For tonight, I'll toss in a little music video from the stunningly beautiful Tori Amos--Cornflake Girl. It is an incredibly beautiful, and somewhat haunting song that I've always enjoyed from her. From YouTube:
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
U.S. water pipelines are breaking
I found this New York Times story through Americablog. I'm not sure what to say, except there goes the U.S. infrastructure. From The New York Times:
So we're looking at between $277 billion to $480 billion just to fix the U.S. water infrastructure. I'm sure there are serious needs for upgrading the U.S. electricity grid, which could also cost hundreds of billions of dollars. We've got airlines going bankrupt. Our transportation infrastructure is based on automobiles--especially big gas-guzzling SUVs that will cost an arm and a leg as gas prices approach $4.00 a gallon. And the Bush administration has spent over $3 trillion dollars in the disastrous war in Iraq.
What is wrong with this picture?
NEW YORK (AP) -- Two hours north of New York City, a mile-long stream and a marsh the size of a football field have mysteriously formed along a country road. They are such a marvel that people come from miles around to drink the crystal-clear water, believing it is bubbling up from a hidden natural spring.
The truth is far less romantic: The water is coming from a cracked 70-year-old tunnel hundreds of feet below ground, scientists say.
The tunnel is leaking up to 36 million gallons a day as it carries drinking water from a reservoir to the big city. It is a powerful warning sign of a larger problem around the country: The infrastructure that delivers water to the nation's cities is badly aging and in need of repairs.
The Environmental Protection Agency says utilities will need to invest more than $277 billion over the next two decades on repairs and improvements to drinking water systems. Water industry engineers put the figure drastically higher, at about $480 billion.
Water utilities, largely managed by city governments, have never faced improvements of this magnitude before. And customers will have to bear the majority of the cost through rate increases, according to the American Water Works Association, an industry group.
Engineers say this is a crucial era for the nation's water systems, especially in older cities like New York, where some pipes and tunnels were built in the 1800s and are now nearing the end of their life expectancies.
''Our generation hasn't experienced anything like this. We weren't around when the infrastructure was being built,'' said Greg Kail, spokesman for the water industry group. ''We didn't pay for the pipes to be put in the ground, but we sure benefited from the improvements to public health that came from it.''
He said the situation has not reached crisis stage, but without a serious investment, ''it can become a crisis. Each year the problem is put on the back burner, the price tag is going to go up.''
So we're looking at between $277 billion to $480 billion just to fix the U.S. water infrastructure. I'm sure there are serious needs for upgrading the U.S. electricity grid, which could also cost hundreds of billions of dollars. We've got airlines going bankrupt. Our transportation infrastructure is based on automobiles--especially big gas-guzzling SUVs that will cost an arm and a leg as gas prices approach $4.00 a gallon. And the Bush administration has spent over $3 trillion dollars in the disastrous war in Iraq.
What is wrong with this picture?
Federal Reserve policymakers worried about a deep recession
This is off MSNBC News:
What we have here is really a classic problem for the Federal Reserve. The Fed knew that the economy was slowing down. And in a slowing economy, the Feds cut the federal funds interest rate it charges for loaning money to banks. The banks, in turn, lowers interest rates they charge to consumers for business, home, auto, and equity loans. Consumers take the loans for purchasing homes, businesses, autos, and help inject spending into the economy, allowing the economy to grow out of the recession. It is a simple model, but it gives you the idea of how the Fed's cut in interest rates can help jump-start the U.S. economy into a recovery.
The problem is that this simple model of the Fed cutting interest rates to stimulate the U.S. economy will not work. First, the banking and financial industry is saddled with all sorts of problems stemming from the housing collapse, and the bad investments into the subprime loans for housing. If the banks and financial institutions were not handing out so many subprime and adjustable-rate mortgage home loans to American consumers, they were pre-packaging those loans into mortgage-backed investment securities to sell to anyone who wanted them. When the housing boom collapsed, the banks ended up being saddled with a lot of foreclosed homes that have dropped in value to what they were originally sold. In other words, the banks and financial institutions are stuck with huge losses stemming from these over-priced homes that they can not sell--homes that are continuing to drop in value, creating even more losses. Because these losses are sitting on their books, the banks are certainly not going to start loaning out so much money to Americans wanting to buy homes, unless those Americans have an almost platinum credit rating and a huge down payment to go with it--regardless of whether the Fed lowers the interest rate. So we've got a credit crunch here taking place, even as the interest rates have been dropping.
The second problem here is energy prices--oil at over $100 a barrel. Gas prices have certainly risen because of the high oil prices. And you can bet that the volatile food prices have also risen, because such food is transported to stores via trucks, which uses fuel to run on. What I am trying to say here is that we could be in a period of an inflationary cycle. We've got the war in Iraq that is costing us billions of dollars--dollars that are being printed by the U.S. Treasury. We've got prices rising due to the increasing costs of energy. And we've got the Fed dropping interest rates in an attempt to continue injecting liquidity into this U.S. economy. Are we heading into a period of stagflation? I think this was the huge issue that Fed members had difficulty to resolve. Consider this from the MSNBC story:
There it is. The Fed is stuck trying to prevent a collapse of the financial markets due to the housing and credit woes. They want to cut the interest rate to help the financial market, otherwise the U.S. economy enters into a recession. However, with food and energy prices soaring, the threat of inflation emerges if the Fed injects too much liquidity into the market. You have an almost perfect recipe for stagflation to emerge here. Continuing with the MSNBC story:
What Plosser and Fisher were worried is that if Americans feel that inflation is bearing down upon them, they are going to cut back on spending. And with the U.S. economy teetering on this brink of a deep recession, any cutback in consumer spending, coupled with the Fed's cutting of interest rates, will cause the situation to go from bad to worst. And let us not forget that it is not just the Fed that is injecting more dollars into the U.S. economy--we still have a war in Iraq that will add even more billions of dollars in both the U.S. economy and the world economy. It is almost like a perfect storm of economic ills that are bearing down on this country. And our current crop of leaders are completely paralyzed as to how to prepare for this monster storm.
WASHINGTON - Worries about a deep recession — not a shallow one — drove Federal Reserve policymakers to slash a key interest rate last month, meeting minutes show.
Even as the Fed battled in almost unprecedented fashion to stem a widening credit and housing slump, some members fretted over the possibility of a “prolonged and severe” economic downturn. It was in that environment that they voted — with two dissents — to cut its most important interest rate by three-quarters of a percentage point to 2.25 percent. That action capped the most aggressive Fed intervention in a quarter-century.
Some Fed policymakers thought that such a widening recession could not be ruled out given the “further restriction of credit availability and ongoing weakness in the housing market,” according to the meeting minutes that were made public Tuesday.
What we have here is really a classic problem for the Federal Reserve. The Fed knew that the economy was slowing down. And in a slowing economy, the Feds cut the federal funds interest rate it charges for loaning money to banks. The banks, in turn, lowers interest rates they charge to consumers for business, home, auto, and equity loans. Consumers take the loans for purchasing homes, businesses, autos, and help inject spending into the economy, allowing the economy to grow out of the recession. It is a simple model, but it gives you the idea of how the Fed's cut in interest rates can help jump-start the U.S. economy into a recovery.
The problem is that this simple model of the Fed cutting interest rates to stimulate the U.S. economy will not work. First, the banking and financial industry is saddled with all sorts of problems stemming from the housing collapse, and the bad investments into the subprime loans for housing. If the banks and financial institutions were not handing out so many subprime and adjustable-rate mortgage home loans to American consumers, they were pre-packaging those loans into mortgage-backed investment securities to sell to anyone who wanted them. When the housing boom collapsed, the banks ended up being saddled with a lot of foreclosed homes that have dropped in value to what they were originally sold. In other words, the banks and financial institutions are stuck with huge losses stemming from these over-priced homes that they can not sell--homes that are continuing to drop in value, creating even more losses. Because these losses are sitting on their books, the banks are certainly not going to start loaning out so much money to Americans wanting to buy homes, unless those Americans have an almost platinum credit rating and a huge down payment to go with it--regardless of whether the Fed lowers the interest rate. So we've got a credit crunch here taking place, even as the interest rates have been dropping.
The second problem here is energy prices--oil at over $100 a barrel. Gas prices have certainly risen because of the high oil prices. And you can bet that the volatile food prices have also risen, because such food is transported to stores via trucks, which uses fuel to run on. What I am trying to say here is that we could be in a period of an inflationary cycle. We've got the war in Iraq that is costing us billions of dollars--dollars that are being printed by the U.S. Treasury. We've got prices rising due to the increasing costs of energy. And we've got the Fed dropping interest rates in an attempt to continue injecting liquidity into this U.S. economy. Are we heading into a period of stagflation? I think this was the huge issue that Fed members had difficulty to resolve. Consider this from the MSNBC story:
Two Fed members — Charles Plosser, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, and Richard Fisher, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas — opposed such a big rate reduction, however. They favored a smaller cut because of concerns about a potential inflation flare-up. It was a crack in the mostly unified front that the fed often has projected to the public.
The minutes of the closed-door March meeting underscored the economic cross-currents pulling at Fed policymakers.
“With the uncertainties in the outlook for both economic activity and inflation elevated, members noted that appropriately calibrating the stance of (interest-rate) policy was difficult,” the minutes stated.
On the one hand, the Fed has been urgently moving to prevent the trio of economic woes — housing, credit and financial— from plunging the country into a deep recession. On the other hand, with soaring energy prices and high food costs, policymakers realize that they can’t afford to let inflation get out of control, either.
