The news Friday that AT&T is moving its corporate headquarters to Dallas is a huge blow to San Antonio’s self esteem. AT&T was San Antonio’s crown jewel upon which all of our corporate expansion and promotional efforts were built.
This is a black eye that will haunt our community for years to come. We have been used, spurned and cast-off. It will take a long time for us to get our confidence back up again.
The spin right now that it is only 700 jobs that will be leaving while 5,300 are staying is ridiculous. First off, only a fool would still believe a damn thing that AT&T has to say anymore. There is no guarantee that those 5,300 jobs will stay here permanently. The queen bee is leaving the hive and you can expect that the worker drones will be migrating to follow very shortly.
AT&T’s new CEO Randall Stephenson has made it clear that he does not think San Antonio is good enough for the suits that run his company. All the high-paying corporate executives are moving to the bourgeoisie city of Dallas leaving just some worker drones behind in the proletariat city of San Antonio. That is the message we got on Friday.
This may just be wishful thinking, but I think this may turn out to be a bad move for AT&T in the long-run. Their carefully crafted image as a “good ol’ boy” company from West Texas (with the voice of San Antonio-native Tommy Lee Jones in all their ads) has just been shot full of holes. Now they are just another vagabond corporation with no roots looking for the biggest tax abatements from the city most willing to kiss their rearends.
Good riddance and here is hoping that the Alamo City can recover quickly.
To paraphrase Davy Crockett:
"AT&T can go to hell, I'm going to Texas"
Monday, June 30, 2008
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Bang, Bang, Shoot, Shoot
I’m actually kind of relieved that the Supreme Court ruled the way it did on the D.C. gun ban.
If the decision had gone the other way, it would surely have thrown every rightwing gun nut into a state of hysteria and would probably have devolved into a huge, ugly issue during the fall campaign.
Instead, guns will probably become a non-issue in the campaign now that the court has basically affirmed what most people already accepted - that the 2nd Amendment gives people the right to own a gun.
That has never been an issue with me. Instead, it has been about how far out of whack some extremists try to push that “right” to the point where we have people walking the streets with sub-machine guns and cop-killer bullets.
I don’t know anything about the D.C. crime situation, but I doubt that the gun ban was very effective in reducing crime and I don’t think that the court’s decision today will make much of a difference in that respect one way or another. Rather, it will take some of the pressure off of gun control advocates who never wanted a complete ban in the first place, and it takes some of the steam out of the extremist faction of the NRA which has used the specter of the government taking people’s guns away to fool them into voting against their social and economic interests.
If the decision had gone the other way, it would surely have thrown every rightwing gun nut into a state of hysteria and would probably have devolved into a huge, ugly issue during the fall campaign.
Instead, guns will probably become a non-issue in the campaign now that the court has basically affirmed what most people already accepted - that the 2nd Amendment gives people the right to own a gun.
That has never been an issue with me. Instead, it has been about how far out of whack some extremists try to push that “right” to the point where we have people walking the streets with sub-machine guns and cop-killer bullets.
I don’t know anything about the D.C. crime situation, but I doubt that the gun ban was very effective in reducing crime and I don’t think that the court’s decision today will make much of a difference in that respect one way or another. Rather, it will take some of the pressure off of gun control advocates who never wanted a complete ban in the first place, and it takes some of the steam out of the extremist faction of the NRA which has used the specter of the government taking people’s guns away to fool them into voting against their social and economic interests.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
The Big Payoff
Exxon-Mobil’s political investments these past 18 years paid off in spades today as the Republican-dominated Supreme Court slashed the oil behemoth’s punitive damages from the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill by $2 billion.
Since 1990, Exxon has made nearly $10 million in political contributions with about 86 percent of that going to Republicans.
That means a $10 million investment just got a $2 billion payoff today. That’s a pretty good ROI (return on investment). And that is not counting any of the other benefits that Exxon-Mobil has soaked up these past dozen years of Republican rule with their tax breaks and stratospheric gas prices.
Here is a reminder of what the Exxon Valdez oil spill wrought:
The Supreme Court on Wednesday reduced a $2.5 billion punitive damages award against energy giant Exxon for its role in an infamous 1989 maritime oil spill off the coast of Alaska.
The high court concluded punitive damages should roughly match actual damages from the environmental disaster, which were about $507 million.
Since 1990, Exxon has made nearly $10 million in political contributions with about 86 percent of that going to Republicans.
That means a $10 million investment just got a $2 billion payoff today. That’s a pretty good ROI (return on investment). And that is not counting any of the other benefits that Exxon-Mobil has soaked up these past dozen years of Republican rule with their tax breaks and stratospheric gas prices.
Here is a reminder of what the Exxon Valdez oil spill wrought:
Thousands of animals died immediately; the best estimates include 250,000 to as many as 500,000 seabirds, at least 1,000 sea otters, approximately 12 river otters, 300 harbour seals, 250 bald eagles, and 22 orcas, as well as the destruction of billions of salmon and herring eggs.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
The Terror Advantage
Charlie Black, a prominent McCain campaign advisor, recently acknowledged that a terrorist attack on the United States would benefit Republican efforts to hold onto the White House this fall.
