Toyota tells dealers to stop selling eight model cars covered by recall

This is a huge blow for Toyota. From the Los Angeles Times:

Toyota Motor Corp. is temporarily halting sales and production of eight models, including the top-selling Camry and Corolla, that it has recalled because the accelerator pedal can stick and cause unwanted acceleration.

The automaker announced the recall of 2.3 million cars and trucks late last week. That came just months after Toyota launched its largest-ever recall -- 4.3 million vehicles -- because floor mats could trap the gas pedal and also cause sudden acceleration.

Today, Toyota informed its roughly 1,200 U.S. dealers to immediately halt sales of both new and used models of the affected vehicles: the 2009 to 2010 RAV4, 2009 to 2010 Corolla, 2009 to 2010 Matrix, 2005 to 2010 Avalon, 2010 Highlander, 2007 to 2010 Tundra and 2008 to 2010 Sequoia. It also is halting sales of certain 2007 to 2010 Camry sedans, depending on where those vehicles were manufactured.

Toyota also said it would stop production of those models on five assembly lines in the U.S. and Canada, effective Monday.

The automaker did not say how long it would freeze sales of those vehicles, which represent the majority of its sales, by volume, in the U.S.

"At this point, we don't know," Toyota spokesman Brian Lyons said about a remedy for the problem. He said that Toyota had never before issued a "stop sale" order. "I'm not going to speculate on how long this will be in effect."

This has become a huge problem for Toyota--a recall of eight models produced over a span of 3-5 years, affecting over 6 million cars. I do not even think that Toyota really knows what the problem is with these cars regarding unexpected acceleration. What is more, both the recall and the halting of sales affects some of Toyota's best-selling models--including the Camry, the Corolla, the Tundra, and the Highlander--affecting Toyota's small car, truck, and SUV platforms. So far, Toyota is now taking the right steps now in both issuing the recall order and halting the sales of their vehicles. But apparently Toyota has been rather late in issuing such a recall, according to this ABC News story:

The major announcement comes just days after Toyota recalled 2.3 million vehicles to correct the sudden unexplained acceleration in some of its models, after ABC News informed the company that the latest in a long series of investigative reports on the issue was about to air.

Safety expert Sean Kane told ABC News that since last fall, when Toyota said it had solved the acceleration problem with proposed changes to gas pedals and a recall of 4.2 million cars with suspect floor mats, more than 60 new cases of runaway Toyotas have been reported.

In the most tragic incident, on the day after Christmas, four people died in Southlake, Texas, a suburb of Dallas, when a 2008 Toyota sped off the road, through a fence and landed upside down in a pond. The car's floor mats were found in the trunk of the car, where owners had been advised to put them as part of the recall.

"There's one thing that didn't cause the accident," said Southlake police spokesman Lt. Ben Brown.

Federal safety investigators have joined in the investigation, according to Lt. Brown.

Toyota had a reputation for producing safe, quality-made cars. This latest order to halt sales will probably severely tarnish Toyota's image as a quality car-maker, not to mention the losses Toyota will take in U.S. car sales market as a result of the halting of sales and production of these models. The longer this halting of sales and production of Toyota cars takes place, the greater the losses that Toyota will incur. And it is not just dollar amounts of lost sales, but also potentially long-term, loyal Toyota customers who will be shopping for other manufacturer's cars.

31 House Republicans support resolution honoring alleged felon James O'Keefe

Okay, now the James O'Keefe story is entering into the Twilight Zone. Now Media Matters is reporting that Rep. Pete Olson (R-TX) has introduced a resolution praising O'Keefe for his investigation into the ACORN activities. Here is the text of the resolution:

Text of the House Resolution:

Whereas Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe III filmed investigatory videos uncovering the fraudulent and illegal practices of the Association of Community Organization for Reform Now (ACORN);

Whereas the House of Representatives voted to completely defund ACORN on September 17, 2009;

Whereas these videos resulted in the potential annual savings of millions of taxpayer dollars to organizations that contract with ACORN;

Whereas Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe III have displayed exemplary actions as government watchdogs and young journalists uncovering wasteful government spending; and

Whereas Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe III are owed a debt of gratitude by the people of the United States:

Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives— (1) honors Hannah Giles and James O’ Keefe III for their work as investigative journalists; (2) commends Hannah Giles and James O’ Keefe III for bringing to light the fraudulent behavior of the Association of Community Organization for Reform Now (ACORN) and helping save millions of taxpayer dollars that otherwise would have funded ACORN; and (3) respectfully requests the Clerk of the House to transmit an enrolled copy of this resolution to Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe III.

