly bottom line. Rich got his a few years ago by promising inflated growth in the face of saturated network technology.l Carly got hers yesterday by promising insight to the face of computing. The News' Dark Time tracked the HPCQ index. History records the value of the stock is less than 50% when she took over. Innovation is a commitment, not a commodity.

Compare the arc of Greek philosophers to their cultural history; contrast that with the history of American invention. We've passed the hump on the curve. The saddle point. It's an opinion. Is it an insight?

2005-01-16T13:10:00.000-05:00

How to Retire Rich.

Yesterday's post anticipated by one day, the New York Times editorial page weighing in on the subject of Social Security reform.

Their conclusion:

Preserving Social Security while increasing savings outside Social Security is a better way to achieve a prosperous retirement.

News to me is the Administration has two proposals on the table to increase investment incentives. The first is a no-cost, no-legislation-required proposal: the IRS can implement a two-account deposit for your tax return, one of which presumably is your savings account. The other was passed in 2001 is an incentive which "offers a matching tax credit for retirement savings by low- and middle-income taxpayers." They peg the total cost at a "relatively modest" $7B. It's yet to be implemented. The cost is of course, less than 10% the amount the Bush administration was willing to shovel to it's biggest contributors.

Read the Editorial.

2005-01-15T22:57:00.000-05:00

It's time to call the Bush proposal to "privatize" Social Security what it is: The Emperor's New Clothes.

The myth of fine garments has been bought by most of the major media, since there is little evaluation of the personal and collective merits or flaws of the plans.

Imagine a future world in such a plan. You are splitting your contribution, say 50-50 between the public and private sectors. Your feelings about the value and necessity of your public contribution are likely the same as they are under the current arrangement. Let's inspect your attitude towards the private sector contribution.

You look at a private-sector Social (??) Security contribution as another form of IRA. But is it the same? Hardly. I may add $3500 to my IRA at my choice. I'm likely to, since at tax time, I can see the value to my bottom line, and importantly, it's my choice. But, now imagine I'm compelled, at federal regulation to "invest" a like amount of money. Do I have a choice. Not likely. Do I have a choice about the public sector contribution? No. Is it possible the private sector choice is optional? If so, I think I'd rather invest the money in an IRA. What is the value added of the federal government in compelled investing? Nothing. Other than to increase contempt for the federal government. That's the real purpose behind this scheme.

This administration has no sense of the "full faith and credit of the federal government". Their object is to diminish, if not eliminate the concept from the public forum.

If the government is really concerned about the less than lustrous savings record of the American Investor, and wanted to do something about it, our leaders would be talking about incentives to increase the average American's average investment.

When the public sees the current proposals are little more than government shoveling money to Sleazy Alley (the one off Wall Street), the awareness will stir the till-now somnambulent voters to action.

Some of the few discussions of the proposals are coming from the opinion pages: Here's a Paul Krugman editorial, The British Evasion in the Times about the failures of the British 20-year experiment with private retirement accounts. He answers one of my questions: some of the value-added will be restrictions on where the investments may be placed. And he adds a reason to why the public confidence in the government management will be further reduced.

Krugman references an illuminating article on the British experience by Norma Cohen in the American Prospect. Apologists for privatization will be left only with the theological argument after reading this article.

Not to overlook the American PAC, here's MoveOn.Org's take on privatization, where they ask, "What's the Rush, the Need, the Prospects for guaranteed benefits, and a few other pertinent points.

Where's the news, especially the fashion reporters who should be inspecting the Bush administration's social security garment?

2004-11-22T18:51:00.000-05:00

This evening, the News Hour is reviewing the Artest-Jackson-Wallace fracas in Detroit last Friday night. Jack McCallum (SI), Greg Anthony (ESPN), and Ray (NHr) are going over the causes and effects of the fight which broke out at the Pacers-Pistons basketball game.