One has to wonder then, in light of this, as to the real reason why the Bush administration has failed so miserably at capturing Osama bin Laden. If, as Charlie Black says, it would boost Republicans’ electoral prospects to have another terrorist attack, or even the threat of a terrorist attack, then it would seem to be awfully convenient to still have the No. 1 international terrorist on the loose as the election is underway.
It has been noted that “fighting terrorism” is the only remaining issue where polls show that Republicans still have an advantage over their Democratic adversaries. Do you think that might have raised some concerns high up in the administration that if bin Laden were to be captured and/or killed that it would become that more difficult to make “terrorism” a top concern for voters?
I’m reminded of these lyrics from Weird Al Yankovic’s Star Wars parody song “Yoda”:
Personally, I like to believe that the Bush administration isn’t really that twisted. It is much nicer to just continue believing that their failure to capture or kill bin Laden is due to their gross incompetence.
An adviser to Sen. John McCain apologized Monday for saying a terrorist attack on the United States would be "a big advantage" for the Republican presidential candidate....
In a Fortune interview, posted on the magazine's Web site Monday, Black said the Arizona senator demonstrated his fluency in foreign policy and security matters following the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto in December.
Bhutto's killing was an "unfortunate event," he said, but McCain's "knowledge and ability to talk about it reemphasized that this is the guy who's ready to be commander-in-chief. And it helped us."
Asked if McCain would stand to benefit from a terrorist attack on U.S. soil, Black answered, "Certainly it would be a big advantage to him."
One has to wonder then, in light of this, as to the real reason why the Bush administration has failed so miserably at capturing Osama bin Laden. If, as Charlie Black says, it would boost Republicans’ electoral prospects to have another terrorist attack, or even the threat of a terrorist attack, then it would seem to be awfully convenient to still have the No. 1 international terrorist on the loose as the election is underway.
It has been noted that “fighting terrorism” is the only remaining issue where polls show that Republicans still have an advantage over their Democratic adversaries. Do you think that might have raised some concerns high up in the administration that if bin Laden were to be captured and/or killed that it would become that more difficult to make “terrorism” a top concern for voters?
I’m reminded of these lyrics from Weird Al Yankovic’s Star Wars parody song “Yoda”:
I know Darth Vader’s really got you annoyed
But remember, if you kill him, then you’ll be unemployed
Personally, I like to believe that the Bush administration isn’t really that twisted. It is much nicer to just continue believing that their failure to capture or kill bin Laden is due to their gross incompetence.
Monday, June 23, 2008
George Carlin
Along with Steve Martin, Robin Williams and Richard Pryor, you can blame George Carlin for the evolution of my sense of humor. Even though I’ve never been a big fan of foul language, you couldn’t help but crack up when Carlin went through his expanded list of “the words you can’t say on TV” in one of his HBO comedy specials back in 1983-84.
Those early 80s HBO specials are what I remember most about Carlin. I was too young to have appreciated his breakout in the early 70s, so I caught him during one of first revivals when I was in high school and college.
I still have a cassette tape recording I made of one of his HBO specials using a handheld tape recorder held up to my TV. Funny stuff. He will be missed.
Update
Ann has a video from one of his most politically charged routines. Wingnuts beware!
Friday, June 20, 2008
Term Limits are Teh Stupid
San Antonio has the most insane term limits restrictions of any municipality in the nation, to the best of my knowledge. Two two-year terms and you’re out. That means the entire city council is automatically rotated out every four years whether they are doing a good job or not.
Thus we are always stuck with an inexperienced city council with no collective memory of things that have gone on before. Therefore, council members have to rely on the city staff for its experience and collective memory to get things done.
Why would we do this to ourselves? Do we like having a city government run by entrenched bureaucrats who do not have to answer to the voters? Because that is effectively what we have now. Whose bright idea was this?
Well, it was partly this reactionary group that got the ball rolling at the behest of this looney bird.
But the real question is whether we are going to continue to listen to these knuckledragging morons, or are we going to at least take some minimal steps to correct the situation.
I think having four two-year term limits is ridiculous, counter-productive and undemocratic. But at least it is better than what we currently have.
The term limits rule has been disenfranchising San Antonio residents by making our elected council members weak and unresponsive to their constituents.
And as this study noted it has even depressed voter participation in city elections.
Lack of political efficacy. What does that mean? It means the power or capacity to produce a desired effect (i.e. effectiveness). So our city government is less effective as a result of term limits. I guess there are some who would think this is a good thing, but they would be wrong.
Can you imagine anyone advocating that a business be run in this fashion? Every four years the CEO and his entire executive team is kicked out and replaced with new people who have no experience. Sound like a good plan? Would you invest in that kind of company?
Thus we are always stuck with an inexperienced city council with no collective memory of things that have gone on before. Therefore, council members have to rely on the city staff for its experience and collective memory to get things done.
Why would we do this to ourselves? Do we like having a city government run by entrenched bureaucrats who do not have to answer to the voters? Because that is effectively what we have now. Whose bright idea was this?
Well, it was partly this reactionary group that got the ball rolling at the behest of this looney bird.
But the real question is whether we are going to continue to listen to these knuckledragging morons, or are we going to at least take some minimal steps to correct the situation.
I think having four two-year term limits is ridiculous, counter-productive and undemocratic. But at least it is better than what we currently have.
The term limits rule has been disenfranchising San Antonio residents by making our elected council members weak and unresponsive to their constituents.
