Comments on Weekly Ezine #59
Larry,
I have read each of your installments over this last year with interest.
Sadly, I must say that you seem to be a "prisoner of your own end point". In each installment you seem to be interpreting the events to satisfy your overall
view as stated early in your E-zine.
I honestly do not have the time to point out each and everyone of my observations, but this week I will touch on the latest two, because frankly I am pissed:
1) the Tea Parties:
I attended a local one here in LSMO. I watched, with interest, the coverage of several more across the Nation. Larry, the mood of the attendees was NOT
that they were dismayed that Obama won. The organization was NOT of disgruntled Republican Party kingpins hoping to rally voters for 2010. The organizers
of the LSMO party were two housewives, who said that they were moved to do it because of the incredible spending that Congress promised, of the swiftness
of the passage of the Porkulus Bill ( noting many times Congress people's own admission that they, nor their staffs had read it ), and the OBVIOUS moves towards
Socialism that was on Congress' agenda. NOT THAT OBAMA WON.
As to the spending by GWB from 2000 to 2006 ( remember that Congress was controlled by the Pelosi crowd from 2006 to 2008 ) - please remember that we
had wars on two fronts: Iraq and Afghanistan. You of all people should know that wars are monetarily costly.
Oh by the way, you speak of shenanigans in OH and NM in 2004 - I can think of only one word in 2008: ACORN. 'nuff said.
2) Enhanced Interrogation Techniques:
Do you know for sure that we employed " . . . applying electric shock to their genitals. " ? If not, please do not use that phrase. Of what I could determine we
did: waterboarding ( but, no one drowned ), kept folks up past their bedtime ( but , most all caught back up ), placed a caterpillar in the cell with a Terrorist
( but, it was not a poisoness caterpillar ), and generally fed and clothed them far better than they had ever known it in their lives.
More important than these Terrorists' discomfort, the intelligence that was uncovered was actionable and saved Americans and other Nationals' lives.
ps - and Pelosi KNEW we were doing all of these things and did not raise a peep till now. Sorry, Larry - what I have read in your E-zine lately is not what I expected to read.
What follows is my reply.
Thanks for your note. I’m always interested in what you have to say. I’ve delayed my response in an attempt to be dispassionate and my computer has assisted by locking up on me a couple of times. At any rate, here are some comments on your comments, which are decidedly in the minority of those I received.
Sadly, I must say that you seem to be a "prisoner of your own end point". In each installment you seem to be interpreting the events to satisfy your overall
view as stated early in your E-zine.
Sometimes repetition is the mother of learning. I have concluded so long as we have the system we have we will continue to struggle with the same problems. I have voted for Republicans in the past, but will never again so long as they maintain their current approach. I may not be 100% in favor of everything Democrats propose, but they are presently preferable to Republicans. To keep Democrats in line, they must have viable competition. That means we need a viable third party to emerge. The only way I believe we will be able to have a viable (meaning competitive) third party is if we re-write the rules to enable Instant Runoff Voting. Without that competitive third party, the BS will continue.
1) the Tea Parties:
I attended a local one here in LSMO. I watched, with interest, the coverage of several more across the Nation. Larry, the mood of the attendees was NOT
that they were dismayed that Obama won. The organization was NOT of disgruntled Republican Party kingpins hoping to rally voters for 2010. The organizers
of the LSMO party were two housewives, who said that they were moved to do it because of the incredible spending that Congress promised, of the swiftness
of the passage of the Porkulus Bill ( noting many times Congress people's own admission that they, nor their staffs had read it ), and the OBVIOUS moves towards
Socialism that was on Congress' agenda. NOT THAT OBAMA WON.
Leaving motivation for having the meetings aside for a moment, what did you talk about? What specific proposals were made? Was the history of what brought us to the position we’re in now accurately and factually discussed? Was the documentary movie IOUSA brought up as a reference or (even better) shown at the meeting? What concrete proposals are now in the works as a result of your meeting?
What "OBVIOUS" moves toward Socialism were brought up? Socialism is just the latest Boogey man term Fox News has devised to be the political equivalent of "Child Molester". (Read my book again. I describe the phenomenon in detail.) You won’t hear it anywhere else but on Faux. What options were/are available to meet the challenges of the financial meltdown after the fact? I accept your group may not have had the partisan overtones to it, but others have reported otherwise about other meetings.
As to the spending by GWB from 2000 to 2006 ( remember that Congress was controlled by the Pelosi crowd from 2006 to 2008 ) - please remember that we had wars on two fronts: Iraq and Afghanistan. You of all people should know that wars are monetarily costly.