Greg Anthony, former (NY) Knick presciently observed that if you were at work and someone threw racial epithets and beer at you, they would likely be subject to civil, if not criminal action. He certainly was not defending Ron Artest and his teammate Jackson, who both went into the stands to take on fans, but, is pointing out the justice needs to be handed out across the out-of-bounds line. It's quite interesting; "Ed" and "Mrs Ed" were out buying sneakers of a confidential size on Saturday A.M. at the local "ya gotta go ta ...'s" store. There, as she tried on her third pair was a previoiusly taped story from two of the local AM sports-talk racket in a slick journal touting the local snearker company's ware. They were on to the violence on the sports scene, of which the latest episode will take on pre-eminent postion. The debate, pro-or-con, was cages for fans. I'm on the con side of this one. Though, in terms of where the blame lies, I'm on the "pro-fan" side. Though before you think I'd cave for the money, it seems inconceivable someone who's making 10,000 times my imaginary limit would have any need to cross the out-of-bounds line to take on someone who's biggest decision in life is betweeen Bud and Miller lite. (We assume he's already duped into the Bush choice). So, my only conclusion is that money can't buy your restraint, given sufficient provocation. Which further underscores the depth of the pent up hatred over, say racial issues. No amount of dinero could, I guess, keep me from flattening the nose of a racist pig who threw the N-word and the remains of a pint in my face.

This is not about justification; it's about responsibilty. Every time a person hurls a racial epithet over the railing, I'm hurt. (I say this as one who did at the '64 MO-MN football game when an MN halfback fumbled a kickoff on our 5 yard line).

This is not a message of hope. Some recent reading of Spong tells me to be patient. Or more likely, allow for a worsening of the human condition as respect for God evaporates in the face of evidence a good deal of our former faith was misplaced. Searching for it in the storm will be challenging.

2004-11-06T09:30:00.000-05:00

I was horrified this morning on waking to the rarely-watched TV news, reflecting on my post of yesterday, it could easily be construed to support the recent Democratic Leadership Council style of 'middle-of-the-road' . Such is not my wish.

Also, last night on "Bill Moyer's NOW", Christopher Edley, Dean of the UC Berkeley Law school was cautioning against just such a reaction. As we go back over the pass to reconnect with the wagon train, let's not camp safely within the circle. We have to move them over the mountain. Sharing with them the dangers of crossing, but also the hope of the fertile valleys on the other side. While we're at it, we have to allow that some will be perfectly happy to camp where they are now. It shouldn't be an affront to us who see the need to move on.

Edley was prepared to allow the moral issues to come in to the agenda of the left. On this one, our view should be "we are standing among you, let's go in this direction", rather than "come on, over here". Today's Newark Star Ledger offers a cartoon. The Bush caricature standing on the bank of a chasm, with hundreds of flanking supporters holds out a hand and says "I'm reaching out to you ... JUMP!". This is directed at an equally large crowd on the other side, a few with donkey ears. The bottom is not in sight; the width appears beyond any broad jump record!

2004-11-05T20:05:00.000-05:00

To my LiberalsLikeChrist, I offer this assessment of the election this week: if we liberals (like Christ) want to prevail in future elections, we have to do that most Christ-like thing, and surrender our issue for the other person's issue. There should be little detectable self-interest in our advocacy. While we're at it, we can rightly ask what the other person is surrendering of their self-interest.

I've just started reading "Imperial Hubris" by Anonymous (who has 20+ years in the security of the USofA). He chastens our leaders for being blind on the motives of our south Asian adversaries. We liberals are as misunderstanding of the needs of our own country, as our leaders are misunderstanding of the needs of Afghanistan and Iraq.

This may be controversial, but it's now time to "turn our back" on some of those social issues which tend to divide, and pray we can work our agenda when we regain the popular platform.
Otherwise, to the rest of the nation, we're just another cadre of "Nader's Raiders". It's time to lead the wagons from the same side of the mountain, not as we have been doing, by being over the next pass, if not continental divide. We _can_ wait for the wagon train to catch up, or admit we've shirked our duty and have crossed "the pass too far" for the rest of the wagon train. Unless we return to the train, we'll find out they've selected a new wagonmaster, whose scouts are out in the prarie grass surrounding the wagon train.

This metaphor is purposeful.

2004-10-23T13:59:00.000-04:00

The News' Dark Time

2004-06-18T23:07:00.000-04:00

The 100th issue of The News' Dark Time is now
on the news stands:
http://www.newsdarktime.com

While much is happening to disgust us on the
news we are receiving, this issue concludes
the review of Prof Kenneth Miller of Brown U
tolk on Evolution at Unino County College in
April.

"Culture Wars?" says who??