And as this study noted it has even depressed voter participation in city elections.
The implementation of city council term limits in San Antonio since 1991 is clearly associated with lower voter participation in municipal elections turnout. Lower voter participation rates are particularly evident in inner city council districts, while council districts 8, 9 and 10 voters participate in high numbers. In addition, over the period examined, voter registration rates have increased while Spanish surname rates have remained relatively consistent. Overall levels of political efficacy have increased but rates for Mexican Americans and African Americans remain low relative to Anglos. Finally, some members of council have resigned from office to pursue other private and public sector interests rather than complete terms.
The relative competitive nature of city council and mayoral elections in the 1980s called for a greater mobilization of voter effort ("get out the vote" campaigns) and, as a result, seem to have produced a higher turnout rate. With terms limits, municipal elections in the City of San Antonio have witnessed fewer intensive voter mobilization efforts and subsequently lower turnout. Less competitive elections are also associated with less interest, lower levels of participation and lack of political efficacy.
Lack of political efficacy. What does that mean? It means the power or capacity to produce a desired effect (i.e. effectiveness). So our city government is less effective as a result of term limits. I guess there are some who would think this is a good thing, but they would be wrong.
Can you imagine anyone advocating that a business be run in this fashion? Every four years the CEO and his entire executive team is kicked out and replaced with new people who have no experience. Sound like a good plan? Would you invest in that kind of company?
Thursday, June 19, 2008
McCain the stealth candidate
John McCain slipped into San Antonio the other day for a private fundraiser at the San Antonio Country Club and raked in a reported $1.3 million.
It never ceases to amaze me that there are people out there who can drop $10,000 in a moment’s notice for something like this. But San Antonio is a big city (7th largest in the U.S.) and all you have to do is drive around some of the ritzy neighborhoods to get an idea about just how much wealth is out there.
So I’m not sure if $1.3 million was a good haul for McCair or if it was just chickenfeed. But one that is sure is that if you couldn’t afford to drop $10,000 in McCain’s hat, then you were probably unaware that he was even in San Antonio. There was no advance notice, no public appearances and the McCain campaign gave short shrift to the local media.
That was evident from the story that ran this morning. It was a fine story considering the reporter had no access to the candidate or any of the people attending the fundraiser. The only person quoted in the piece is John Larson, the Republican county commissioner who is running for Congress against Ciro Rodriguez. At least he respects the power of the local media.
Since the McCain folks wouldn’t acknowledge the local press, they got a crappy story, at least from their perspective it was crappy.
Since the reporter had 25 inches to fill and no one to talk to, she filled it with whatever she could find. That turned out to be a YouTube video blasting McCain for flipflopping on the windfall profits tax and an interview with Democratic State Sen. Leticia Van de Putte blasting McCain for associating with poor old Clayton Williams who is still getting grief over his stupid rape joke 18 years after it blew the tires off of his gubernatorial campaign.
She also took the time to note that McCain’s moronic anti-earmarks stance would leave the San Antonio River Improvements Project high and dry.
I’m sure the McCain people probably weren’t happy with the story, but that’s what you get when you fail to take advantage of the local press. If they had given the reporter just a smidgen of access to the candidate, I’m sure she would have filled the story up with his quotes and the story might have had more prominent play to boot.
Maybe next time they’ll learn.
It never ceases to amaze me that there are people out there who can drop $10,000 in a moment’s notice for something like this. But San Antonio is a big city (7th largest in the U.S.) and all you have to do is drive around some of the ritzy neighborhoods to get an idea about just how much wealth is out there.
So I’m not sure if $1.3 million was a good haul for McCair or if it was just chickenfeed. But one that is sure is that if you couldn’t afford to drop $10,000 in McCain’s hat, then you were probably unaware that he was even in San Antonio. There was no advance notice, no public appearances and the McCain campaign gave short shrift to the local media.
That was evident from the story that ran this morning. It was a fine story considering the reporter had no access to the candidate or any of the people attending the fundraiser. The only person quoted in the piece is John Larson, the Republican county commissioner who is running for Congress against Ciro Rodriguez. At least he respects the power of the local media.
Since the McCain folks wouldn’t acknowledge the local press, they got a crappy story, at least from their perspective it was crappy.
Since the reporter had 25 inches to fill and no one to talk to, she filled it with whatever she could find. That turned out to be a YouTube video blasting McCain for flipflopping on the windfall profits tax and an interview with Democratic State Sen. Leticia Van de Putte blasting McCain for associating with poor old Clayton Williams who is still getting grief over his stupid rape joke 18 years after it blew the tires off of his gubernatorial campaign.
She also took the time to note that McCain’s moronic anti-earmarks stance would leave the San Antonio River Improvements Project high and dry.
I’m sure the McCain people probably weren’t happy with the story, but that’s what you get when you fail to take advantage of the local press. If they had given the reporter just a smidgen of access to the candidate, I’m sure she would have filled the story up with his quotes and the story might have had more prominent play to boot.
Maybe next time they’ll learn.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
The Vanquished
As commenter IK noted in the previous thread, I have recently taken to commenting at BeldarBlog, a right-wing blog run by an attorney based in Dallas. Beldar has been a most gracious host so far. At least, he hasn’t banned me from the site yet.