Even more insane, Olson's resolution has picked up support by 31 House Republicans. Media Matters has the names of these supporters:

Todd Akin [R-MO2]
Roscoe Bartlett [R-MD6]
Joe Barton [R-TX6]
Rob Bishop [R-UT1]
Jo Bonner [R-AL1]
John Boozman [R-AR3]
Paul Broun [R-GA10]
Henry Brown [R-SC1]
John Campbell [R-CA48]
John Carter [R-TX31]
Howard Coble [R-NC6]
Tom Cole [R-OK4]
Michael Conaway [R-TX11]
John Culberson [R-TX7]
Mary Fallin [R-OK5]
Trent Franks [R-AZ2]
Louis Gohmert [R-TX1]
Kay Granger [R-TX12]
Ralph Hall [R-TX4]
Jim Jordan [R-OH4]
Steve King [R-IA5]
John Kline [R-MN2]
Doug Lamborn [R-CO5]
Blaine Luetkemeyer [R-MO9]
Daniel Lungren [R-CA3]
Kenny Marchant [R-TX24]
Joseph Pitts [R-PA16]
Bill Posey [R-FL15]
Phil Roe [R-TN1]
Jean Schmidt [R-OH2]
John Shadegg [R-AZ3]

According to Govtrack.us, the resolution was introduced on October 7, 2009, and is currently sitting in the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. So obviously this resolution was introduced well before O'Keefe got busted today on the wiretapping charges. And I'm certainly guessing that the Democratic leadership are more than happy to toss this resolution into the committee trash can. This makes me wonder--will Olson and his GOP cosponsors continue to support this resolution, now that O'Keefe has been arrested on felony charges? This resolution is certainly making Olson and his 31 Republican cosponsors looking really stupid now.

Talking Points Memo now has the federal affidavit detailing the charges against O'Keefe.

Anti-Acorn filmmaker arrested for bugging Senator Mary Landrieu’s office

This is just...wow! From the Politico.com:

Federal authorities have arrested four men on felony charges for attempting to infiltrate Sen. Mary Landrieu’s New Orleans office, including one filmmaker who targeted the community group ACORN last year in undercover videos.

Among those arrested was 25-year-old James O’Keefe, the conservative filmmaker, along with Joseph Basel, Robert Flanagan and Stan Dai, all 24. They were charged with entering federal property under false pretenses and attempting to gain access to the Democrat’s office by posing as telephone repairmen, according to a copy of an FBI affidavit unsealed Tuesday.

The complaint said that Flanagan and Basel each entered the premises, wearing light green fluorescent vests, denim paints and blue work shirts, tool belts and hard-hats. They informed a member of Landrieu’s staff that they were telephone repairmen and requested access to the main telephone at the reception desk.

At that point, the two men allegedly attempted to manipulate telephones and accessed the telephone closet, saying they needed to work on the entire system. The men, who said they left their credentials in their vehicles, were arrested by the U.S. Marshal’s Service soon afterward.

According to the FBI, the four men could each face up to 10 years and a fine of $250,000 if they are convicted.

O’Keefe made waves last year when he posed as a pimp and taped ACORN employees discussing a prostitution ring, embarrassing the group and forcing many of its supporters to spurn its ties with it.

Do I see shades of Watergate rearing its head again?

I'll admit that the ACORN controversy became big news story for the conservative media, and bloggers. My thinking here is that O'Keefe got a little cocky with his successful "gotcha journalism" against ACORN, that he thought he could get away with wiretapping Landrieu's Senate office. What was O'Keefe thinking he could get from bugging Landrieu's office? Any publishing of taped phone conversations would still get O'Keefe arrested on wiretapping charges. Or was O'Keefe hoping to gather dirt on Landrieu to give to other GOP operatives intent on politically taking Landrieu out? O'Keefe was stupid for attempting to break the law for political gain, and he should be prosecuted to the fullest intent. Then again, I also have to wonder how many other GOP or conservative political operatives are also breaking the law for political gain?

Could alien life be already here on Earth?

This is from MSNBC News:

LONDON - For the past 50 years, scientists have scoured the skies for radio signals from beyond our planet, hoping for some sign of extraterrestrial life. But one physicist says there's no reason alien life couldn't already be lurking among us — or maybe even in us.