2004-04-13T16:47:00.000-04:00

A new issue, # 99 !!! is on the stands at:

http://www.newsdarktime.com

Part II (of what looks like III) of a review of Prof Kenneth R Miller, of Brown University, talking "Time to Abandon Darwin?: Evolution vs Intelligent Design.

A telling talk for those of us who are proponents of science education.

2004-04-09T22:14:00.000-04:00

The current issue of the News' Dark Time reports on a talk given last night (Thu, 4/8) by Dr Kenneth Miller, of Brown Univ. His subject: "Time for Darwin? Evolution vs Intelligent Design". Your editor is at once, as Dr Miller, a practicing Roman Catholic, _and_ a supporter of the teaching of evolution. Miller pointed out you can't each biology without teaching evolution. It's the centerpice of any theory of the diversity of species on the planet.

Read the review, over two issues, numbers 98 and 99 (the latter pending at this post).

2004-03-28T11:23:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, Patty and I, along with son Chip, and friends Bill and Susan attended the new Tim Robbins play, Embedded. As the title suggests, it portrays the activities of the journalists "embedded" with the US forces in the Iraq war. Since I'm not a theater critic, let this be a report of what we saw.

The play will not win any souls to the anti-war cause, but may alert some to how news is managed. It is preaching to the converted.

Embedded features an ensemble cast, with each cast member playing two or three roles. The scenes are set on a stage without curtains, with changes managed by lighting. There are four types of scene. The most memorable are six figures sitting in a triangle, with the Cheny figure sitting highest, with the corresponding Wolfowitz and Pearle below, and with (apparently?) Powell, Rice and Rumsfeld (Rum-Rum) seated in the lowest level. They never look at one another, just have
this dialogue with themselves and the audience on how they are going to manage public perceptions. A compelling
feature of this scene is the masks the players wear to both hide their identity, yet give emphasis to the expressions
made with their eyes and mouths.

This scene is interspersed with three other types of scenes reflecting the home front and/or split scenes with soldiers and loved ones reading each other's mail, scenes of the "front", and the journalists. The play traces events from just before the war (how do we justify it), it's early uncertainty on the road to Bagdahd, to just after victory was declared. (The playbill says Oct '02 - June '03). It includes vignettes with a soldier shooting and killing a whole family, the Jessica Lynch episode (ala Saving Private Ryan), and forcefully, the thrall that journalists were held in to "report" the news, "Never call them
US troops -- it's ``coalition forces''" A few reporters take the chance of questioning their work. One knows well how to work the system, and most sway to the rhythm of the military briefers.

The play is set against a backdrop with flashing stills and movie clips from WWII, ... where the presidential advisers are paying homage to Leo Strauss, (1899-1973) who the program identifies as "the celebrated philosopher-king of the neoconservatives, {who} was a classicist and philosophy professor at the University of Chicago where he taught the works of Plato, Machiavelli, Nietzsche, and Hobbes."

From the Playbill notes on Strauss:

"Strauss believed that democracy, however flawed, was best defended by an ignorant public pumped up on nationalism and religion. Only a militantly nationalistic state could deter human aggression, and since most people were naturally self-absorbed and hedonistic, Strauss blieved that the only way to transform them was to make them love their nation enough to die for it. Such nationalism requires an external threat -- and if one cannot be found, it must be manufactured.

-- Kitty Clark"

Embedded is playing at The Public Theatre, 425 Lafayette
St, Manhattan.

2004-03-11T19:14:00.000-05:00

The News' Dark Time turns Two Years Old tomorrow, 3/12/04.

One year ago, the times were getting darker as the Bush illlegitimacy was taking us closer to their destiny with Iraq. We're waiting for John Kerry to tell us how he (if not duped) thought his vote in favor of "action" wasn't giving the Carte Blanche to the most corrupt group to occupy the White House since Nixon.

(If you're going to vote on something, make sure it's a declaration of war, or not)

Your editor, on this anniversary is now tending to the children of Newark, Hillside, and Elizabeth, New Jersey, as a Mathematics Teacher at the Benedictine Academy (in Elizabeth). Our (just short of 200) students are all young ladies. It is generous to use the term "lady", since many of them are still struggling with an adolescence which barely takes them out of their youth, if not infancy. The tragedy we see at BA is the absence of leadership in the home, stemming directly from a lack of leadership in the community at large. The two most obvisous being the church and the state.