It is kind of sad that I am forced to go to a Dallas-based blog to find someone to debate the issues with, but alas it seems that I have vanquished most all of the conservative blogs here in San Antonio. (With the exception of But, that’s just my opinion. Hang in there, JimmyK!)
There once was a thriving rightwing blogger community here in the Alamo City. We had Insane Antonio, now abandoned. Another site called Raving Heretic, also abandoned. There was the Ranting Raven’s A View From the Nest, now in retirement. There was Ben’s World, by a St. Mary’s University law student who I presume has now graduated. There was Tex the Pontificator, also retired. And, of course, there was Bill Crawford (aka Alamo City Commando) and his All Things Conservative site, the big daddy of them all. The Commando is now AWOL and no one will acknowledge what happened to him. I like to think that he finally got the courage of his convictions and volunteered for military service in Iraq.
Finally, there is Conservative Dialysis by my friend Nick, but his last post more than a week ago may have been his coda. A comment I left there a week ago has yet to be approved.
Fortunately, the liberal blogging community in San Antonio is thriving. In addition to my humble abode which has been around for more than five years now, we still have the The Agonist, the longest running blog in San Antonio, which is run by Sean Paul Kelly. There is also B and B by Pete Bryant. Pete represents San Antonio on the board of the Texas Progressive Bloggers Alliance.
And now we have two ATC outcasts who have launched their own blogs: Beginning To Wonder by AnnPW and
Happiness, Anyway by Donna, as well as Maximum Volume by Voice of Reason.
Then we have Dig Deeper Texas; Pulp Friction; Ablogistan; Harman on Earth and probably some more that I’m missing.
It is kind of sad that I am forced to go to a Dallas-based blog to find someone to debate the issues with, but alas it seems that I have vanquished most all of the conservative blogs here in San Antonio. (With the exception of But, that’s just my opinion. Hang in there, JimmyK!)
There once was a thriving rightwing blogger community here in the Alamo City. We had Insane Antonio, now abandoned. Another site called Raving Heretic, also abandoned. There was the Ranting Raven’s A View From the Nest, now in retirement. There was Ben’s World, by a St. Mary’s University law student who I presume has now graduated. There was Tex the Pontificator, also retired. And, of course, there was Bill Crawford (aka Alamo City Commando) and his All Things Conservative site, the big daddy of them all. The Commando is now AWOL and no one will acknowledge what happened to him. I like to think that he finally got the courage of his convictions and volunteered for military service in Iraq.
Finally, there is Conservative Dialysis by my friend Nick, but his last post more than a week ago may have been his coda. A comment I left there a week ago has yet to be approved.
Fortunately, the liberal blogging community in San Antonio is thriving. In addition to my humble abode which has been around for more than five years now, we still have the The Agonist, the longest running blog in San Antonio, which is run by Sean Paul Kelly. There is also B and B by Pete Bryant. Pete represents San Antonio on the board of the Texas Progressive Bloggers Alliance.
And now we have two ATC outcasts who have launched their own blogs: Beginning To Wonder by AnnPW and
Happiness, Anyway by Donna, as well as Maximum Volume by Voice of Reason.
Then we have Dig Deeper Texas; Pulp Friction; Ablogistan; Harman on Earth and probably some more that I’m missing.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Best Rock Bands
It is funny the things you come across with Google. Today I typed in “Rock Bands” and came up with MSNBC’s list of the10 best rock bands ever from 2004. OK, I’m a sucker for lists so I had to check it out:
It started out fine enough...
The Beatles
The Rolling Stones
No arguments there. Those would be my first two picks too.
U2
OK, not my No. 3 choice but definitely in my top 10
The Grateful Dead
Um, No. While I can appreciate them, I’m not a Deadhead and they would not be on my top 10 list.
Velvet Underground
Whoa!! Hold on! Now we are way off course. No way! Who can name even one song by the Velvet Underground? I’ve even tried to listen to some of their albums. Absolutely not.
Led Zepplin
All right, now we’re back on track again. Good choice.
The Ramones
Screech!! Blam!!! Back in the ditch again! I hate punk music. Yuck!
This list just won’t do. I have to make my own.
The rest of their list includes
Pink Floyd
Bob Marley and the Wailers
Sly and the Family Stone
Good bands but not good enough to make my Top 10 (except maybe Pink Floyd).
So here goes my list of the definitive Best Rock Bands:
The Beatles
The Rolling Stones
The Who
The Beach Boys
The Doors
Led Zepplin
Pink Floyd
U2
Bruce Springsteen and The E Street Band
The Police
And my list of runner-ups (or the second top 10)
Creedence Clearwater Revival
The Band
Van Halen
REM
The Eagles
Aerosmith
Santana
Tom Petty and The Heartbreakers
Heart
Rush
Of course this leaves out a lot of “solo” artists who no doubt have very capable and talented backing bands. A top 10 list there would include:
Elvis Presley
Chuck Berry
Buddy Holly
Bob Dylan
David Bowie
Elton John
Billy Joel
Rod Stewart
Jimi Hendrix
Prince
UPDATE
OK, I’ve reworked my Best Rock Bands list into per decade categories. (Yes, I know I have 11 in the 80s category. So sue me.)