And yet the Bush Administration, aided and abetted by a Republican Congress and knowing full well the costs of that war, cut taxes in a time of war, didn’t they? And instead of starting a draft to control personnel costs they hired mercenaries at 10 times the cost of soldiers, didn’t they? (Re-Read my book’s chapter on National Defense.) From 2006-2008, I did not like what went on, but Democrats did what they could given the threat of Filibuster by Republican members of the Senate and not wanting to shut down the government a’ la Gingrich, which backfired on him and his fellow Republicans. Please don’t try to divert the responsibility from where it truly lies with the Bush Administration, especially from 2002 through 2006. They are the ones who started the ball rolling. Are Democrats blameless? No, I have written here often the unhappy bipartisan effects of the Political Donor Class on both Democrats and Republicans. Still, the majority of the responsibility lies with the Bush Administration and Republicans. These effects, once again, can only be overcome by changing the system we use to select the people who staff our government.
Oh by the way, you speak of shenanigans in OH and NM in 2004 - I can think of only one word in 2008: ACORN. 'nuff said.
ACORN had absolutely no effect on 2008’s results. I’m sorry, but that’s the reality. If you have conclusive evidence to the contrary I’ll be happy to look at it. What did have an effect was the incredible incompetence of the Bush Administration on the decision making process of voters as to who to vote for. What happened with voter suppression in Ohio did have an effect in 2004. Read Armed Madhouse by Greg Palast.
2) Enhanced Interrogation Techniques:
Do you know for sure that we employed " . . . applying electric shock to their genitals. " ? If not, please do not use that phrase. Of what I could determine we did: waterboarding ( but, no one drowned ), kept folks up past their bedtime ( but , most all caught back up ), placed a caterpillar in the cell with a Terrorist ( but, it was not a poisoness caterpillar ), and generally fed and clothed them far better than they had ever known it in their lives.
Re-read the piece and you’ll see I did not claim that method was used. I merely mentioned it as a contrasting form of interrogation to distinguish it from the action of using drugs.
More important than these Terrorists' discomfort, the intelligence that was uncovered was actionable and saved Americans and other Nationals' lives.
ps - and Pelosi KNEW we were doing all of these things and did not raise a peep till now.
Whether the intelligence was actionable is debatable. I listened with interest to an interview with former CIA operative Bob Baer. Here’s what he had to say. "I've spent the last 30 years inside prisons watching torture, watching that it doesn't work. It never works." – Bob Baer Baer also said even the Israelis no longer torture. Baer, by the way, was tortured himself.
And, actually, there was a whole lot of "peeping" going on, but even if you’re Speaker of the House, there isn’t a lot you can do if you don’t have the votes to force the Executive Branch to do something they don’t want to do. Again, if you had a third party with significant numbers in the Legislative Branch, then you would have two parties out of three not saddled with blind loyalty to whichever Party has charge of the Executive Branch. My argument is such an arrangement would be more likely to bring about government based on logic and reason, effectiveness and efficiency. As it is, Pelosi hoarded her resources and chose her fights carefully. As a result, her party controls the White House, the House, and now (with Specter’s switch and Franken’s certain confirmation) is about to have a Filibuster proof majority to work with in the Senate.
Had Republicans admitted the truth to themselves, fired Cheney after Scooter Libby’s conviction and either controlled or removed Bush for the remainder of his term, they might not be in the position they are today. They didn’t—so now they reap the whirlwind.
Sorry, Larry - what I have read in your E-zine lately is not what I expected to read.
Sorry. These are the realities as I see them.
Categories: Politics
Tags: Torture Tea Parties President Obama Conservatives
The Tea Party movement is continuing. Many American citizens are appalled with a blundering congress, plans for unsustainable spending, probably unconstitutional government intrusion in businesses and the continuing bailouts with no end in sight.
On Tuesday, California voters told their state government to live within their means. Our national government needs to get that message, too.
By the way, the tea in tea parties comes from Taxed Enough Already. For people who think of themselves as fiscally responsibly, you need to get on board, or you will be left at the station.
Reply to this
Where was your feeling of being appalled for the last 8 years?
You had an even more blundering Congress who refused to confront, control and possibly even impeach what is arguably one of the worst if not the worst Presidents in our history, unrestrained spending, unconstitutional intrusion into the lives of individual Americans and continuing corruption with no end in sight.
Taxed Enough Already, eh?
Reminds me of the spouse who's spending enough already paying credit card bills and then discovers their partner has run up suffiicient credit card debt they could have bought a second house with and will require 20-30 years to pay down.
That's where we are now. The debt is huge. What's the per capita up to now? $33-34K for every man, woman and child in the country? Please remember Bush doubled it all by himself and then, by virtue of an aversion to regulation and oversight, created the situation we have today. The antidote to the situation was hair of the dog that bit you, i.e. more debt.
Stop spending you say? Sounds good until you actually have to start making the cuts and figure out you're not cutting fat, you're cutting bone. Like all those pot holes? I hope so, there's no money to repair them. All the rapists and other cutthroats you'll have to release from prison will make good neighbors, just wait and see.
We'll see how much California likes it once they figure out all the services that will have to be cut to "live within their means."
I'm not happy with what we have today, but we have to realize the realities of budgets and sources and uses of money. What is one person's pork barrel spending is someone else's essential project.