We adults have produced a stable of so-called leaders who equivocate at every turn. "I didn't {inhale, lie, ...}" Pick your president. Business schools are starting to offer courses in ethics, after the cows are out of the barn. Money is in charge. My church, the Catholic church, has bishops who don't know their flocks, some of whom are beginning to understand the violence they have done to the message of peace and love. It's a sad day when the voices of hope are the few secular institutions which aren't afraid of the liberal label, and struggle to maintain a diverse dialogue.

In the classroom, I'm not without the charges of racism: "you only call out the black girls", when discipline is needed. Possibly. Many hypotheses are possible. While I'm mindful of the charge, and instructed by it, I'm aware of its other causes: a very few young ladies may be from family situations so wounded by encounters with white authority there is nothing one can do in the moment but pay the bill. adam's sin, as it were. to the extent our civil and religious leaders are working for their constituents, and not the larger constituency, we are ill served. i don't fault the adolescent; i don't even fault their adults. i don't even fault "the system". but...

I do find fault with those who inhabit the most visible roles in this system who use _every_ moment to curry their supporters, as opposed to challenge those same supporters. I fault all of us who inhabit any leadership position, however small, who fail to challenge our own commitment to the neediest among our charges. In each of my six classes, there is at least one student who knows where my hot buttons are. A friend at St Helen's, Bob H, has me praying for my students. It's working. While I can't see any visible change in specific students, nor measure it in myself, I can perceive a change in my need to react to any individual student's irritation of the moment.

Your editor has a few high principles:

+ never give advice,
...
+ never trust a friend who won't sacrifice a principle for you, ..

"Let me prove how completely trustworthy I am by sacrificing a high principle and give you some advice".

2004-02-21T16:19:00.000-05:00

The current issue of the News Dark Time is on the streets:

To Be a Republican
study of bush psyche
Things you have to believe to be a Republican

2004-02-07T16:36:00.000-05:00

What Free Speech Means to Me

My opinions are my own.

In a free and just society:
I am not compelled to reveal them,
nor may my opportunity to share them be withheld.

A government may not infringe on my personal liberty
as a result of them, nor may it reward me in any way
for expressing them.

The government has the obligation to keep communications channels:
a. from being monopolized by anyone or any organization, and
b. economically and ideologically competitive.

2004-02-06T06:44:00.000-05:00

Alterman and Green
on Bush's use of the truth:

"He has such a high regard for the truth,
he uses it sparingly"

-- A Lincoln

2004-02-05T23:33:00.000-05:00

Found this site on the Web.

Al Eisle is the Editor of The Hill News

looks like _excellent_ up to date news of the sort
the NDT just _loves_.

e.g. Billy Tauzin (R, LA), former Democrat, is hanging it up
as chair of the Telecom committee, to take a seven, count-em
seven figure job as a lobiest for the drug industry.

now why would anyone object to that? might it have to do
with his recent inside work in behalf of the so-called
medicare prescription bill!?

2004-02-01T15:13:00.000-05:00

Without other announcement, the NDT has two new issues out:
+ 94 -- Healthcare??
+ 95 -- Vice Mis Leader !

Also featured is the link to this afternoon's CNN showing of MoveOn's Bush in 30 seconds, and a letter from reader Maria Johnson in the state of TX about the state of justice there.

Let's declare today the official opening of the political season (Since the Soup/Hype -uh er bowl has held our attention until now). Since the NDT supported Dr Dean (NDT #85, 7/15/03) long before our NJ Gov McGreevey jumped on the bandwagon, we'll not be throwing in the towel just yet. Letters we receive from the now-Trippiless campaign tell us to hold out through the Wisconsin primary. For sure. But let's waste no time exposing the hollow shell (or is it suit?) we have sitting in the White House. To that end, the NDT is going to take Gary Hart's next-to-last good idea, and "build down" our list of links (column 3) to feature those doing the best job of exposing the current emporer in his new clothes.

2004-01-30T15:51:00.000-05:00

This morning our students went up the street about a mile to the regional food bank for No Central NJ. We sorted canned goods, drinks, cereals, pasta, ... The need is great. What amazes me is not only the vast amount of stuff that needs moving, but that there
are people in sufficient need to consume all this stuff.