Paul Davies, an award-winning Arizona State University physicist known for his popular science writing said Tuesday that life may have developed on Earth not once but several times.

Davies said the variant life forms — most likely tiny microbes — could still be hanging around "right under our noses — or even in our noses."

"How do we know all life on Earth descended from a single origin?" he told a conference at London's prestigious Royal Society, which serves as Britain's academy of sciences. "We've just scratched the surface of the microbial world."

The idea that alien micro-organisms could be hiding out here on Earth has been discussed for a while, according to Jill Tarter, the director of the U.S. SETI project, which listens for signals from civilizations based around distant stars.

She said several of the scientists involved in the project were interested in pursuing the notion, which Davies earlier laid out in a 2007 article published in Scientific American in which he asked: "Are aliens among us?"

Of course the aliens are among us. You just have to look here;



I'll admit that I was first going with the 1956 movie trailer, but I think I like the 1978 trailer even better. Both are great science fiction movies.

Schwarzenegger wants to send California prisoners to Mexico

This is from Raw Story:

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger suggested California could ease its crowded prison system by sending thousands of undocumented inmates to specially built jails in Mexico.

Speaking to reporters at the Sacramento Press Club, Schwarzenegger said California could ease its strained finances by a billion dollars if 20,000 illegal immigrants currently held in the state were housed across the border.

"I think that we can do so much better in the prison system alone if we can go and take, inmates for instance, the 20,000 inmates that are illegal immigrants that are here and get them to Mexico," Schwarzenegger said.

"Think about it -- if California gives Mexico the money. Not 'Hey, you take care of them, these are your citizens'. No. Not at all.

"We pay them to build the prison down in Mexico. And then we have those undocumented immigrants down there in prison. It would half the costs to build the prison and run the prison. We could save a billion dollars right there that could go into higher education."

It is an interesting idea, but I seriously doubt it will ever work. First, I'm guessing that the Governator would want to contract with private firms to build and run these prisons in Mexico. Why is it, when I think of this proposal, my mind goes back to the corruption, waste, fraud, and shoddy workmanship that Haliburton, KBR, and other firms engaged in with the Iraq reconstruction money--financed by American taxpayers? Something tells me we'd see the same thing with private firms building and running these Mexican prisons. In fact, I'd also guess that the private firms would demand more money from California taxpayers to build more Mexican prisons to house more inmates, and perhaps even cut corners just to increase their own profit margins?

A second problem I have with this idea is Mexico itself. There is still a high level of corruption in Mexico--especially political and drug-related corruption. And the Governator wants to build prisons in Mexico? I don't know how much this corruption will affect such a prison program--especially if such corruption influences private firms' construction and maintaining of these Mexican prison facilities, or even if the corruption extends down to a prisoner's ability to bribe the guards to be released from such a prison. Finally, how would Sacramento be able to regulate these facilities that are run by private companies in a foreign country? I'm sorry, but the more I think about this, the more I believe the Governator is proposing a scam to screw the California taxpayer into this boondoggle of a wealth transfer to a privatized prison interest.

New poll reveals 23 percent Americans spend too much time online

Excuse me while I check out the latest OMG from Yahoo. In the meantime, you can ponder this revealing Rasmussen poll:

Americans increasingly live in a world of cell phones, laptops, Blackberries, desk computers and more, all wirelessly linked to the Internet, and now automakers even plan front-seat computers in some cars.

But a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 23% of adults think they personally spend too much time using the Internet, computers and mobile communications devices.

Seventy-one percent (71%) disagree and believe the amount of time they spend this way is appropriate. Seventy-five percent (75%), however, believe young children spend too much time on computers and other electronic equipment.

In a survey last August, 51% of adults said they use the Internet every day or nearly every day. Another 14% said they are online several times a week. Six percent (6%) said they are on the Internet once a week or less, while 28% rarely or never go online.

President Obama proposes spending freeze

I saw this story last night after I was finished tweaking the new blog template. Now it is time to comment on it. From the New York Times:

WASHINGTON — President Obama will call for a three-year freeze in spending on many domestic programs, and for increases no greater than inflation after that, an initiative intended to signal his seriousness about cutting the budget deficit, administration officials said Monday.

The officials said the proposal would be a major component both of Mr. Obama’s State of the Union address on Wednesday and of the budget he will send to Congress on Monday for the fiscal year that begins in October.