There it is. The Fed is stuck trying to prevent a collapse of the financial markets due to the housing and credit woes. They want to cut the interest rate to help the financial market, otherwise the U.S. economy enters into a recession. However, with food and energy prices soaring, the threat of inflation emerges if the Fed injects too much liquidity into the market. You have an almost perfect recipe for stagflation to emerge here. Continuing with the MSNBC story:
Even with the big interest rate reduction in March, most Fed members saw overall inflation moderating in coming quarters, the minutes said. However, inflation pressures had picked up even as economic growth had weakened, the minutes added, suggesting that uncertainty clouded the inflation outlook.
Plosser and Fisher — the two who opposed the hefty three-quarter-point reduction in March — were “concerned that inflation expectations could potentially become unhinged,” according to the minutes. If people, investors and businesses expect prices to rise sharply, they’ll act in ways that will make inflation worse. Once inflation takes hold, it is hard to break.”
What Plosser and Fisher were worried is that if Americans feel that inflation is bearing down upon them, they are going to cut back on spending. And with the U.S. economy teetering on this brink of a deep recession, any cutback in consumer spending, coupled with the Fed's cutting of interest rates, will cause the situation to go from bad to worst. And let us not forget that it is not just the Fed that is injecting more dollars into the U.S. economy--we still have a war in Iraq that will add even more billions of dollars in both the U.S. economy and the world economy. It is almost like a perfect storm of economic ills that are bearing down on this country. And our current crop of leaders are completely paralyzed as to how to prepare for this monster storm.
Petraeus: Iraq security 'Fragile and Reversible'
Let's head over to Capitol Hill, where the top military commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, has been testifying before Congress on--again--why we should continue to keep U.S. troops in Iraq. From The Washington Post:
Do you know what I think? I think it is time to take a ride on the Iraq Sit-n-Spin--courtesy of the Republican Party:
Look how fast we can spin this war around!
The simple fact is that this is another attempt by the Bush administration to continue this disastrous war until after President Bush leaves office and dumps this entire mess on his successor. They know that the Maliki government has failed in its offensive against the anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, and that the violence in Iraq is escalating. The key point here is how do you maintain Congress' castrated stance in continuing to follow the Bush administration's failed policy in Iraq? You continue to shove more spin down Congress, and the American peoples' throats. Only this time, you change the spin a little. Now the U.S. military will provide Congress with 45-day assessments regarding the ongoing situation in Iraq. What do you think Petraeus is going to say to Congress after each 45-day period of "consolidation and evaluation?" He is going to say the same thing he said today about Iraq--we're still making progress in Iraq, but the situation is still fragile, and we can't withdrawal U.S. forces yet. On and on this spin will go, until President Bush will leave office, dump this entire failed crap on his [Democratic] successor, and then blame the Democrats for losing the war in Iraq.
Here is the mother-of-all Petraeus quotes:
Again, we're hearing the Bush administration's doom-and-gloom spin--progress has been made in Iraq, al Qaeda in Iraq has been dealt serious blows, Iraqi forces have been getting better. But if we leave now, everything will go to hell in a hand basket--the progress is still "fragile and reversible." Stay the course! We've been hearing this spin for almost five years now. The situation in Iraq has not changed over the past five years, nor will it ever change as long as U.S. troops continue to occupy the country. Again, the Bush administration's game plan has been to run out the clock on this war, and dump it on the next president. And Petraeus has been a good little Bush parrot--repeating the same crap over and over again. Incredible.
While we're on Iraq, we certainly have to look at what Senator John McCain said in his opening statement to the Petraeus hearings:
What can I say--McCain wants his 100-year war in Iraq! It is a delusional thinking on McCain's part to continue on with this disastrous war for no reason other than it "would constitute a failure of political and moral leadership." The failure of political and moral leadership is currently residing in the Oval Office under the name of George W. Bush. Bush got us into this disastrous war. Now he can't find a way out, so he'll dump it on the next president. Why McCain wants to become president and inherit this disastrous war is beyond my comprehension. Maybe he wants to continue the violence in Iraq because he is a bitter man with a bad temper, who believes that he should have been president in 2000, rather than George W. Bush. Whatever the reasons, McCain is trying to project the Bush administration's failures in Iraq, and the Republican Party's lack of political leadership in resolving this war on the Democrats. In other words, he is trying to blame the Democrats for both the Bush administration, and the Republican Party's failures on Iraq. It is a rather strange political campaign strategy, considering that McCain is also advocating the same Bush administration's failed policy of continuing this Iraq war.
It is complete madness.
The top U.S. military commander in Iraq told a Senate committee today that improved security in Iraq is "fragile and reversible" and recommended a pause in the withdrawal of U.S. forces after mid-July.
Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he has recommended to his superiors that the military continue rolling back a "surge" of U.S. forces that President Bush ordered last year in response to deteriorating security in Baghdad and other parts of Iraq. But after U.S. forces are reduced to their pre-buildup level by mid-July, Petraeus said, the military should suspend the withdrawals and begin a 45-day period of "consolidation and evaluation."
At the end of that period, he said, he has recommended starting "a process of assessment to examine the conditions on the ground and, over time, determine when we can make recommendations for further reductions." He strongly counseled against setting any deadlines for withdrawal.
"This approach does not allow establishment of a set withdrawal timetable," he said in his prepared statement. Instead, he said, it provides "the flexibility those of us on the ground need to preserve the still fragile security gains our troopers have fought so hard and sacrificed so much to achieve."
Do you know what I think? I think it is time to take a ride on the Iraq Sit-n-Spin--courtesy of the Republican Party:
Look how fast we can spin this war around!The simple fact is that this is another attempt by the Bush administration to continue this disastrous war until after President Bush leaves office and dumps this entire mess on his successor. They know that the Maliki government has failed in its offensive against the anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, and that the violence in Iraq is escalating. The key point here is how do you maintain Congress' castrated stance in continuing to follow the Bush administration's failed policy in Iraq? You continue to shove more spin down Congress, and the American peoples' throats. Only this time, you change the spin a little. Now the U.S. military will provide Congress with 45-day assessments regarding the ongoing situation in Iraq. What do you think Petraeus is going to say to Congress after each 45-day period of "consolidation and evaluation?" He is going to say the same thing he said today about Iraq--we're still making progress in Iraq, but the situation is still fragile, and we can't withdrawal U.S. forces yet. On and on this spin will go, until President Bush will leave office, dump this entire failed crap on his [Democratic] successor, and then blame the Democrats for losing the war in Iraq.
Here is the mother-of-all Petraeus quotes:
In his opening statement, Petraeus cited "significant but uneven security progress in Iraq," saying that levels of violence and civilian deaths have declined substantially and that the group known as al-Qaeda in Iraq and other extremist organizations "have been dealt serious blows." In addition, he said, "the capabilities of Iraqi Security Force elements have grown, and there has been noteworthy involvement of local Iraqis in local security."
However, "the situation in certain areas is still unsatisfactory, and innumerable challenges remain," Petraeus said. "Moreover, as events in the past two weeks have reminded us and as I have repeatedly cautioned, the progress made since last spring is fragile and reversible."
Again, we're hearing the Bush administration's doom-and-gloom spin--progress has been made in Iraq, al Qaeda in Iraq has been dealt serious blows, Iraqi forces have been getting better. But if we leave now, everything will go to hell in a hand basket--the progress is still "fragile and reversible." Stay the course! We've been hearing this spin for almost five years now. The situation in Iraq has not changed over the past five years, nor will it ever change as long as U.S. troops continue to occupy the country. Again, the Bush administration's game plan has been to run out the clock on this war, and dump it on the next president. And Petraeus has been a good little Bush parrot--repeating the same crap over and over again. Incredible.
While we're on Iraq, we certainly have to look at what Senator John McCain said in his opening statement to the Petraeus hearings:
As the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee, McCain spoke before Petraeus and Crocker testified, repeating his warnings that withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq too soon would bring chaos to the country and possibly trigger genocidal sectarian warfare.
"We're no longer staring into the abyss of defeat, and we can now look ahead to the genuine prospect of success," he said.
[....]
McCain also called on Iraq to use its own money to pay for more projects and programs and to "take on more of the financial burdens borne by American taxpayers."
But he strongly denounced calls by Democrats for what he termed "a reckless and irresponsible withdrawal" from Iraq at a time when the U.S. strategy is succeeding.
The presumptive Republican presidential nominee said he did not want to keep U.S. troops in Iraq "a minute longer than necessary." But he warned that promising to withdraw forces "regardless of consequences would constitute a failure of political and moral leadership."
What can I say--McCain wants his 100-year war in Iraq! It is a delusional thinking on McCain's part to continue on with this disastrous war for no reason other than it "would constitute a failure of political and moral leadership." The failure of political and moral leadership is currently residing in the Oval Office under the name of George W. Bush. Bush got us into this disastrous war. Now he can't find a way out, so he'll dump it on the next president. Why McCain wants to become president and inherit this disastrous war is beyond my comprehension. Maybe he wants to continue the violence in Iraq because he is a bitter man with a bad temper, who believes that he should have been president in 2000, rather than George W. Bush. Whatever the reasons, McCain is trying to project the Bush administration's failures in Iraq, and the Republican Party's lack of political leadership in resolving this war on the Democrats. In other words, he is trying to blame the Democrats for both the Bush administration, and the Republican Party's failures on Iraq. It is a rather strange political campaign strategy, considering that McCain is also advocating the same Bush administration's failed policy of continuing this Iraq war.
