This evening I sat, transfixed, by the testimony of David Addington and John Yoo, two of the most reprehensible human beings in the Bush Administration.
One thing I noticed, when Addington was talking, is that he sounds and acts just like his boss, Big Time Barnicle Dick Cheney. His mannerisms, his inflections, the tone of voice, and the style of speech are all dead on Dick. Owner and dog I guess.
And having Debbie Wasserman-Schultz call Addington a liar was pretty satisfying, bet she earned some serious hate from the fascists, er Republicans in her district on that one. Didn't seem to bother her that Addington tried to get her to back down (she didn't)
The other thing was John Yoo. In an exchange with Rep Cohen, TN-D on the Bybee memo and international law, Yoo said, at one point, that he didn't know what the international law was on torture so he couldn't speak to the Bybee memo in that regard. Or something to that affect, I'm having trouble finding the testimony, it was after their recess.
If that is true, then what the hell was he doing writing legal memos and justifications as part of the Office of Legal Council? And why would a University like Cal have this moral midget teach law to anybody or anything?
But I digress. Chairman Nadler had to stop several times to make Yoo explain his refusal to answer some questions because the Justice Department forbade him from answering them. After claiming attorney-client privilege, which Nadler said doesn't exist, and pointing out that Yoo was the one testifying, not the Justice Department, what Nadler should have done was this.
Tell Yoo to answer the question, or be in contempt. And when he refused to answer (and he wouldn't have answered, trust me, he is a complete coward and terrified of the Addingtons and Cheney's and all the other associated psychopaths that work in the Bush White House) he should have been cited for contempt and hauled off by the Sergeant at Arms to a jail cell, and for good measure, waterboarded by unknown people under unknown authority.
Then they should have resumed questioning Addington under this changed context, and see what he would say.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Monday, June 23, 2008
The Stupidity of the Free Market
On CNBC this morning there was some discussion of the potential for the US automakers to provide another kick to the ribs to the US economy as they reported plummeting sales for Trucks and SUV’s. And I see where McCain/Bush has proposed an “award” of $300 million of our taxpayer monies to whoever can build a better car battery.
When California passed that mandate for zero emission vehicles, Detroit responded to the challenge. They responded by fighting against it tooth and nail, spending billions on lobbying and advertising and lawyers and the like; billions in utterly non-productive spending of shareholder equity. Likewise with raising CAFÉ standards, no, must keep the short term profitability of the SUV market over sustainable profits at all costs.
Now, it’s funny, in a pathetic sort of way, but it isn’t as if our present pricing and demand pressure's were unimaginable at the time, after all, that’s why we passed the damn law in the first place. Yet these giant corporations could only see the mandate as a threat, not an opportunity to take advantage of the inevitable future.
So when dickwads like peter and mucky and whatever other vile gopper thugs tell us how great the free market is, remember this. Those billions they wasted fighting against the laws of nature (there’s only so much oil out there-and the demand for the energy it produces far exceeds the supply) could instead have been invested in new battery technology and hybrids and fuel cells and hydrogen infrastructure to meet the mandates of the law.
So instead of avoiding massive layoffs in Detroit, instead of having the new infrastructure for new fuels and battery powered cars in place, Detroit and the Oil industry are tearing this country, and the world, apart. Disruptions caused by the meteoric increase in gas prices, the dilatory effect on the corn and soybean markets vis a vis food production, the layoffs, and especially the crisis in the Middle East rooted in Oil, is pushing us to the brink of a real serious recession, maybe a depression, maybe stagflation, but nothing good. That is the thugs and trolls mighty free market at work.
Are you as impressed as I am?
When California passed that mandate for zero emission vehicles, Detroit responded to the challenge. They responded by fighting against it tooth and nail, spending billions on lobbying and advertising and lawyers and the like; billions in utterly non-productive spending of shareholder equity. Likewise with raising CAFÉ standards, no, must keep the short term profitability of the SUV market over sustainable profits at all costs.
Now, it’s funny, in a pathetic sort of way, but it isn’t as if our present pricing and demand pressure's were unimaginable at the time, after all, that’s why we passed the damn law in the first place. Yet these giant corporations could only see the mandate as a threat, not an opportunity to take advantage of the inevitable future.
So when dickwads like peter and mucky and whatever other vile gopper thugs tell us how great the free market is, remember this. Those billions they wasted fighting against the laws of nature (there’s only so much oil out there-and the demand for the energy it produces far exceeds the supply) could instead have been invested in new battery technology and hybrids and fuel cells and hydrogen infrastructure to meet the mandates of the law.
So instead of avoiding massive layoffs in Detroit, instead of having the new infrastructure for new fuels and battery powered cars in place, Detroit and the Oil industry are tearing this country, and the world, apart. Disruptions caused by the meteoric increase in gas prices, the dilatory effect on the corn and soybean markets vis a vis food production, the layoffs, and especially the crisis in the Middle East rooted in Oil, is pushing us to the brink of a real serious recession, maybe a depression, maybe stagflation, but nothing good. That is the thugs and trolls mighty free market at work.