The freeze would cover the agencies and programs for which Congress allocates specific budgets each year, including air traffic control, farm subsidies, education, nutrition and national parks.

But it would exempt security-related budgets for the Pentagon, foreign aid, the Veterans Administration and homeland security, as well as the entitlement programs that make up the biggest and fastest-growing part of the federal budget: Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

The payoff in budget savings would be small relative to the deficit: The estimated $250 billion in savings over 10 years would be less than 3 percent of the roughly $9 trillion in additional deficits the government is expected to accumulate over that time.

First, I don't know any details on this spending freeze, except that it is going to be a small savings cut from your basic budget programs. The cuts are not going to take place in defense or the entitlement programs of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. And the entitlement programs are certainly some of the fastest growing parts of the federal budget, now sitting at around $3.5 trillion.

So what the heck is this spending freeze? I'm starting to think that this spending freeze is nothing more than a political gimmick, possibly raised by the Obama administration to reassure Americans who are worried about increased deficits. I found this interesting NY Times tidbit of information:

“A lot of our caucus won’t like it but I don’t think we have any choice,” said an adviser to Congressional Democratic leaders, who would only speak on condition of anonymity about internal party deliberations. “After Massachusetts and all the polls about independents’ abandoning us for being fiscally irresponsible, we can’t afford to be spending more than Obama.”

Ever since President Obama started asking Congress for money to fund his economic stimulus program and continue bailing out the banks, the congressional Republicans have suddenly discovered the evils of deficit spending and our huge debt--which is rather hypocritically ironic, considering how those same congressional Republicans were so eerily silent while Republican President George W. Bush was charging up the nation's credit card like a drunken sailor (Not that the Democrats were any better). I think the GOP's bashing of the Obama administration's "fiscal irresponsibility" is probably promoting enough fear in Americans on the budget mess. Toss in the Massachusetts election results, and the Democrats may be worrying that they're pushing too much big government programs and too much deficit spending on an American electorate that is worried where the country is heading. Hence, President Obama's new spending freeze.

We'll learn more details on this freeze during President Obama's State of the Union speech tomorrow.

Tishman Speyer Properties surrenders 11,227-apartment complex to creditors

The Peter Cooper Village and Stuyvesant Town complex in 2006. From Nicole Bengiveno/The New York Times

This is from The New York Times:

The owners of Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village, the iconic middle-class housing complexes overlooking the East River in Manhattan, have decided to turn over the properties to creditors, officials said Monday morning.

The decision by Tishman Speyer Properties and BlackRock Realty comes four years after the $5.4 billion purchase of the complexes’ 110 buildings and 11,227 apartments in what was the most expensive real estate deal of its kind in American history.

The surrender of the properties, first reported by the Wall Street Journal, ends a tortured real estate saga that saw the partnership make expensive improvements to the complex and then try to rent the apartments at higher market rates in a real estate boom. But a real estate downturn and the city’s strong rent protections hindered those efforts, leaving the buyers scrambling to make payments on loans due for the properties, which have been a comfortable harbor for the city’s middle class since they opened in the late 1940s.

[...]

This month, the partnership headed by Tishman Speyer defaulted on $3 billion in debt on the properties, and in the last few days secondary lenders have been calling to replace the partnership.

I am just amazed at how this huge property deal went belly up by Tishman Speyer. I've read plenty of news stories of Americans losing their homes to foreclosure due to job losses, speculation, or even just buying too much housing than they could afford. But with the souring economy potentially forcing New Yorkers out of the Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper complex, Tishman couldn't afford the overpriced payments when they purchased the complex at the height of the real estate boom. This story is just another example of how the over-speculation and frenzied spending during the real estate bubble is still wreaking havoc on the U.S. economy after the bubble exploded. Now the creditors have an 11,227-apartment complex that is well below the original $5.4 billion purchase value--the Wall Street Journal reports that the complex is now valued at around $1.8 billion. What is more, a number of big investors, including the California Public Employee's Retirement System, the Church of England, the Government of Singapore Investment Corp., and the Hartford Financial Services Group, that bought into this property are about to see much of their investment stake being wiped out.

Talk about a real estate disaster here.

Oregon voters consider taxing the rich

I'm not sure what to say about this Los Angeles Times story:

In mail-in voting that ends today, Oregon is considering measures to raise taxes on households earning $250,000 or more and on individuals earning at least $125,000, as well as hike corporate taxes. About 39,000 of the state's 1.5 million taxpayers would be subject to the higher tax, and some big companies could see their annual bills go from $10 to $100,000.