It is complete madness.
Monday, April 07, 2008
Book reveals McCain's temper in calling wife a "cunt"
I'm not so sure how to respond to this story. I found the story through Shakesville, with the original source coming from Raw Story. But I'm also seeing the story posted on Americablog, Daily Kos, and Crooks and Liars. The original source story is Raw Story:
Now I don't know if this incident actually took place or not. Schecter lifted this story from three anonymous reporters, so I can't say how accurate this story really is. And I'm not going to get into any commentary as to Senator John McCain's supposed use of the word "cunt" to his wife. I will admit that it is a rather degenerating and reprehensible word that any husband can use against his wife, and any husband that uses such a word should deserve a punch in the mouth. But the linking of McCain to this story does say something about McCain's explosive temper here. It is a temper that is quick, and potentially unbalanced. The nightmare scenario here would be for a confused President McCain to lash out in quick anger over a rapidly developing crisis--without having the ability to stop, control your emotions, and objectively look at the crisis and the options you can make as president. And that is a real danger, when you consider that a President McCain will have his finger on the nuclear trigger. Do we really want President McCain to nuke Iran?
I found this interesting quote through a NewsMax article discussing McCain's temper:
This quote really does say something about the need for emotional maturity within the president. The White House is a character crucible [that] either creates or distorts character. A president will be living and working in a powerful office, 24-hours-a-day, surrounded by "Yes Men" hoping to stay on the president's good graces, and not have to deliver the really bad news. A president living in this environment must be able to gather both the good and bad information from his aids without having to blow up in an irrational manner. A president will need a great amount of humility when stepping into the Oval Office because everyone will treat you with the reverence of an emperor--and that reverence could go quickly into a president's head. A president will need emotional maturity when dealing with members of the congressional leadership, lobbyists, foreign leaders, ambassadors, and a whole host of other people who do not agree with the president's ideology, or his political policies--you don't tell your political opponent that they are "shitheads" or "assholes" in front of their faces, just because they don't agree with you. And most importantly, a president will need to quickly learn the art of compromise in order to get your political agenda through. Does McCain have this type of emotional maturity in order to become president? I don't think so.
And it scares me to think that McCain could become president in November.
John McCain's temper is well documented. He's called opponents and colleagues "shitheads," "assholes" and in at least one case "a fucking jerk."
But a new book on the presumptive Republican nominee will air perhaps the most shocking angry exchange to date.
The Real McCain by Cliff Schecter, which will arrive in bookstores next month, reports an angry exchange between McCain and his wife that happened in full view of aides and reporters during a 1992 campaign stop. An advance copy of the book was obtained by RAW STORY.
Three reporters from Arizona, on the condition of anonymity, also let me in on another incident involving McCain's intemperateness. In his 1992 Senate bid, McCain was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy, as well as campaign aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullett. At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain's hair and said, "You're getting a little thin up there." McCain's face reddened, and he responded, "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt." McCain's excuse was that it had been a long day. If elected president of the United States, McCain would have many long days.
The man who was known as "McNasty" in high school has erupted in foul-languaged tirades at political foes and congressional colleagues more-or-less throughout his career, and his quickness to anger has been an issue on the presidential campaign trail as evidence of his fury has surfaced.
As Schecter notes, McCain's rage is not limited to the political spectrum, and even his family cannot be spared the brute force of his anger.
Now I don't know if this incident actually took place or not. Schecter lifted this story from three anonymous reporters, so I can't say how accurate this story really is. And I'm not going to get into any commentary as to Senator John McCain's supposed use of the word "cunt" to his wife. I will admit that it is a rather degenerating and reprehensible word that any husband can use against his wife, and any husband that uses such a word should deserve a punch in the mouth. But the linking of McCain to this story does say something about McCain's explosive temper here. It is a temper that is quick, and potentially unbalanced. The nightmare scenario here would be for a confused President McCain to lash out in quick anger over a rapidly developing crisis--without having the ability to stop, control your emotions, and objectively look at the crisis and the options you can make as president. And that is a real danger, when you consider that a President McCain will have his finger on the nuclear trigger. Do we really want President McCain to nuke Iran?
I found this interesting quote through a NewsMax article discussing McCain's temper:
When people have come forward to relate their bizarre experiences with McCain, only minor publications or the foreign press have run their accounts. The favored treatment is reminiscent of the way the press turned a blind eye to John F. Kennedy's dalliances — except that voters have far more need to know about evidence of instability than presidential infidelities.
"The White House is a character crucible," according to Bertram S. Brown, M.D., a psychiatrist who formerly headed the National Institute of Mental Health and was an aide to President John F. Kennedy. "It either creates or distorts character . . . . Even if an individual is balanced, once someone becomes president, how does one solve the conundrum of staying real and somewhat humble when one is surrounded by the most powerful office in the land and from becoming overwhelmed by an at times pathological environment that treats you every day as an emperor?
"Here is where the true strength of the character of the person, not his past accomplishments, will determine whether his presidency ends in accomplishment or failure."
This quote really does say something about the need for emotional maturity within the president. The White House is a character crucible [that] either creates or distorts character. A president will be living and working in a powerful office, 24-hours-a-day, surrounded by "Yes Men" hoping to stay on the president's good graces, and not have to deliver the really bad news. A president living in this environment must be able to gather both the good and bad information from his aids without having to blow up in an irrational manner. A president will need a great amount of humility when stepping into the Oval Office because everyone will treat you with the reverence of an emperor--and that reverence could go quickly into a president's head. A president will need emotional maturity when dealing with members of the congressional leadership, lobbyists, foreign leaders, ambassadors, and a whole host of other people who do not agree with the president's ideology, or his political policies--you don't tell your political opponent that they are "shitheads" or "assholes" in front of their faces, just because they don't agree with you. And most importantly, a president will need to quickly learn the art of compromise in order to get your political agenda through. Does McCain have this type of emotional maturity in order to become president? I don't think so.
And it scares me to think that McCain could become president in November.
Starbucks starts serving new ‘everyday’ coffee
And this certainly isn't going to help break my caffeine habit. From MSNBC News:
I wonder if Starbucks has over-extended itself with too many stores and coffee baristas trying to sell the Starbucks brew. From where I live, I can go to four Starbucks' stores within a half-mile radius, plus the Starbucks store inside the local Safeway grocery store, plus the Barnes and Noble cafe that serves Starbucks' coffee. And if I want to just get the Starbucks coffee for my coffee-maker, I could find Starbucks coffee being sold at definitely Safeway and Albertsons, and probably at Whole Foods, Longs Drugs, Nob Hill, and a few other grocery and drug stores. Starbucks coffee is everywhere. If you have a Starbucks coffee store within a couple-block radius and are selling your coffee in just about every grocery or drug store, is it no wonder that perhaps your sales are getting a little too sluggish with all this coffee being sold to an over-caffeinated American public? And if you look at a Starbucks coffee shop, they no longer roast or grind their own beans in stores. There is no longer the sweet, pungent aroma of coffee hovering around the Starbucks store--you could just as easily get your coffee from McDonalds, 7-Eleven, or Dunkin' Donuts! Starbucks has become sterilized. It has become an uber-efficient factory selling fast coffee to on-the-go Americans like McDonalds sells fast food. Somewhere, in that frantic desire to become the biggest coffee company in the world, Starbucks lost the image of what a coffee house should really be--a unique place where the atmosphere and coffee aroma relaxes and rejuvenates you. A place of charm where you could lose yourself within a good book, or hang out with old friends to discuss world politics and social issues over lattes. Will Starbucks be able to regain their sales with this Pikes Peak Roast blend?
We'll just have to see.
SEATTLE - Starbucks Corp. will start serving up a new “everyday” brew Tuesday, hoping the signature blend will help revive slumping sales in its crucial U.S. market.
To celebrate the launch, it will give away free 8-ounce cups of Pike Place Roast — named after its first store in Seattle’s famed public market — at more than 7,000 U.S. stores from 12 to 12:30 p.m. EDT.
In a statement Monday, Chairman and Chief Executive Howard Schultz touted Pike Place Roast for its bold flavor, smooth finish and “subtle, rich flavors of cocoa and toasted nuts.”
It will be freshly roasted, hand-scooped, freshly ground and brewed in small batches that sit for no longer than 30 minutes. It will be brewed, both regular and decaf, alongside rotating coffees of the week, and sold by the whole bean for $9.95 per pound.
Starbucks developed Pike Place Roast — testing some 30 roasts and 30 blends — after consulting with nearly 1,000 customers who sought a line of drip coffee that wouldn’t switch from, say, an earthy Sumatra one week to a bright, citrusy Ethiopia Sidamo the next.
Consistently, customers kept saying: “Give us a coffee we can count on every day, all day, all week,” Andrew Linnemann, Starbucks master coffee blender, said Tuesday in a conference call with reporters.
Starbucks has spent the last few months sharpening its focus on the basics — a strategy Schultz is pushing as part of the company’s efforts to reinvigorate its U.S. business, which has suffered amid a soft economy and growing competition from rivals ranging from McDonald’s Corp. and Dunkin’ Donuts to Peet’s Coffee & Tea, Caribou Coffee and small, independent coffee shops.