Are you as impressed as I am?
Sunday, June 1, 2008
DNC and Hillary Hysteria
This is a comment I posted at the Left Coaster. Link is below.
A couple of things.
1) Political parties are not the same thing as the entities laid out in the Constitution. They are, after all, voluntary organizations (spare me any you can always leave America arguments) unlike the United States that we all (voters) live in (except for those abroad of course!)
2) Counting every vote in Michigan 2008 is not the same thing as Florida 2000.
3) I think the Rules Committee can change the rules any way they see fit, if they can get the votes, that's why they're called the Rules Committee!! ;-)
4) What NealB said: You're right, of course. The rules don't cover the situation. That's why the rules committee met today. To resolve a crisis where the crappy rules created a terrible, enigmatic situation. This is politics after all. Politics never has been democratic; it never will be. Posted by NealB at May 31, 2008 06:36 PM
5) None of this would have happened if the media provided a viable balance to politics, but they don't, so they fan the flames of hysteria you see with that absurd woman from New York, Harriet Christianson (?) foaming at the mouth about her "betrayal" by the DNC.
6) If the Clinton camp agreed so readily to the Florida compromise, how can they argue with such absolutism on the Michigan compromise?
7) Just remember, political parties aren't democracy, they are means to an end. They are not in the Constitution as enabled institutions, so they can do as they see fit to achieve their purposes, within the framework of public laws of course.
8) Laws are made to be broken if they do not adequetely address a situation. What would be a fair resolution of the Florida and Michigan delegations that factors in the fact that those citizens votes were tainted by a presumption of futility in their votes, and a lack of attention by the candidates to fully express their candidacy's validity or suitability?
9) Those who think that McCain is preferable to Obama, or that he is the next best thing to Hillary really and truly are giving her a slap in the face. By that argument they are saying that her values and ideals are close enough to McCain's. A lying, pandering, Bush loving republican conservative? Would Hillary embrace Richard Mellon Scaife the way McCain embraced the slanderers of South Carolina or the Swift Boaters? For instance.
10) Think about what you're saying, people. Obama is going to pick a lot of the same people as Hillary would to help him run the government, and that what this is really all about, who is running the actual government. The Lurita Doan's and Monica Goodling's and Abu Gonzales' of the world, or decent Democrats like Tom Daschle or David Bonior or whoever, pick your favorites, Richard Clarke or Valerie Plame.
Jeebus!
A couple of things.
1) Political parties are not the same thing as the entities laid out in the Constitution. They are, after all, voluntary organizations (spare me any you can always leave America arguments) unlike the United States that we all (voters) live in (except for those abroad of course!)
2) Counting every vote in Michigan 2008 is not the same thing as Florida 2000.
3) I think the Rules Committee can change the rules any way they see fit, if they can get the votes, that's why they're called the Rules Committee!! ;-)
4) What NealB said: You're right, of course. The rules don't cover the situation. That's why the rules committee met today. To resolve a crisis where the crappy rules created a terrible, enigmatic situation. This is politics after all. Politics never has been democratic; it never will be. Posted by NealB at May 31, 2008 06:36 PM
5) None of this would have happened if the media provided a viable balance to politics, but they don't, so they fan the flames of hysteria you see with that absurd woman from New York, Harriet Christianson (?) foaming at the mouth about her "betrayal" by the DNC.
6) If the Clinton camp agreed so readily to the Florida compromise, how can they argue with such absolutism on the Michigan compromise?
7) Just remember, political parties aren't democracy, they are means to an end. They are not in the Constitution as enabled institutions, so they can do as they see fit to achieve their purposes, within the framework of public laws of course.
8) Laws are made to be broken if they do not adequetely address a situation. What would be a fair resolution of the Florida and Michigan delegations that factors in the fact that those citizens votes were tainted by a presumption of futility in their votes, and a lack of attention by the candidates to fully express their candidacy's validity or suitability?
9) Those who think that McCain is preferable to Obama, or that he is the next best thing to Hillary really and truly are giving her a slap in the face. By that argument they are saying that her values and ideals are close enough to McCain's. A lying, pandering, Bush loving republican conservative? Would Hillary embrace Richard Mellon Scaife the way McCain embraced the slanderers of South Carolina or the Swift Boaters? For instance.
10) Think about what you're saying, people. Obama is going to pick a lot of the same people as Hillary would to help him run the government, and that what this is really all about, who is running the actual government. The Lurita Doan's and Monica Goodling's and Abu Gonzales' of the world, or decent Democrats like Tom Daschle or David Bonior or whoever, pick your favorites, Richard Clarke or Valerie Plame.
Jeebus!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)