The success or failure of Measures 66 and 67 will be a concrete test -- one of the few in the country this year -- of how willing voters are to accept tax increases targeted at those theoretically best equipped to pay them.

The LA Times article reports that polls are showing both measures are ahead, although the gap is tightening. A New York Times article reveals that the referendums could raise around $727 million in tax and fee increases. What is more, the Oregon legislature "has essentially already spent the $727 million in projected revenue by incorporating the anticipated tax increases into the current budget. If the measures fail, lawmakers will have to make new cuts or find another way to raise revenue." The Oregon legislature is betting that the tax measures will pass, and are staking it with more IOUs.

Then again, are we seeing an upsurge in populist anger against big corporations, the ubber-rich, or even the political establishment? For the past couple years of this recession, we've seen the government spend billions bailing out the big banks with taxpayer money. At the same time, the same bank CEOs were collecting huge multi-million bonuses as their banks were going down the toilet and were collecting TARP taxpayer money to keep the banks afloat since they were "too big to fail." While the bank CEOs were collecting their multi-million bonuses, ordinary Americans were losing jobs as the unemployment rate spiked to over 10 percent. It is not hard to imagine how this populist anger can explode during this election year--look at the special election in Massachusetts. The more I've read on that election, the more I'm thinking Republican Scott Brown's upset win over Democrat Martha Coakley is really another sign of voter anger against...whatever? List what you're angry about--be it the Obama administration, health care, the economy, jobs, bank bailouts, bank CEO bonuses, Republican obstructionism. The list can go on. What is important for this 2010 election is that any politician that can tap into this voter anger, can possibly ride it to victory. I think that the voters are angry at the direction that this country is heading to. But this is simply not an anger directed against President Obama or the Democrats, but possibly also against the Republicans and corporate interests. It is a fluid anger that can be tough to pin down. If the situation in this country doesn't change in the next several months, that anger will flare up. The 2010 election is certainly off to an interesting start.

GOP up to dirty tricks with "census" mailers

This is from The Politico:

Officials of both parties are sharply criticizing a fundraising mailing from Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele they say could be confused with official correspondence regarding this year’s census.

The fundraising letter comes in the form of a “survey,” a frequently used device for partisan fundraising, but this one has a twist: Calling itself the “Congressional District Census,” the letter comes in an envelope starkly printed with the words, “DO NOT DESTROY OFFICIAL DOCUMENT” and describes itself, on the outside of the envelope, as a “census document.”

“Strengthening our party for the 2010 elections is going to take a massive grass-roots effort all across America,” Steele writes in a letter that blends official-sounding language, partisan calls to arms, and requests for between $25 and $500. “That is why I have authorized a census to be conducted for every congressional district in the country.”

The mailing is a Republican Party standby, a source of contributions — and occasional complaints — for more than a decade. But the latest round comes in a year when the actual United States census is getting under way, and officials say they’re worried that the GOP will sow confusion. News outlets in Wyoming, New York, Tennessee, and Minnesota have printed complaints about the mailers, with the director of the Census Bureau's regional office in Kansas City, Dennis Johnson, criticizing the letter in the Pioneer Press.

"My biggest concern is that it might be confusing to some residents who get this and then get the real one in a couple of months," Johnson said.

In some ways, I'm not surprised that the GOP is sending out this "census" survey just before the main U.S. Census survey is mailed out. It is certainly a deceptive campaign that apparently does not violate the Deceptive Mail Prevention and Enforcement Act. The Politico reports that post office officials responded to a letter written by Democratic Reps. Carolyn Maloney (N.Y.) and Rep. William Lacy Clay (Mo.) complaining about this Republican census survey. The GOP survey does not include any reference to the U.S. Census Bureau, any symbols or trademarks by the U.S. government, and that the letterhead states that the mailing was commissioned by the Republican Party, and signed by GOP chairman Michael Steele.

But the real kicker is this quote from a Republican operative:

"Of course, duping people is the point. ... That's one of the reasons why it works so well,” said one Republican operative familiar with the program, who said it’s among the RNC’s most lucrative fundraising initiatives. “They will likely mail millions this year [with] incredible targeting.”

It is all about duping ignorant Americans into sending money to the Republican Party. And since it apparently works so well, the GOP will continue using fundraising campaign.