To visualize what volunteers do in a place like this, imagine capillary action in your blood system. There is one long table, 40-50 yards
in parallel with an assembly line roller tray. The students find one of four prinicpal jobs: first, scooping boxes, cans, bottles, ...
the food stuffs out of large 4' x 4' x 4' crates/cartons they have come in on. there is no order to the cartons or contents. they girls
in this job simply set the stuff up on the long table, starting to impose some order on their stuffs. At this point, the ultimate desitnation is worth noting: there are 15 pallet stations beyond the roller assembly station. Each station will receive a particular king of commodity:
kitchen paper, water and bottled drinks, canned drinks, canned fruit, pasta and beans, ... haba (Heath and Beauty Aids!) ... The second joib is the skill poisition: collecting the stuffs on the table and finding an appropriate box or carton floating down the assembly line. The third job is simply moving the nearly filled carton from the assembly line to the pallet area. A job in limited demand is the setting the
newly opened boxes at the head of the line.

It was most interesting to watch the young ladies find their niche in the process. We were guided in by four strapping young men, one stressing "safety", like where the fire exits were, ... With some prodding from him, the girls started taking their positions, and the process began to flow! There were on the order of 150 of us there, including 12-15 faculty and administration. For the better part of two hours we moved the food.

Our day was kicked off by the diocesan director of Catholic Community Services, who is not directly connected to the Food Bank, but is really the diocesan, or 4 county co-ordinator for the 75 local food banks, who are the member distributors. Imagine a request, "I need 8 cases of tomato and pasta sauce." She noted in her 20 years in the position, with some sadness, the growth in the need for their services.

I felt the girls "got it". Some will continue to.

2004-01-28T09:15:00.000-05:00

It's Wednesday a.m. 11" of snow here in the Nor East, and school for
today was called off last night. The NDT is carrying a new button in
support of MoveOn.Org's campaign to expose Bush's dedt dumping.
Where is he dumping it? On your and my children, theirs, and ...?

As you may or may not know, MoveOn.Org opened their doors to
anyone who could put together a cogent 30-second TV spot, conducting
a contest to air the best commercial on the Super Bowl. You probably
also saw some of the RWC (that's Right Wing Conspiracy, if you didn't
know) attack on the MoveOn.Org effort. Within a day or two of opening
the campaign, the RWC was claiming MoveOn.Org was calling Bush a Nazi,
linking him to the third Reich, ... While there is plenty of evidence
in support of Bush family money coming from those vile sources, the
MoveOn.Org effort was clearly about today and tomorrow. As a subscriber,
"Ed" saw the first contest entries, and spotted the eventual winner
pretty early on.

It depicts children, non seemingly over ten yrs, working in blue collar
jobs. At the end, a caption comes on, showing you "Who'se going to
pay for the Bush budget excesses". Go to the link and see for
yourself.

The current campaign is to shame CBS into eventually airing the ad.
Their stated reason to deny the ad is it detracts from the festive
atmosphere. An equally likely scenario is that other big sponsors
have requested their ads not be shown in the same commercial break.
But that would just be guessing? "Ed" doesn't have the kind of
loose change it takes to talk to those people.

Meanwhile, the snow awaits...

2004-01-25T17:31:00.000-05:00

Welcome to the Web Log for the News' Dark Time
(http://www.newsdarktime.com)
We hope you will take advantage of this space to
report on "Some of the News That's not Fit to Print."

Whatever the reasons, some of which must be apparent
we live in a place and time where many thinking people
know we aren't being delivered
"All the News That's Fit to Print"

2004-01-25T15:00:00.000-05:00

Greetings, loyal readers of The News' Dark Time. Those of you who are interested in "reporting" for the NDT, please feel free to write me. I've opened up a weblog on blogger.com,
"newsdarktime", of course where I'm inviting you to post your rants against the dark in which we live. Your editor is particularly interested in stories where you feel you have evidence the news you receive has been spun by your news source. (Not that we won't spin news here, but, we feel, in reaction to the major outlets.)

Mind you, there are plenty of sites who are on top of the alternate news. My favorites are Alternet.org and CommonDreams. What we are looking for is what the news business has
for years been called "page six" material. You'd be surprised what you will find on the page six of your hometown paper.

The proximate cause of my opening this blog is the current issue of Wired, where Glenn Reynolds lists his Top Ten Blogs, a few of which I'm also interested in, a few not. Notably, The New York Times itself, and "my inbox", but also kausfiles and Howard Kurtz.

Enough for now, I'll be linking both ways to/from The News' Dark Time.