50s
Buddy Holly and The Crickets
Bill Haley and The Comets
The Coasters
The Drifters
The Platters
The Clovers
Frankie Lymon and The Teenagers
The Moonglows
The Flamingos
60s
The Beatles
The Rolling Stones
The Who
The Doors
Pink Floyd
The Beach Boys
Creedence Clearwater Revival
The Band
Buffalo Springfield
The Faces
70s
Led Zepplin
Queen
Boston
Aerosmith
The Eagles
Heart
Santana
The Bee Gees
Deep Purple
ELO
80s
U2
The Police
Van Halen
Rush
Prince and The Revolution
Tom Petty and The Heartbreakers
Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band
The Cars
Cheap Trick
J. Geils Band
ZZ Top
90s
Guns N Roses
Red Hot Chili Peppers
Smashing Pumpkins
The Black Crowes
REM
Stone Temple Pilots
Pearl Jam
Rage Against the Machine
The Offspring
Green Day
2000s
The White Stripes
Los Lonely Boys
JET
Maroon Five
The Foo Fighters
Limp Bizkit
Velvet Revolver
It started out fine enough...
The Beatles
The Rolling Stones
No arguments there. Those would be my first two picks too.
U2
OK, not my No. 3 choice but definitely in my top 10
The Grateful Dead
Um, No. While I can appreciate them, I’m not a Deadhead and they would not be on my top 10 list.
Velvet Underground
Whoa!! Hold on! Now we are way off course. No way! Who can name even one song by the Velvet Underground? I’ve even tried to listen to some of their albums. Absolutely not.
Led Zepplin
All right, now we’re back on track again. Good choice.
The Ramones
Screech!! Blam!!! Back in the ditch again! I hate punk music. Yuck!
This list just won’t do. I have to make my own.
The rest of their list includes
Pink Floyd
Bob Marley and the Wailers
Sly and the Family Stone
Good bands but not good enough to make my Top 10 (except maybe Pink Floyd).
So here goes my list of the definitive Best Rock Bands:
The Beatles
The Rolling Stones
The Who
The Beach Boys
The Doors
Led Zepplin
Pink Floyd
U2
Bruce Springsteen and The E Street Band
The Police
And my list of runner-ups (or the second top 10)
Creedence Clearwater Revival
The Band
Van Halen
REM
The Eagles
Aerosmith
Santana
Tom Petty and The Heartbreakers
Heart
Rush
Of course this leaves out a lot of “solo” artists who no doubt have very capable and talented backing bands. A top 10 list there would include:
Elvis Presley
Chuck Berry
Buddy Holly
Bob Dylan
David Bowie
Elton John
Billy Joel
Rod Stewart
Jimi Hendrix
Prince
UPDATE
OK, I’ve reworked my Best Rock Bands list into per decade categories. (Yes, I know I have 11 in the 80s category. So sue me.)
50s
Buddy Holly and The Crickets
Bill Haley and The Comets
The Coasters
The Drifters
The Platters
The Clovers
Frankie Lymon and The Teenagers
The Moonglows
The Flamingos
60s
The Beatles
The Rolling Stones
The Who
The Doors
Pink Floyd
The Beach Boys
Creedence Clearwater Revival
The Band
Buffalo Springfield
The Faces
70s
Led Zepplin
Queen
Boston
Aerosmith
The Eagles
Heart
Santana
The Bee Gees
Deep Purple
ELO
80s
U2
The Police
Van Halen
Rush
Prince and The Revolution
Tom Petty and The Heartbreakers
Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band
The Cars
Cheap Trick
J. Geils Band
ZZ Top
90s
Guns N Roses
Red Hot Chili Peppers
Smashing Pumpkins
The Black Crowes
REM
Stone Temple Pilots
Pearl Jam
Rage Against the Machine
The Offspring
Green Day
2000s
The White Stripes
Los Lonely Boys
JET
Maroon Five
The Foo Fighters
Limp Bizkit
Velvet Revolver
Friday, June 13, 2008
Habeas Corpus is not a right, it’s a responsibility
The Supreme Court, by a slim margin, has once again confirmed the responsibility of the U.S. government to assure that all people under our control are treated humanely and responsibly. Part of that responsibility is to assure to the best of our ability that those who are in our custody are there for a legitimate reason.
That is what the writ of habeas corpus is all about. It is not a “right” bestowed on American citizens at birth. It is a responsibility that we have assumed as a nation. It does not benefit our society to incarcerate people without good reason. It is morally and ethically wrong and it places an undue financial burden on taxpayers. So why shouldn’t we do everything within reason to assure that we are not incarcerating innocent people? The purpose of Habeas Corpus is to keep innocent people from being detained, not to let guilty people go free.
A lot of the outrage on the right centers around the perception that we are granting “terrorists” a special privilege that is usually reserved just for American citizens. But the right to not be incarcerated when you are innocent should not be just for American citizens, it should be for everyone. And thus it is our responsiblity to make sure that is so with the people under our authority.
That is what the writ of habeas corpus is all about. It is not a “right” bestowed on American citizens at birth. It is a responsibility that we have assumed as a nation. It does not benefit our society to incarcerate people without good reason. It is morally and ethically wrong and it places an undue financial burden on taxpayers. So why shouldn’t we do everything within reason to assure that we are not incarcerating innocent people? The purpose of Habeas Corpus is to keep innocent people from being detained, not to let guilty people go free.
