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

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

 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

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)

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

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

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

Supreme Court Nominee:

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

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