I wonder if Starbucks has over-extended itself with too many stores and coffee baristas trying to sell the Starbucks brew. From where I live, I can go to four Starbucks' stores within a half-mile radius, plus the Starbucks store inside the local Safeway grocery store, plus the Barnes and Noble cafe that serves Starbucks' coffee. And if I want to just get the Starbucks coffee for my coffee-maker, I could find Starbucks coffee being sold at definitely Safeway and Albertsons, and probably at Whole Foods, Longs Drugs, Nob Hill, and a few other grocery and drug stores. Starbucks coffee is everywhere. If you have a Starbucks coffee store within a couple-block radius and are selling your coffee in just about every grocery or drug store, is it no wonder that perhaps your sales are getting a little too sluggish with all this coffee being sold to an over-caffeinated American public? And if you look at a Starbucks coffee shop, they no longer roast or grind their own beans in stores. There is no longer the sweet, pungent aroma of coffee hovering around the Starbucks store--you could just as easily get your coffee from McDonalds, 7-Eleven, or Dunkin' Donuts! Starbucks has become sterilized. It has become an uber-efficient factory selling fast coffee to on-the-go Americans like McDonalds sells fast food. Somewhere, in that frantic desire to become the biggest coffee company in the world, Starbucks lost the image of what a coffee house should really be--a unique place where the atmosphere and coffee aroma relaxes and rejuvenates you. A place of charm where you could lose yourself within a good book, or hang out with old friends to discuss world politics and social issues over lattes. Will Starbucks be able to regain their sales with this Pikes Peak Roast blend?
We'll just have to see.
Vitter ducks reporters, crashes into sign
There really isn't much else to say about this story. Talking Points Memo reports that Senator David Vitter (R-LA) ran over a "No Parking" lot sign at Gonzales' City Hall, today, in his attempt to escape reporters' questions regarding his involvement in the DC Madam scandal. The trial is now opening for the "DC Madam," Deborah Jeane Palfrey, who is being accused of running a high-class prostitution ring. Vitter's name and phone number were recorded in Palfrey's phone records.
According to WAFB Channel 9 News, Vitter was at Gonzales City Hall, attending a town hall meeting to discuss domestic issues with voters. After the meeting, Vitter gave a brief statement to reporters, saying, "I do want to reiterate how sorry I am for causing real pain to the folks I love so dearly, starting with my family and certainly including the people of Louisiana." Vitter then quickly left. Here is how WAFB Channel 9 reports the "accident" which Vitter was involved in:
You can watch the video of this accident here. From YouTube:
WAFB Channel 9 News reports that Gonzales Police Chief Bill Landry received a phone call from Vitter's office "offering to pay any damages." Landry said that "the sign was slightly bent and was straightened out again," but did not need to be replaced. The incident will not be pursued. "We've had several of our police units hit the same sign," Chief Landry said. I guess Vitter will get off scott-free for running over a no parking sign.
Now if he could just get those pesky reporters from constantly asking questions about the DC Madam, then maybe Vitter won't have to run into any more no parking signs?
Update: Now it appears that Vitter may end up having to testify before the DC Madam trial. From ABC News:
This story is getting really interesting. I wonder just how many names of DC politicians are in Deborah Jeane Palfrey's little black book?
According to WAFB Channel 9 News, Vitter was at Gonzales City Hall, attending a town hall meeting to discuss domestic issues with voters. After the meeting, Vitter gave a brief statement to reporters, saying, "I do want to reiterate how sorry I am for causing real pain to the folks I love so dearly, starting with my family and certainly including the people of Louisiana." Vitter then quickly left. Here is how WAFB Channel 9 reports the "accident" which Vitter was involved in:
Vitter then quickly left. As his driver was leaving Gonzales City Hall, he accidentally backed into a "no parking" sign in the parking lot of City Hall. The sign was placed inside an orange traffic cone. There was visible damage to the left rear of the vehicle. Vitter was in the passenger seat. His driver pulled forward, and then left the scene. A WAFB 9NEWS photographer captured the accident on videotape. Vitter spokesman Joel Digrado did not respond to a request for comment.
You can watch the video of this accident here. From YouTube:
WAFB Channel 9 News reports that Gonzales Police Chief Bill Landry received a phone call from Vitter's office "offering to pay any damages." Landry said that "the sign was slightly bent and was straightened out again," but did not need to be replaced. The incident will not be pursued. "We've had several of our police units hit the same sign," Chief Landry said. I guess Vitter will get off scott-free for running over a no parking sign.
Now if he could just get those pesky reporters from constantly asking questions about the DC Madam, then maybe Vitter won't have to run into any more no parking signs?
Update: Now it appears that Vitter may end up having to testify before the DC Madam trial. From ABC News:
A U.S. senator who admitted to using the "D.C. Madam" escort service is fighting a subpoena to testify at her trial –- down to the opening gavel this morning.
Defending herself against a sortie of felony charges stemming from running an alleged interstate prostitution business, Deborah Jeane Palfrey has subpoenaed Sen. David Vitter, R-La., to testify.
[....]
At a last-minute hearing Friday, U.S. District Court Judge James Robertson appeared to reject an argument by a lawyer who has represented Vitter that his client's testimony would be "totally inappropriate," reported Legal Times. The judge declined to nullify the subpoena.
This story is getting really interesting. I wonder just how many names of DC politicians are in Deborah Jeane Palfrey's little black book?
John McCain's Iraq speech interrupted by mortar attacks in Green Zone
This is just brilliant. This YouTube video, through Crooks and Liars, shows GOP nominee Senator John McCain's presentation of a pro-Iraq speech being interrupted by a breaking news story on a mortar attack against Baghdad's Green Zone. First, here are the quotes from McCain's speech just before the breaking news story:
Now here is the breaking news video. From YouTube:
Now, according to the breaking MSNBC News story, four mortar shells were fired into Baghdad's Green Zone, with no word on casualties. This news story comes just one day after five U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq, with two soldiers killed in the Green Zone. The MSNBC story reports that the latest violence in Iraq was triggered by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's crackdown against the militias in Basara, which is specifically the Mahdi Army under control by anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
What I find amazing about this video is McCain's complete detachment from reality on the U.S. war in Iraq. It is bad enough for McCain to make a pro-war speech on why we should continue this losing war in Iraq, when we all know that Iraq is going to hell in a hand-basket. But here is the video of McCain making his arguments for continuing this war right as the media cuts him off to show us the video of Iraq going to hell in a hand-basket. It is one thing to read about McCain's complete detachment from reality on Iraq. But it is an even more powerful image to see just how far detached McCain is from the reality of Iraq--to see just how far, completely, wrong McCain is on Iraq.
It is sickening.
[Garbled] a couple of choices. We could retreat from Iraq and accept the horrible consequences of our defeat, or we can change strategies and try to turn things around. There was, I believe, a critical moment in our nation's history. And a time of testing for our nation's political leadership.
Now here is the breaking news video. From YouTube:
Now, according to the breaking MSNBC News story, four mortar shells were fired into Baghdad's Green Zone, with no word on casualties. This news story comes just one day after five U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq, with two soldiers killed in the Green Zone. The MSNBC story reports that the latest violence in Iraq was triggered by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's crackdown against the militias in Basara, which is specifically the Mahdi Army under control by anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
What I find amazing about this video is McCain's complete detachment from reality on the U.S. war in Iraq. It is bad enough for McCain to make a pro-war speech on why we should continue this losing war in Iraq, when we all know that Iraq is going to hell in a hand-basket. But here is the video of McCain making his arguments for continuing this war right as the media cuts him off to show us the video of Iraq going to hell in a hand-basket. It is one thing to read about McCain's complete detachment from reality on Iraq. But it is an even more powerful image to see just how far detached McCain is from the reality of Iraq--to see just how far, completely, wrong McCain is on Iraq.
It is sickening.
The MSM's misogyny towards Hillary Clinton
I found this Youtube video through Shakesville, which linked back to Talk Left. It is just incredible. From YouTube:
I'll be honest, I am just amazed at the sewage the MSM has thrown against Senator Hillary Clinton. And yet, Clinton is still fighting for the Democratic nomination. It is a sad situation where the corporate news media has degenerated into this type of sexism against Clinton, and perhaps even racism against Senator Barack Obama. Instead of presenting the facts and the complex policy details on issues from either the Democratic or Republican candidates, we have a corporate news media that is more interested in talking about Hillary's crying, or Obama's "Muslim" education, or any number of ridiculous filler type stories that have no informational bearing on how we American voters must make a choice between these candidates. And what is worst is that the continuous 24-hour news cycle has provided profitable avenues for some of the worst political pundits to use these corporate mouthpieces as a way to expand their own hatred, fears, misogyny, and even racism against both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. It is disgusting.
But even in the face of these corporate MSM sexist attacks, Senator Clinton has shown just how strong of an individual she is, and how she continues to fight for the nomination as the first female president in the United States. That takes a lot of courage. Whether she wins the Democratic nomination, or not, Hillary Clinton has become a powerful role model for young women to look up to, and strive to become the best for themselves--even if the corporate media is demanding that women take their places back into their homes to cook and clean. As I've said before, I can be happy with either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton as president. I just hope Hillary Clinton's chances for achieving the Democratic nomination have not been destroyed by the sexism that still exists inside the corporate media.