A lot of the outrage on the right centers around the perception that we are granting “terrorists” a special privilege that is usually reserved just for American citizens. But the right to not be incarcerated when you are innocent should not be just for American citizens, it should be for everyone. And thus it is our responsiblity to make sure that is so with the people under our authority.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Immigration idiocy
Our U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service is about to deport a kid who has been in this country since he was a toddler and who just graduated from high school as valedictorian.
This is nuts. Why even have these courts and judges if they take this long to make decisions like this? If they had nabbed them within a year or two of their arrival that would have been one thing. But 13 years later we are going to uproot them and send them packing after they have caused no problems and, in fact, are contributing positively to our society?
Fortunately, a bill sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein could resolve things by granting the family citizenship.
This is the common sense thing to do in this case, but unfortunately common sense is something that is sorely lacking in many parts of our country.
I first learned of this case this morning by reading this dreadful column by Ruben Navarette who essentially applauds the decision to deport the kid and his family. Why? The law is the law, he states flatly. But the real reason is darker than that as he goes on to admit. It turns out that Navarette can recall a case a few years ago where a Hispanic kid may have been deported under similar circumstances, so now he thinks this kid is getting special treatment because he is not Hispanic (he is an Armenian.)
In other words, Navarette is being a racist jerk. The San Antonio Express-News should quit giving this jerk a forum and drop his syndicated column.
The family arrived in the United States in 1995 on six-month tourist visas, said Virginia Kice, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Settling in Fresno, Arthur's father, Ruben Mkoian (he and his son spell their last names slightly differently), worked as a truck driver. The teen's mother worked in a jewelry store, and the family set about living their lives, which soon included a younger brother for Arthur.
Mkoian believes that if they were to return to Armenia, his family would be subject to reprisals because of his attempts to expose corruption at the government agency where he worked.
After the family's visas expired, they applied for U.S. residency. That application was denied, Kice said.
Immigration wheels turns extremely slowly. An immigration judge finally ruled in 2002 that the family had no legal right to remain in America.
The family tried again by applying to the Board of Immigration Appeals; that was rejected, also. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year denied their petition for a hearing.
"I would remind people that this family had ample access to due process," Kice said. "The case has been in litigation for more than 10 years. Immigration experts on every level determined that they had no legal basis to be in the United States."
This is nuts. Why even have these courts and judges if they take this long to make decisions like this? If they had nabbed them within a year or two of their arrival that would have been one thing. But 13 years later we are going to uproot them and send them packing after they have caused no problems and, in fact, are contributing positively to our society?
Fortunately, a bill sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein could resolve things by granting the family citizenship.
This is the common sense thing to do in this case, but unfortunately common sense is something that is sorely lacking in many parts of our country.
I first learned of this case this morning by reading this dreadful column by Ruben Navarette who essentially applauds the decision to deport the kid and his family. Why? The law is the law, he states flatly. But the real reason is darker than that as he goes on to admit. It turns out that Navarette can recall a case a few years ago where a Hispanic kid may have been deported under similar circumstances, so now he thinks this kid is getting special treatment because he is not Hispanic (he is an Armenian.)
In other words, Navarette is being a racist jerk. The San Antonio Express-News should quit giving this jerk a forum and drop his syndicated column.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Wall Street Journal slanders John Lennon
The headline on the column catches your attention right away.
The Case Against John Lennon
And then there is the pull quote that highlights the column:
Nothing to live or die for — what a nightmare.
It makes you immediately start singing John Lennon’s song “Imagine” in your head. “Nothing to live or die for... hmmmm hmmmm hmmmm hmmmm hmmmmm.”
My gosh, you think, how awful! John Lennon said there is nothing to live for?!? That is so wrong!
Well, yes, it IS wrong, because it is a misquote. Intentional or not, I’m not sure, but the actual lyrics from the song say “...nothing to KILL or die for....” Not nothing to live for.
So what is going on here? Why is the WSJ promoting a column with such a provacative title and using a misquote to mislead readers into a negative reaction against John Lennon?
The column itself is a mess. It is poorly written, jumbled and fails to adequately explain how John Lennon or his song “Imagine” has anything to do with what the column appears to be about.
Here is the pertinent section that mentions Lennon:
What the hell? Does he think he’s being clever or something? Lennon sounds like Lenin. Get it? So obviously they must be related or they must think alike or something right?
Nevermind that “Lenin” was actually an alias for Vladimir Illich Ulyanov, while the surname Lennon dates back hundreds of years to old Ireland.
No, they sound alike so there must be a connection. Right? Kind of like how Obama sounds like Osama so they must be related too. Yeah. That’s the level of reasoning that the column sinks to.
Absolutely pathetic.
And of course he never goes back and explains how V.I. Lenin’s brutal and dictatorial ways have any similarity or correlation to Lennon’s ode to world peace.
But fortunately for the cretins who run the WSJ editorial pages, John Lennon is dead and can’t defend his classic work against their asinine columnist’s offhanded smear.
The Case Against John Lennon
And then there is the pull quote that highlights the column:
Nothing to live or die for — what a nightmare.
It makes you immediately start singing John Lennon’s song “Imagine” in your head. “Nothing to live or die for... hmmmm hmmmm hmmmm hmmmm hmmmmm.”
My gosh, you think, how awful! John Lennon said there is nothing to live for?!? That is so wrong!