I've said this before and I'll say it again. You cannot fix this problem with the existing system we have now. To fix the problem you're going to have to change the system.
Larry
Reply to this
As we said in my military days, you are transmitting but you are not receiving.
The "last 8 years" mantra is really getting tiresome.
Here is a more appropriate analogy for the current situation. Spouse A buys a car that puts the couple in debt over their heads. Spouse B objects very, very, very strongly and loudly. Then, when spouse B has the chance, he/she turns around and buys a car, a tv, a motor home and 20 acres for a second home. That's what is going on now.
The previous administration lost control of spending. That was bad. Remember what the voters thought of that. But now, the current administration takes spending to a whole new level, and apologists use the lame excuse that because there was high spending then, current spending should be much higher. 2 + 2 = 5.
Of course, there are realities of budgets and sources and uses of money. But is it far-fetched to expect our government to establish reasonable spending priorities? Is it far-fetched to expect our government to have a reasonable plan for how they will pay for their spending?
We are not willing to wait for some possible future change to the system. Regardless of what happened in the past, the appalling spending proposals are with us now, in 2009.
For us, the choice is to do something we believe in or just continue to sit back and shout at our TV. Easy choice for some.
Reply to this
Who was it who wrote that those who refuse to study the past are doomed to repeat it? I myself have always liked Harry Truman's saying that there is nothing really new in the world, there is only all the history you don't know.
Your analogy of Spouse A and Spouse B is illuminating for its insights into your thought process. Reminds me of that movie with Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner where they practically kill one another destroying their house. If that were the actual circumstances of Spouse B trying to get even with Spouse A's spending by spending even more, then I could agree with your position. Unfortunately, I don't find that to be an accurate analogy.
How I see it is Spouse A returning to their household after a long absence and finding the following. Not only has Spouse B run up the household debt to exceedingly high levels, but is involved in contentious lawsuits threatening the household's entire net worth. In addition, owing to the poor parenting skills of Spouse B the children have wrecked one of the cars they are responsible in a multi-car accident. The insurance companies for the other drivers are demanding payment for medical bills and repairs. Another of your children was playing with fire and burned down part of the house. Without repairs, your house will become uninhabitable. During the fire, a third child was severly burned and requires expensive medical care not completely covered by your medical insurance.
Spouse A doesn't want to spend or borrow money, but circumstances require them to do just that to meet the demands of the situation.
In other words, while you see the spending of the current Administration as optional, I see them as having little option given the circumstances forced upon them by the flawed approach of their predecessors. There will be a price to be paid for this spending in the future, but let's talk about rehabilitation after we keep the patient alive.
Time is a finite resource you never get back. That's why choosing the right thing to do is so important. And the right thing to do is often a combination of cleaning up the mess and finding out how the mess came to be in the first place and taking action to keep the mess from happening again. And you can probably make that happen until you get someone in charge who doesn't know history.
Reply to this
I am glad that you wrote that you are being illuminated about the thought process of those who think the current spending is appalling. I think that means that you now understand some of what fiscal responsibility people are saying. I thank you for that.
You do seem to misunderstand one point. I do not think that current spending is about getting even, or revenge, with previous spending. Instead, my point is about hypocrisy, in that the current crowd screamed about spending for political gain, and now are doubling down on the same thing they criticized.
Let me see if I can return the favor, to see if I understand your viewpoint. I think your opinion is that the previous bunch made such a mess that extreme measures are needed to fix the problem, and these large spending proposals are what will fix the problem.
If I am misrepresenting your position, straighten me out.
Reply to this
To confirm for you, I do think the incoming Administration was faced with extraordinary circumstances requiring spending and borrowing as a solution of last resort because no other solution was available. This is not what they wanted to do, but what they were forced to do. I think they are acutely aware of the risks and know they are going to have make some significant choices later.
The American economy is like a patient needing a very risky procedure in order to keep the patient alive. If the patient can be kept alive, then rehabilitation will be a topic for the future. Right now the concern is just keeping the patient alive.
Just by coincidence, I got an assessment of the economy from my money manager recently. Here is what was written in the report I got.
"The U.S. ECONOMY
In the final few months of 2008 and in early 2009, the U.S. and global economies were still reeling from the aftermath of the mid-September 2008 collapse of Lehman Brothers. As Q1 gave way to Q2 2009, "green shoots" began to appear in the U.S. economy, aided by bold policy moves from the Obama Administration, Congress, the Federal Reserve (the Fed) and overseas policymakers.
Today, with a few exceptions including unemployment and home price declines, the U.S. economy is tracking to the base case we detailed in our 2009 Outlook, calling for the end of the U.S. recession by mid-year 2009.
What helped to halt the economy's steep slide? In short, policy actions, from Congress, the Obama Administration and the Federal Reserve played a big role. But overseas policy, especially from China, also helped to stabilize the global economy. Among the policies enacted in the U.S.:
What they are saying is, in essence, what Warren Buffett has said, as well. Things could have been even worse with even more long term damage if was done had not been done.
Reply to this