And one little warning to the Obama supporters out there--if you think that this type of corporate news misogyny exists only with Hillary Clinton, don't be surprised when that same corporate news media starts using racism against Obama if he becomes the Democratic nominee. Because looking at the race now, it would appear to me that the corporate news media has already picked their White House winner with their over-infatuation towards Senator John McCain. The same corporate crap that Hillary has had to endure in the primary will be racially pre-packaged and thrown against Obama. It is only a matter of time.
I'll be honest, I am just amazed at the sewage the MSM has thrown against Senator Hillary Clinton. And yet, Clinton is still fighting for the Democratic nomination. It is a sad situation where the corporate news media has degenerated into this type of sexism against Clinton, and perhaps even racism against Senator Barack Obama. Instead of presenting the facts and the complex policy details on issues from either the Democratic or Republican candidates, we have a corporate news media that is more interested in talking about Hillary's crying, or Obama's "Muslim" education, or any number of ridiculous filler type stories that have no informational bearing on how we American voters must make a choice between these candidates. And what is worst is that the continuous 24-hour news cycle has provided profitable avenues for some of the worst political pundits to use these corporate mouthpieces as a way to expand their own hatred, fears, misogyny, and even racism against both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. It is disgusting.
But even in the face of these corporate MSM sexist attacks, Senator Clinton has shown just how strong of an individual she is, and how she continues to fight for the nomination as the first female president in the United States. That takes a lot of courage. Whether she wins the Democratic nomination, or not, Hillary Clinton has become a powerful role model for young women to look up to, and strive to become the best for themselves--even if the corporate media is demanding that women take their places back into their homes to cook and clean. As I've said before, I can be happy with either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton as president. I just hope Hillary Clinton's chances for achieving the Democratic nomination have not been destroyed by the sexism that still exists inside the corporate media.
And one little warning to the Obama supporters out there--if you think that this type of corporate news misogyny exists only with Hillary Clinton, don't be surprised when that same corporate news media starts using racism against Obama if he becomes the Democratic nominee. Because looking at the race now, it would appear to me that the corporate news media has already picked their White House winner with their over-infatuation towards Senator John McCain. The same corporate crap that Hillary has had to endure in the primary will be racially pre-packaged and thrown against Obama. It is only a matter of time.
Top Clinton aid steps down under pressure
I've been watching this story over the weekend with fascination. From The New York Times:
What apparently happened is that Mark Penn was walking a tightrope between serving as a top Clinton strategist and as the chief executive of the lobbying firm Burson-Marsteller. Penn met with some Columbian government officials to discuss a trade agreement that the Clinton campaign opposes. Talk about a conflict of interest here! Of course, Penn claimed that he attended the meeting as the chief executive of Burson-Marsteller, but as the story became public and Penn tried to distance himself from this flak, the Columbian government fired Burson-Marsteller as a client for the trade deal. Well, as this entire political scandal has become public, it has infuriated Senator Hillary Clinton. And Mark Penn's head has been served to Senator Clinton on a silver platter.
In the short-run, this will probably be about a five-day scandal. Penn has already been removed from the Clinton campaign as the top strategist. He may do some informal advising for the campaign, but he is now gone. And while Senator Clinton may get some flack over the next couple of days, because of this latest scandal, I don't believe the Penn scandal will directly hurt Clinton. Once this scandal broke out in public, the Clinton campaign removed Mark Penn as their top strategist.
However, Penn has certainly caused some serious damage to the Clinton campaign. Here the damage isn't about Penn's meeting with Columbian government officials over a trade agreement that the Clinton campaign opposes, but rather Penn's entire strategy for running the Clinton campaign. Penn had created the strategy of using Clinton's strength and experience as the central campaign theme, allowing the Barack Obama campaign to seize the change theme and use it to take the lead in the Democratic race. And there are even more problems that Penn has caused for the Clinton campaign. According to the NY Times:
Penn's blunders and mistakes have just about wreaked the Clinton campaign. Clinton is trailing in both the delegate count, and the fundraising, to the Obama campaign. And as the Clinton campaign has been trailing to Obama, Penn's response has been for the Clinton campaign to go negative in attacking Obama, resulting in "kitchen sink" attack ads that have backfired against the Clinton campaign. In other words, the Clinton campaign is a mess right now. And with Penn removed, the Clinton campaign will need to find a new strategist, and create a new campaign message--all while the next big Pennsylvania primary takes place within two weeks. Again in the NY Times:
It will be interesting to see whether Clinton can turn her campaign around this late in the Democratic primary.
ALBUQUERQUE — Mark Penn, the pollster who has advised Bill and Hillary Clinton since 1996, stepped down under pressure on Sunday as the chief political strategist for Mrs. Clinton’s struggling presidential campaign after his private business arrangements again clashed with her campaign positions.
Mr. Penn, who was widely disliked by Mrs. Clinton’s fiercest loyalists and had bitterly feuded with many of them, sealed his fate last week by meeting with officials from Colombia, which hired him to help secure passage of a bilateral trade treaty with the United States that Mrs. Clinton, a senator from New York, opposes.
Mr. Penn met with the Colombians in his role as chief executive of Burson-Marsteller, a global public relations firm. He has refused to sever his ties to the company, which also represented Countrywide Financial, the nation’s largest mortgage lender, and through a subsidiary represented Blackwater Worldwide, the military contractor blamed for numerous civilian deaths in Iraq.
Mr. Penn’s shift — he will continue to do some polling — is the latest upheaval in a campaign that has seen its manager replaced, faced critical money shortages and has often lagged behind Senator Barack Obama of Illinois in a cohesive message and ground strategy. The move comes at a crucial juncture, just two weeks before the Pennsylvania primary on April 22, which Mrs. Clinton needs to win to keep hope of her nomination alive.
Mr. Penn’s work on the trade treaty with Colombia threatened to undercut Mrs. Clinton’s support among the blue-collar voters who are a crucial part of her base, as well as call into question the sincerity of her populist economic message.
A statement from Maggie Williams, the campaign manager, and comments from aides suggested that Mr. Penn voluntarily stepped aside, but other knowledgeable aides said that Mrs. Clinton was furious when she learned of the Colombia talks and insisted on Mr. Penn’s demotion. Mr. Clinton concurred in that judgment, aides said.
The Clinton campaign declined to make Mr. Penn available for comment. On Friday he apologized to the campaign for taking on the Colombian contract.
What apparently happened is that Mark Penn was walking a tightrope between serving as a top Clinton strategist and as the chief executive of the lobbying firm Burson-Marsteller. Penn met with some Columbian government officials to discuss a trade agreement that the Clinton campaign opposes. Talk about a conflict of interest here! Of course, Penn claimed that he attended the meeting as the chief executive of Burson-Marsteller, but as the story became public and Penn tried to distance himself from this flak, the Columbian government fired Burson-Marsteller as a client for the trade deal. Well, as this entire political scandal has become public, it has infuriated Senator Hillary Clinton. And Mark Penn's head has been served to Senator Clinton on a silver platter.
In the short-run, this will probably be about a five-day scandal. Penn has already been removed from the Clinton campaign as the top strategist. He may do some informal advising for the campaign, but he is now gone. And while Senator Clinton may get some flack over the next couple of days, because of this latest scandal, I don't believe the Penn scandal will directly hurt Clinton. Once this scandal broke out in public, the Clinton campaign removed Mark Penn as their top strategist.
However, Penn has certainly caused some serious damage to the Clinton campaign. Here the damage isn't about Penn's meeting with Columbian government officials over a trade agreement that the Clinton campaign opposes, but rather Penn's entire strategy for running the Clinton campaign. Penn had created the strategy of using Clinton's strength and experience as the central campaign theme, allowing the Barack Obama campaign to seize the change theme and use it to take the lead in the Democratic race. And there are even more problems that Penn has caused for the Clinton campaign. According to the NY Times:
For months, many have wondered why Mrs. Clinton had protected the gruff, rumpled strategist. Many rivals within the campaign held Mr. Penn responsible for the flawed electoral strategy that is considered partly to blame for Mrs. Clinton’s difficult political position, trailing Mr. Obama by more than a hundred delegates and facing a very narrow path to winning the Democratic nomination.
Early on, Mr. Penn also resisted efforts to humanize Mrs. Clinton, insisting that her personality was not a detriment and that voters would be drawn to her experience and presumed competence. He repeatedly pointed to polling data to support his position, leading to battles with other aides who later said it was the glimpses of vulnerability and humanity seen after her loss in Iowa that enabled her to rebound.
Penn's blunders and mistakes have just about wreaked the Clinton campaign. Clinton is trailing in both the delegate count, and the fundraising, to the Obama campaign. And as the Clinton campaign has been trailing to Obama, Penn's response has been for the Clinton campaign to go negative in attacking Obama, resulting in "kitchen sink" attack ads that have backfired against the Clinton campaign. In other words, the Clinton campaign is a mess right now. And with Penn removed, the Clinton campaign will need to find a new strategist, and create a new campaign message--all while the next big Pennsylvania primary takes place within two weeks. Again in the NY Times:
[Penn's] polling firm, Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates, will continue to provide polling and advice to the campaign, the statement said. Geoff Garin, who has been conducting polling for the campaign and will continue to provide data, and Howard Wolfson, Mrs. Clinton’s longtime communications director, will coordinate the campaign’s strategic message from now on, the statement added.
[....]
Mr. Garin, who advised Mrs. Clinton’s winning campaign for a Senate seat in 2000 and only recently joined her presidential bid, has argued throughout the primaries that her route to victory lies less in assailing Mr. Obama than in buttressing her own image as a leader who could connect with average Americans and improve their lives.