Well, yes, it IS wrong, because it is a misquote. Intentional or not, I’m not sure, but the actual lyrics from the song say “...nothing to KILL or die for....” Not nothing to live for.
So what is going on here? Why is the WSJ promoting a column with such a provacative title and using a misquote to mislead readers into a negative reaction against John Lennon?
The column itself is a mess. It is poorly written, jumbled and fails to adequately explain how John Lennon or his song “Imagine” has anything to do with what the column appears to be about.
Here is the pertinent section that mentions Lennon:
Mr. Sharansky has a new book, titled "Defending Identity." It would be equally accurate to call it "The Case Against John Lennon."
Or, more specifically, the case against "Imagine," Lennon's anthem to a world with "no countries . . . nothing to kill or die for/And no religion too." For Mr. Sharansky, a nine-year resident of the Perm 35 prison camp, that's a vision that smacks too much of the professed beliefs of the ex-Beatle's near namesake, Vladimir Ilyich.
What the hell? Does he think he’s being clever or something? Lennon sounds like Lenin. Get it? So obviously they must be related or they must think alike or something right?
Nevermind that “Lenin” was actually an alias for Vladimir Illich Ulyanov, while the surname Lennon dates back hundreds of years to old Ireland.
No, they sound alike so there must be a connection. Right? Kind of like how Obama sounds like Osama so they must be related too. Yeah. That’s the level of reasoning that the column sinks to.
Absolutely pathetic.
And of course he never goes back and explains how V.I. Lenin’s brutal and dictatorial ways have any similarity or correlation to Lennon’s ode to world peace.
But fortunately for the cretins who run the WSJ editorial pages, John Lennon is dead and can’t defend his classic work against their asinine columnist’s offhanded smear.
McCain family values
Ever wonder why we don’t hear more about this lady?
I think it is interesting that the key decision that launched McCain’s political career many years ago was to dump his first wife in favor of a wealthy, beautiful heiress whose money financed his first bid for Congress (as well as some significant support from Charles Keating.)
The wife U.S. Republican John McCain callously left behind
McCain likes to illustrate his moral fibre by referring to his five years as a prisoner-of-war in Vietnam. And to demonstrate his commitment to family values, the 71-year-old former US Navy pilot pays warm tribute to his beautiful blonde wife, Cindy, with whom he has four children.
But there is another Mrs McCain who casts a ghostly shadow over the Senator’s presidential campaign. She is seldom seen and rarely written about, despite being mother to McCain’s three eldest children.
And yet, had events turned out differently, it would be she, rather than Cindy, who would be vying to be First Lady. She is McCain’s first wife, Carol, who was a famous beauty and a successful swimwear model when they married in 1965.
She was the woman McCain dreamed of during his long incarceration and torture in Vietnam’s infamous ‘Hanoi Hilton’ prison and the woman who faithfully stayed at home looking after the children and waiting anxiously for news.
But when McCain returned to America in 1973 to a fanfare of publicity and a handshake from Richard Nixon, he discovered his wife had been disfigured in a terrible car crash three years earlier. Her car had skidded on icy roads into a telegraph pole on Christmas Eve, 1969. Her pelvis and one arm were shattered by the impact and she suffered massive internal injuries.
When Carol was discharged from hospital after six months of life-saving surgery, the prognosis was bleak. In order to save her legs, surgeons
had been forced to cut away huge sections of shattered bone, taking with it her tall, willowy figure. She was confined to a wheelchair and was forced to use a catheter.
Through sheer hard work, Carol learned to walk again. But when John McCain came home from Vietnam, she had gained a lot of weight and bore little resemblance to her old self.
Today, she stands at just 5ft4in and still walks awkwardly, with a pronounced limp. Her body is held together by screws and metal plates and, at 70, her face is worn by wrinkles that speak of decades of silent suffering.
For nearly 30 years, Carol has maintained a dignified silence about the accident, McCain and their divorce. But last week at the bungalow where she now lives at Virginia Beach, a faded seaside resort 200 miles south of Washington, she told The Mail on Sunday how McCain divorced her in 1980 and married Cindy, 18 years his junior and the heir to an Arizona brewing fortune, just one month later.
I think it is interesting that the key decision that launched McCain’s political career many years ago was to dump his first wife in favor of a wealthy, beautiful heiress whose money financed his first bid for Congress (as well as some significant support from Charles Keating.)
Monday, June 09, 2008
I did not (say that)
Is this a gotcha moment?
Is he lying? Is he senile? Or is it all just a big misunderstanding?
Imagine if Barack Obama got caught denying that he said something in a speech he had given just a week before?
Would it be ignored? Or would it blow up into a huge scandal?
Does it really matter whether he said it or not? Before the age of Youtube would anybody have noticed or cared anyway?
Is he lying? Is he senile? Or is it all just a big misunderstanding?
Imagine if Barack Obama got caught denying that he said something in a speech he had given just a week before?
Would it be ignored? Or would it blow up into a huge scandal?
Does it really matter whether he said it or not? Before the age of Youtube would anybody have noticed or cared anyway?
Friday, June 06, 2008
Bush's oil boom/job bust
Better go gas up your car now while you can still find that cheap $4 a gallon gasoline.
Oil surges $11 to record $138
And they are projecting it will go up to $150 a barrel.