It will be interesting to see whether Clinton can turn her campaign around this late in the Democratic primary.
CNN's Acosta calls 16-year-old McCain questioner a "heckler"
This is frickin' ridiculous! I found this story through Media Matters, and it really shows just how much the mainstream press has fallen in love with GOP presidential candidate Senator John McCain. According to Media Matters:
And you can see CNN's video of Acosta calling Halldorson a "heckler," and the actual video of Halldorson's question to McCain:
This is frickin' ridiculous. Looking at CNN's own video of the story, Halldorson is actually asking Senator McCain a simple, but tough, question of why is McCain speaking at his former high school--an even that the McCain campaign claims in not a political event. I went on to Webster's Online Dictionary to specifically look up the word heckler. Here is the Webster's definition:
To harass and try to disconcert with questions. Halldorson only asked one question for the senator, of why was he here at this political event that the McCain campaign said was not a political event? And this question was asked during a question-and-answer period. She did not ask multiple questions, nor did she attempt to harass the senator. And if Senator McCain is disconcerted with this one question, then maybe he shouldn't be running for as the GOP candidate in the first place since he can't seem to answer any tough political questions. Excuse me, Mr. Acosta, but this is the tough question YOU should have been asking the senator, rather than this high school student. Because that is what reporters are supposed to be paid to do--ask the tough questions to get into the story behind the regurgitated political bull that the political campaigns try to shove down the American voters' throats. I guess you can't seem to understand that, Mr. Acosta, since obviously you are shoving the same PR-campaign crap that the McCain campaign is giving you as news, and then attacking voters for doing your job. You are a disgrace.
During the April 5 edition of CNN's Ballot Bowl, host Jim Acosta reported on an April 1 appearance by Sen. John McCain at his former high school -- Episcopal High School in Alexandria, Virginia -- in which 16-year-old student Katelyn Halldorson asked McCain to clarify why he was visiting the school if not for political reasons. During his report, Acosta claimed that Halldorson "apparently ... started heckling the senator." Additionally, Acosta twice referred to the high school junior as a "heckler." In fact, as both The Wall Street Journal and the Politico noted, Halldorson's question came during a question-and-answer session. Indeed, according to a Federal News Service event transcript retrieved from the Nexis news database, McCain called on Halldorson during what the school's headmaster described at the time as a "question and answer session."
And you can see CNN's video of Acosta calling Halldorson a "heckler," and the actual video of Halldorson's question to McCain:
This is frickin' ridiculous. Looking at CNN's own video of the story, Halldorson is actually asking Senator McCain a simple, but tough, question of why is McCain speaking at his former high school--an even that the McCain campaign claims in not a political event. I went on to Webster's Online Dictionary to specifically look up the word heckler. Here is the Webster's definition:
Main Entry: heck·le
Pronunciation:
\ˈhe-kəl\
Function:
transitive verb
Inflected Form(s):
heck·led; heck·ling
Etymology:
Middle English hekelen to dress flax, scratch, from heckele hackle; akin to Old High German hāko hook — more at hook
Date:
circa 1825
: to harass and try to disconcert with questions, challenges, or gibes : badger
synonyms see bait
— heck·ler \-k(ə-)lər\ noun
To harass and try to disconcert with questions. Halldorson only asked one question for the senator, of why was he here at this political event that the McCain campaign said was not a political event? And this question was asked during a question-and-answer period. She did not ask multiple questions, nor did she attempt to harass the senator. And if Senator McCain is disconcerted with this one question, then maybe he shouldn't be running for as the GOP candidate in the first place since he can't seem to answer any tough political questions. Excuse me, Mr. Acosta, but this is the tough question YOU should have been asking the senator, rather than this high school student. Because that is what reporters are supposed to be paid to do--ask the tough questions to get into the story behind the regurgitated political bull that the political campaigns try to shove down the American voters' throats. I guess you can't seem to understand that, Mr. Acosta, since obviously you are shoving the same PR-campaign crap that the McCain campaign is giving you as news, and then attacking voters for doing your job. You are a disgrace.
Monday Schoolhouse Rocks--Busy Prepositions
For today's Monday Schoolhouse Rocks, we've got some Busy Prepositions. This had a very catchy tune with a bunch of soldier ants marching on to give us a prepositional phrase. The animation was especially good with a great use of color and background imagery. Contrast Busy Prepositions, which first aired in 1993, with some of the early 1970s Schoolhouse Rock songs like My Hero Zero or Interjections, which had very simple animation and very little background imagery. You can really see just how far Schoolhouse Rock has come. And whether they were produced in the 1970s or 1990s, they still work in teaching children the basic concepts of mathematics, English grammar, science, and history. Music and lyrics for Busy Prepositions were created by Bob Dorough, while the song was performed by Jack Sheldon and Bob Dorough. From YouTube:
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Charlton Heston dead at 84
Well, this is the big Hollywood news story for today. From MSNBC News:
Now there have been a quite a few postings and commentary on The Daily Kos, which quickly moved into discussing the issue of Charlton Heston and staunch support for gun ownership. And some of the comments have been particularly harsh against Heston. The way I see it, Heston had strong viewpoints and chose to express those viewpoints in his own way. It is no different than having a liberal actor or actress expressing their own strong liberal views--can you say Jane Fonda and her political activism? Heston was president of the National Rifle Association. Jane Fonda took a tour of North Vietnam during the Vietnam War. I could care less about the opinions of any actor or actress--I want to see them play a role in a movie, and hopefully have a great time watching the movie. If they want to express their political opinions, then it is fine with me--regardless of whether I believe their opinions or not. Where I will draw the line is if such actors or actresses become elected in a state or federal political office. Then their views on issues will affect on how they will vote on legislation, and how such legislation may affect my own well being. In that case, all bets are off.
But getting back to Chuck Heston, we've got another great Hollywood actor passing into legend. Heston's acting performance may have been a little wooden at times, but he always ended up playing in some great epic roles, and even the little movies, with memorable quotes:
Take your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape!
You've gotta tell them! Soylent Green is people!
Climb baby, climb.
You're being paid to fly fighter planes, not sit in your bunk and cry over your girl's picture! You better shape up, Tiger, or some hotshot Jap pilot's gonna flame your *ass*!
There's never a cop around when you need one.
I have orders to bring you to God... heathen.
You must suit yourself, Milady. But if in the end you should, do it with a becoming grace.
You may conquer the land. You may slaughter the people. But that is not the end. We will rise again.
You gave me this staff to rule over scorpions and serpants. God has made it a staff to rule over kings.
Damn them... damn them all to hell!
Gordon Street? Ah, yes, Gordon Street. I once knew a girl who lived on Gordon Street. Long time ago, when I was a young man. Not a day passes I don't think her and the promise that I made which I will always keep. That one perfect day on Gordon Street. That's uh, five blocks up, two over.
I think the final quote really sums up Charlton Heston's career. Heston made movies for the fun of it, brining his chiseled jaw and semi-wooden performance into every role he played. You always knew what you were getting from Chuck Heston--even in the cult stinker disaster movies like Airport 1975 or Earthquake, he is still fun to watch. You can sum up Heston's career in a bit part he played as a Good Actor giving Wayne Campbell directions to where the First Presbyterian Church is located in the movie Wayne's World 2. You just knew he is having fun making movies for the audiences' enjoyment. From YouTube:
LOS ANGELES - Nancy Reagan was heartbroken over Charlton Heston’s death. President Bush hailed him as a “strong advocate for liberty,” while John McCain called Heston a devotee for civil and constitutional rights.
Even Michael Moore, who mocked Heston in his gun-control documentary “Bowling for Columbine,” posted the actor’s picture on his Web site to mark his passing.
Heston, who died Saturday night at 84, was a towering figure both in his politics and on screen, where his characters had the ear of God (Moses in “The Ten Commandments”), survived apocalyptic plagues (“The Omega Man”) and endured one of Hollywood’s most-grueling action sequences (the chariot race in “Ben-Hur,” which earned him the best-actor Academy Award).
Better known in recent years as a fierce gun-rights advocate who headed the National Rifle Association, Heston played legendary leaders and ordinary men hurled into heroic struggles.
Now there have been a quite a few postings and commentary on The Daily Kos, which quickly moved into discussing the issue of Charlton Heston and staunch support for gun ownership. And some of the comments have been particularly harsh against Heston. The way I see it, Heston had strong viewpoints and chose to express those viewpoints in his own way. It is no different than having a liberal actor or actress expressing their own strong liberal views--can you say Jane Fonda and her political activism? Heston was president of the National Rifle Association. Jane Fonda took a tour of North Vietnam during the Vietnam War. I could care less about the opinions of any actor or actress--I want to see them play a role in a movie, and hopefully have a great time watching the movie. If they want to express their political opinions, then it is fine with me--regardless of whether I believe their opinions or not. Where I will draw the line is if such actors or actresses become elected in a state or federal political office. Then their views on issues will affect on how they will vote on legislation, and how such legislation may affect my own well being. In that case, all bets are off.
But getting back to Chuck Heston, we've got another great Hollywood actor passing into legend. Heston's acting performance may have been a little wooden at times, but he always ended up playing in some great epic roles, and even the little movies, with memorable quotes:
Take your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape!
You've gotta tell them! Soylent Green is people!
Climb baby, climb.
You're being paid to fly fighter planes, not sit in your bunk and cry over your girl's picture! You better shape up, Tiger, or some hotshot Jap pilot's gonna flame your *ass*!
There's never a cop around when you need one.
I have orders to bring you to God... heathen.
You must suit yourself, Milady. But if in the end you should, do it with a becoming grace.
You may conquer the land. You may slaughter the people. But that is not the end. We will rise again.
You gave me this staff to rule over scorpions and serpants. God has made it a staff to rule over kings.
Damn them... damn them all to hell!
Gordon Street? Ah, yes, Gordon Street. I once knew a girl who lived on Gordon Street. Long time ago, when I was a young man. Not a day passes I don't think her and the promise that I made which I will always keep. That one perfect day on Gordon Street. That's uh, five blocks up, two over.
I think the final quote really sums up Charlton Heston's career. Heston made movies for the fun of it, brining his chiseled jaw and semi-wooden performance into every role he played. You always knew what you were getting from Chuck Heston--even in the cult stinker disaster movies like Airport 1975 or Earthquake, he is still fun to watch. You can sum up Heston's career in a bit part he played as a Good Actor giving Wayne Campbell directions to where the First Presbyterian Church is located in the movie Wayne's World 2. You just knew he is having fun making movies for the audiences' enjoyment. From YouTube:
Saturday, April 05, 2008
Saturday Morning Cartoons--Rhapsody Rabbit and The Cat Concerto
One thing you can say about the late 1940s cartoons is that they really make fun of the classical pianist concert scene. Two perfect examples would be Bugs Bunny's Rhapsody Rabbit and Tom and Jerry's The Cat Concerto. In both of these cartoons, Bugs and Tom play famous classical pianists who get into a little tit-for-tat with a couple of mice (Jerry, of course, being Tom's foe). And the comedy ensues. Both cartoons play the same piano concert recital Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2 by Franz Liszt. And interestingly enough, Rhapsody Rabbit lost out to The Cat Concerto in the 1946 Academy Awards Best Short Subject: Cartoons. Which is the better cartoon? You decide.
Bugs Bunny in Rhapsody Rabbit:
Tom and Jerry in The Cat Concerto:
Personally, I think they are both equally brilliant.
Bugs Bunny in Rhapsody Rabbit:
Tom and Jerry in The Cat Concerto:
Personally, I think they are both equally brilliant.
Friday, April 04, 2008
NY Times poll--81% say nation is headed on wrong track
This is from The New York Times:
Reading these poll numbers, I'm struck by that famous question Ronald Reagan gave back in the 1980 campaign against President Carter, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" It is a question that is especially prevalent today. An overwhelming majority of Americans feel that this country is on the wrong track. They are against the Bush war in Iraq. They feel that the economy is heading into a recession. And they are especially unhappy with the direction this Bush administration has taken this country. I don't see how things can get any better for the Republican Party within the next six months, or even for the McCain campaign that is running as essentially a Bush third term.
The New Republic's Jon Cole has an interesting take on this poll:
After eight years of the Bush administration's deregulation and their philosophy of shoving "free market is better" philosophy down the American publics' throats, the American public may be waking up and realizing that this extremist Bush administration's philosophy does not work. The American public is starting to demand a greater social security net and government regulation to remove the corporate greed and excesses that have run rampant during the Bush era. There has to be a balance between government regulation to protect Americans from hardship, and to keep the system running fairly, verses the desire for competition and getting ahead. We've gotten far away from that balance, where the Bush administration is rewarding corporations excessive greed with perks and deregulation at the expense of the American taxpayer and Americans' ability to even compete or get ahead in this environment. If the U.S. economic situation continues to worsen, and even if the Iraq war continues to deteriorate, we may see even more Republican politicians losing their jobs this November.
Americans are more dissatisfied with the country’s direction than at any time since the New York Times/CBS News poll began asking about the subject in the early 1990s, according to the latest poll.
In the poll, 81 percent of respondents said they believed “things have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track,” up from 69 percent a year ago and 35 percent in early 2002.
Although the public mood has been darkening since the early days of the war in Iraq, it has taken a new turn for the worse in the last few months, as the economy has seemed to slip into recession. There is now nearly a national consensus that the country faces significant problems.
A majority of nearly every demographic and political group — Democrats and Republicans, men and women, residents of cities and rural areas, college graduates and those who finished only high school — say the United States is headed in the wrong direction. Seventy-eight percent of respondents said the country was worse off than five years ago; just 4 percent said it was better off.
The dissatisfaction is especially striking because public opinion usually hits its low point only in the months and years after an economic downturn, not at the beginning of one. Today, however, Americans report being deeply worried about the country even though many say their own personal finances are still in fairly good shape.
Only 21 percent of respondents said the overall economy was in good condition, the lowest such number since late 1992, when the recession that began in the summer of 1990 had already been over for more than a year. In the latest poll, two in three people said they believed the economy was in recession today.
Reading these poll numbers, I'm struck by that famous question Ronald Reagan gave back in the 1980 campaign against President Carter, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" It is a question that is especially prevalent today. An overwhelming majority of Americans feel that this country is on the wrong track. They are against the Bush war in Iraq. They feel that the economy is heading into a recession. And they are especially unhappy with the direction this Bush administration has taken this country. I don't see how things can get any better for the Republican Party within the next six months, or even for the McCain campaign that is running as essentially a Bush third term.
The New Republic's Jon Cole has an interesting take on this poll:
If you think that the solutions to most of these problems necessarily invovle creating new government programs or strengthening existing ones--in other words, if you're a liberal like me--probably the most encouraging finding is the response to this question: "Would you rather have a smaller government providing fewer services, or a bigger government providing more services?" Forty-three percent say "bigger"--the exact same percentage that says "smaller." Not since since late 1991--when, apparently, the Times first began asking the question--did the public express such favorable attitudes towards government.
[....]
So what's the political lesson here? On the merits, the case for more aggressive regulation and a stronger safety net--not just in health care, but also banking, pensions, and other areas--has never been stronger. And the insecurity evident in this poll suggests people are becoming more open to these sorts of initiatives--more, certainly, than they have been in a long time.
After eight years of the Bush administration's deregulation and their philosophy of shoving "free market is better" philosophy down the American publics' throats, the American public may be waking up and realizing that this extremist Bush administration's philosophy does not work. The American public is starting to demand a greater social security net and government regulation to remove the corporate greed and excesses that have run rampant during the Bush era. There has to be a balance between government regulation to protect Americans from hardship, and to keep the system running fairly, verses the desire for competition and getting ahead. We've gotten far away from that balance, where the Bush administration is rewarding corporations excessive greed with perks and deregulation at the expense of the American taxpayer and Americans' ability to even compete or get ahead in this environment. If the U.S. economic situation continues to worsen, and even if the Iraq war continues to deteriorate, we may see even more Republican politicians losing their jobs this November.
Friday Fun Stuff--GOP congressman McHenry calls U.S. soldier in Iraq a "two-bit security guard"
This is just incredible. I'm not sure if the Republican politicians are that stupid, or full of disdain for American soldiers in Iraq. During a public appearance last Saturday, GOP Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) belittled a U.S. soldier in Iraq, calling him a "two-bit security guard" after the soldier would not allow McHenry to go to a gym without the proper credentials. The soldier was apparently following orders while guarding the gym. And that wasn't good enough for our arrogant Republican congressman. Here is McHenry's quote from Think Progress:
You can view the video here through YouTube:
What can I say, but this guy is a frickin' idiot. You are in a war zone. And U.S. soldiers performing guard duty, in Iraq, will follow their orders specifically as to whether to allow someone to enter a place with the proper credentials. If you don't have the proper identification, you are not getting in. And no amount of screaming at the soldier, or demanding to see his commanding officer, is going to help you. And congressman McHenry, you think you had it bad on your little fact-finding trip to Iraq--how many tours has that "two-bit security guard" of a U.S. soldier have had to endure in Iraq, serving his country so that you, the Republican Party, and the war-mongering Bush administration can continue this destructive war in Iraq? And I would suppose that you are a Republican, you will also continue to support this destructive war in Iraq, which is destroying our U.S. military, and forcing this "two-bit security guard" of a U.S. soldier to endure even more endless tours in this lost war, keeping him away from his family.
I sincerely hope that the voters in North Carolina will kick your ass out of Congress this November.
We spent the night in the Green Zone, in the poolhouse of one of Saddam’s palaces. A little weird, I got to be honest with you. But I felt safe. And so in the morning, I got up early — not that I make this a great habit — but I went to the gym because I just couldn’t sleep and everything else. Well, sure enough, the guard wouldn’t let me in. Said I didn’t have the correct credentials.
It’s 5:00 in the morning. I haven’t had sleep. I was not very happy with this two-bit security guard. So you know, I said, “I want to see your supervisor.” Thirty minutes later, the supervisor wasn’t happy with me, they escort me back to my room. It happens. I guess I didn’t need to work out anyway.
You can view the video here through YouTube:
What can I say, but this guy is a frickin' idiot. You are in a war zone. And U.S. soldiers performing guard duty, in Iraq, will follow their orders specifically as to whether to allow someone to enter a place with the proper credentials. If you don't have the proper identification, you are not getting in. And no amount of screaming at the soldier, or demanding to see his commanding officer, is going to help you. And congressman McHenry, you think you had it bad on your little fact-finding trip to Iraq--how many tours has that "two-bit security guard" of a U.S. soldier have had to endure in Iraq, serving his country so that you, the Republican Party, and the war-mongering Bush administration can continue this destructive war in Iraq? And I would suppose that you are a Republican, you will also continue to support this destructive war in Iraq, which is destroying our U.S. military, and forcing this "two-bit security guard" of a U.S. soldier to endure even more endless tours in this lost war, keeping him away from his family.