And here are the other headline stories right now:
Wall Street shakes as Dow sinks 400 points
Jobless rate spikes
Corporate America is getting nervous
Heck of a job, President Bush!
I think the question now is not whether or not Barack Obama will be elected in November, but whether or not the country can survive until then.
Oil surges $11 to record $138
And they are projecting it will go up to $150 a barrel.
And here are the other headline stories right now:
Wall Street shakes as Dow sinks 400 points
Jobless rate spikes
Corporate America is getting nervous
Heck of a job, President Bush!
I think the question now is not whether or not Barack Obama will be elected in November, but whether or not the country can survive until then.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Cabinet speculation Part II
Revisiting a topic I brought up in March, more names are starting to pop up for possible cabinet posts in a Barack Obama administration. From serious looks at Obama insiders and advisors to speculation on popular political figures, there are lots of interesting choices.
I think Hillary Clinton is not likely to get the VP slot, but she could have her pick of cabinet posts (almost). The question is whether she would consider a stint as Secretary of HHS (where she wouldn’t even be the first woman to hold the post) to be worth her time. Or would she prefer to remain in the Senate and possibly hold out for a Supreme Court nomination as part of a deal to win her full support and backing for the Obama campaign.
Here are the cabinet posts with some names that have been tossed around for various posts:
President Barack Obama
Vice President Jim Webb/Bill Richardson/Hillary Clinton/Kathleen Sibelius
Secretary of State Joe Biden/Chris Dodd/ Bill Richardson
Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel/Richard Lugar/Sam Nunn
Attorney General John Edwards/Eric Holder
Secretary of Education George Miller/Mazie Hirono
Secretary of Health and Human Services Hillary Clinton/Kathleen Sebelius
Secretary of Energy Janet Napolitano/Brian Schweitzer
Secretary of Homeland Security Richard Clarke/Richard Lugar
Secretary of Interior Arnold Schwarzennegger/Brian Schweitzer
Secretary of Veterans Affairs Max Cleland
Secretary of Commerce Michael Bloomberg/Harold Ford Jr./Olympia Snowe
Secretary of Treasury Chris Dodd/Larry Summers/Laura Tyson
Secretary of Agriculture Tom Harkin/Tom Vilsack
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Bill Bradley/Henry Cisneros
Secretary of Labor John Edwards/Ed Rendell/David Bonior
Secretary of Transportation Jesse Jackson Jr./Xavier Becerra/James Oberstar
Secretary of Environment Al Gore/Lincoln Chafee (New cabinet level position)
Chief of Staff Tom Daschle/David Plouffe
Office of Management and Budget Rosa DeLauro
U.S. Trade RepresentativeAustan Goolsbee
Office of National Drug Control Policy Kurt Schmoke
United Nations Ambassador Al Gore/Bill Richardson/Bill Clinton
National Security Advisor Susan Rice/Anthony Lake/Anthony Zinni
CIA Director Wesley Clarke
Who am I leaving out?
I think Hillary Clinton is not likely to get the VP slot, but she could have her pick of cabinet posts (almost). The question is whether she would consider a stint as Secretary of HHS (where she wouldn’t even be the first woman to hold the post) to be worth her time. Or would she prefer to remain in the Senate and possibly hold out for a Supreme Court nomination as part of a deal to win her full support and backing for the Obama campaign.
Here are the cabinet posts with some names that have been tossed around for various posts:
President Barack Obama
Vice President Jim Webb/Bill Richardson/Hillary Clinton/Kathleen Sibelius
Secretary of State Joe Biden/Chris Dodd/ Bill Richardson
Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel/Richard Lugar/Sam Nunn
Attorney General John Edwards/Eric Holder
Secretary of Education George Miller/Mazie Hirono
Secretary of Health and Human Services Hillary Clinton/Kathleen Sebelius
Secretary of Energy Janet Napolitano/Brian Schweitzer
Secretary of Homeland Security Richard Clarke/Richard Lugar
Secretary of Interior Arnold Schwarzennegger/Brian Schweitzer
Secretary of Veterans Affairs Max Cleland
Secretary of Commerce Michael Bloomberg/Harold Ford Jr./Olympia Snowe
Secretary of Treasury Chris Dodd/Larry Summers/Laura Tyson
Secretary of Agriculture Tom Harkin/Tom Vilsack
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Bill Bradley/Henry Cisneros
Secretary of Labor John Edwards/Ed Rendell/David Bonior
Secretary of Transportation Jesse Jackson Jr./Xavier Becerra/James Oberstar
Secretary of Environment Al Gore/Lincoln Chafee (New cabinet level position)
Chief of Staff Tom Daschle/David Plouffe
Office of Management and Budget Rosa DeLauro
U.S. Trade RepresentativeAustan Goolsbee
Office of National Drug Control Policy Kurt Schmoke
United Nations Ambassador Al Gore/Bill Richardson/Bill Clinton
National Security Advisor Susan Rice/Anthony Lake/Anthony Zinni
CIA Director Wesley Clarke
Who am I leaving out?
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Ode to Hillary
I was ready to support you as president if you had won the nomination. I would have followed you to the ends of the earth and fought with you in the trenches against the forces of the status quo to advance health care and economic opportunity to all Americans.
But you lost.
So get the hell outta my face.
Loser.
But you lost.
So get the hell outta my face.
Loser.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)