I sincerely hope that the voters in North Carolina will kick your ass out of Congress this November.
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
Today’s Army is out of balance
I found this VetVoice story through Crooks and Liars, and it is just incredible. From VetVoice:
There is not much else to say here--the Army is broken. We are faced with the three options of either pulling out of Iraq, watching the Army disintegrate, or institute the draft. At this point, President Bush is more than happy to allow the Army to disintegrate if it would allow Bush to salvage his "legacy" and blame the Army's disintegration on his successor (who may end up being a Democrat). As for Republican presidential candidate John McCain, how much do you want to bet that he will continue the Iraq war with some form of draft? The longer this war continues on, the worst it will get for our military. And the harder the choice will be between these three no-win options.
In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday, Army Vice Chief of Staff General Richard Cody sternly rebuked all those who've been blowing sunshine and spreading baseless happy talk for five years with regard to the war in Iraq. And he was blunt--blunter than I've ever heard him before--about the crisis facing the Army. He even went so far as to hint at the "D-word" in his prepared remarks:
Today's Army is out of balance. The current demand for our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan exceeds the sustainable supply and limits our ability to provide ready forces for other contingencies . . . Current operational requirements for forces and insufficient time between deployments require a focus on counterinsurgency training and equipping to the detriment of preparedness for the full range of military missions.
Given the current theater demand for Army forces, we are unable to provide a sustainable tempo of deployments for our Soldiers and Families. Soldiers, Families, support systems, and equipment are stretched and stressed by the demands of lengthy and repeated deployments, with insufficient recovery time. Equipment used repeatedly in harsh environments is wearing out more rapidly than programmed. Army support systems, designed for the pre-9/11 peacetime Army, are straining under the accumulation of stress from six years at war. Overall, our readiness is being consumed as fast as we build it.
And then he added the kicker:
If unaddressed, this lack of balance poses a significant risk to the All-Volunteer Force and degrades the Army's ability to make a timely response to other contingencies.
When Cody says "this lack of balance poses a significant risk to the All-Volunteer Force," he's really saying we have three options:
1. We can change course now and save everyone a lot of trouble.
2. We can maintain our current course in Iraq and watch the Army disintegrate as it did during and after Vietnam.
3. We can institute the Draft.
There is not much else to say here--the Army is broken. We are faced with the three options of either pulling out of Iraq, watching the Army disintegrate, or institute the draft. At this point, President Bush is more than happy to allow the Army to disintegrate if it would allow Bush to salvage his "legacy" and blame the Army's disintegration on his successor (who may end up being a Democrat). As for Republican presidential candidate John McCain, how much do you want to bet that he will continue the Iraq war with some form of draft? The longer this war continues on, the worst it will get for our military. And the harder the choice will be between these three no-win options.
U.S. military getting gouged at the gas pump
I shouldn't be surprised at this story. From MSNBC News:
Think about it for a moment. The U.S. military is stuck in an endless war in Iraq. The Middle East private and government-owned oil companies are more than happy to charge the Pentagon whatever they feel is the market price for gas that day--remember, the Pentagon is buying 50 million gallons of fuel a month on the open market. And while some suppliers are charging a low price of around $1.99 a gallon, and others are charging over $5.00 a gallon, the prices average out to around $3.23 a gallon for gas. If the U.S. military doesn't purchase their gas from these Middle Eastern energy suppliers, you can bet that there will be a lot of U.S. military trucks, tanks, helicopters, and airplanes sitting with empty gas tanks. You can also bet that the Bush administration will not do a damn thing about this issue of high gas prices for the Pentagon--private suppliers gathering around the American taxpayer trough to pig out on their fill!
We need to get out of Iraq.
WASHINGTON - Think you're being gouged by Big Oil? U.S. troops in Iraq are paying almost as much as Americans back home, despite burning fuel at staggering rates in a war to stabilize a country known for its oil reserves.
Military units pay an average of $3.23 a gallon for gasoline, diesel and jet fuel, some $88 a day per service member in Iraq, according to an Associated Press review and interviews with defense officials. A penny or two increase in the price of fuel can add millions of dollars to U.S. costs.
Critics in Congress are fuming. The U.S., they say, is getting suckered as the cost of the war exceeds half a trillion dollars — $10.3 billion a month, according to the Congressional Research Service.
Some lawmakers say oil-rich allies in the Middle East should be doing more to subsidize fuel costs because of the stake they have in a secure Iraq. Others point to Iraq's own burgeoning surplus as crude oil prices top $100 a barrel. Subsidies let Iraqis pay only about $1.36 a gallon.
The U.S. military, through its Defense Energy Support Center, buys fuel on the open market, paying from $1.99 a gallon to as much as $5.30 a gallon under contracts with private and government-owned oil companies. The center then sets a fixed rate for troops, currently $3.51 a gallon for diesel, $3.15 for gasoline, $3.04 for jet fuel and $13.61 for a high-octane fuel used mostly in unmanned aerial vehicles.
Kuwait does grant substantial subsidies, but they cover only about half the fuel used by the U.S. in Iraq. And the discount is eaten up by the Energy Support Center's administrative costs and fluctuations in the market.
Overall, the military consumes about 1.2 million barrels, or more than 50 million gallons of fuel, each month in Iraq at an average $127.68 a barrel. That works out to about $153 million a month.
Think about it for a moment. The U.S. military is stuck in an endless war in Iraq. The Middle East private and government-owned oil companies are more than happy to charge the Pentagon whatever they feel is the market price for gas that day--remember, the Pentagon is buying 50 million gallons of fuel a month on the open market. And while some suppliers are charging a low price of around $1.99 a gallon, and others are charging over $5.00 a gallon, the prices average out to around $3.23 a gallon for gas. If the U.S. military doesn't purchase their gas from these Middle Eastern energy suppliers, you can bet that there will be a lot of U.S. military trucks, tanks, helicopters, and airplanes sitting with empty gas tanks. You can also bet that the Bush administration will not do a damn thing about this issue of high gas prices for the Pentagon--private suppliers gathering around the American taxpayer trough to pig out on their fill!
We need to get out of Iraq.
Food stamp use nears record numbers
This is certainly not good. From the March 31, 2008 New York Times:
So what is happening here? We've got a stagnating job market, rising food and fuel prices, companies that are cutting back on employee hours and salaries, resulting in people who don't have enough money to purchase food. These people are going to demand that the government take action in helping them through this crisis--a government that has Republican George W. Bush as its leader. If the economic situation continues to deteriorate, the Republicans could find themselves losing even more congressional seats and the White House.
Driven by a painful mix of layoffs and rising food and fuel prices, the number of Americans receiving food stamps is projected to reach 28 million in the coming year, the highest level since the aid program began in the 1960s.
The number of recipients, who must have near-poverty incomes to qualify for benefits averaging $100 a month per family member, has fluctuated over the years along with economic conditions, eligibility rules, enlistment drives and natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina, which led to a spike in the South.
But recent rises in many states appear to be resulting mainly from the economic slowdown, officials and experts say, as well as inflation in prices of basic goods that leave more families feeling pinched. Citing expected growth in unemployment, the Congressional Budget Office this month projected a continued increase in the monthly number of recipients in the next fiscal year, starting Oct. 1 — to 28 million, up from 27.8 million in 2008, and 26.5 million in 2007.
The percentage of Americans receiving food stamps was higher after a recession in the 1990s, but actual numbers are expected to be higher this year.
Federal benefit costs are projected to rise to $36 billion in the 2009 fiscal year from $34 billion this year.
“People sign up for food stamps when they lose their jobs, or their wages go down because their hours are cut,” said Stacy Dean, director of food stamp policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington, who noted that 14 states saw their rolls reach record numbers by last December.
One example is Michigan, where one in eight residents now receives food stamps. “Our caseload has more than doubled since 2000, and we’re at an all-time record level,” said Maureen Sorbet, spokeswoman for the Michigan Department of Human Services.
The climb in food stamp recipients there has been relentless, through economic upturns and downturns, reflecting a steady loss of industrial jobs that has pushed recipient levels to new highs in Ohio and Illinois as well.
“We’ve had poverty here for a good while,” Ms. Sorbet said. Contributing to the rise, she added, Michigan, like many other states, has also worked to make more low-end workers aware of their eligibility, and a switch from coupons to electronic debit cards has reduced the stigma.
Some states have experienced more recent surges. From December 2006 to December 2007, more than 40 states saw recipient numbers rise, and in several — Arizona, Florida, Maryland, Nevada, North Dakota and Rhode Island — the one-year growth was 10 percent or more.
In Rhode Island, the number of recipients climbed by 18 percent over the last two years, to more than 84,000 as of February, or about 8.4 percent of the population. This is the highest total in the last dozen years or more, said Bob McDonough, the state’s administrator of family and adult services, and reflects both a strong enlistment effort and an upward creep in unemployment.
So what is happening here? We've got a stagnating job market, rising food and fuel prices, companies that are cutting back on employee hours and salaries, resulting in people who don't have enough money to purchase food. These people are going to demand that the government take action in helping them through this crisis--a government that has Republican George W. Bush as its leader. If the economic situation continues to deteriorate, the Republicans could find themselves losing even more congressional seats and the White House.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