Update: Americablog has a copy of this GOP "census." I can easily see that this is a GOP fundraising gimmick. Then again, I wonder just how many Americans will end up falling for this crap?

Oh Well Reboot

No, you are not seeing things here--talking to the five people who probably read this blog now. When I started this blog about five years ago, I thought I would write solely on news, economic, and political issues. And I've written quite a bit on the issues of the day. But last year, I just got burnt out on writing about politics and trying to report on every single political issue and story that came up day in and day out. Some of the issues were especially complex, health care as a huge example, that I felt like I didn't have the time to research or think about--much less originally comment on. For that, it was time to step away from Oh Well, and focus on other things. That is not to say that I never lost my interest in news and politics.

For even as I stepped away from Oh Well, I was still thinking of tweaking the site into something more than just a news and politics blog. I have other items that I wondered how to publish--essays from political science and economics classes, short sarcastic stories, and even some photo work that has accumulated on my computer hard drives. For a while, I did have a separate website that I published some of my essays on, but they were never incorporated with my blog as a single portfolio of my work. That was always in the back of my mind. So with a new year, I thought it was time to come back and reboot Oh Well into something new--a combined blog and portfolio of written and photography work that I've accumulated over the years. That is what you're looking at right now.

To start off, the Home page will be my blog. I'll certainly be back writing about news and politics, now that we're in an election year and there has been some fascinating dynamics taking place--especially with the Massachusetts U.S. Senate special election, where GOP state senator Scott Brown trounced Attorney General Martha Coakley (D) for Ted Kennedy's seat. More on that later. I will also be adding more page links of my portfolio. The Essays page will have links to a number of SJSU political science and economic essays that I've written. Some of these essays are over ten years old, but I think they are interesting in showing some of my thinking on political and economic thought. The Fun Essays and Stories link are just that--links to fun essays and stories that I've written, but have never published. I still have a couple of other items to add, but I'll need to go through my files to find them. The Photography page will show some photo work that I've done. For the moment, I've included a link to a photo blog showcasing some work for a Photoshop class that I've taken at West Valley College last fall. But I've got some other photo stuff I want to include--old black-and-white photojournalism work for the West Valley College Norseman, abortion protest photos when Operation Rescue came to San Jose, UCSF bike racing photography, and possibly some newer stuff. Of course, I'm working old school here with 35mm manual focus Canon equipment. But it still works. The Links page will show all my blog links. I'm thinking I want to clean up my front page, and remove a number of the web and blog links that I rarely used. But I do not want to completely delete the links. Instead, I'm going to simplify and clean the links to my front page, showing only the most common links that I regularly go to. The full set of links will be found in the Links page. I'll also probably remove some of the junk, advertising, feeds, and other stuff to be placed on the Links Page--I'm still working on that aspect. I'm definitely getting rid of all the advertising on my blog--I never made any money from Google AdSense, or Amazon.com ads. And I probably never will. So I'm going to simplify the page.

I hope you enjoy this new reboot of Oh Well. I'm still in the process of tweaking my site. If you have any comments, please post them.

Enjoy.

Senate Finance Committee approves health care bill with one Republican vote

This is from The New York Times:

WASHINGTON — The Senate Finance Committee voted on Tuesday to approve legislation that would reshape the American health care system and provide subsidies to help millions of people buy insurance, as Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine, joined all 13 Democrats on the panel in support of the landmark bill.

The vote was 14 to 9, with all of the other Republicans opposed.

Democrats, including President Obama, had courted Ms. Snowe’s vote, hoping that she would break with the Republican Party leadership and provide at least a veneer of bipartisanship to the bill, which Mr. Obama has declared his top domestic priority. Ms. Snowe was a main author of the bill but she had never committed to voting for it.

But shortly after 1 p.m., she announced that she was on board, in a speech that silenced the packed committee room and riveted colleagues on both sides of the dais.

“Is this bill all that I would want?” Ms. Snowe asked. “Far from it. Is it all that it can be? No. But when history calls, history calls. And I happen to think that the consequences of inaction dictate the urgency of Congress to take every opportunity to demonstrate its capacity to solve the monumental issues of our time.”

In her speech, she said she still shared many of her Republican colleagues’ reservations about the legislation, and she pointedly warned Democrats that they could easily lose her support at any of the many legislative steps that still lie ahead.

“My vote today is my vote today,” she said. “It doesn’t forecast what my vote will be tomorrow.”

While I may not have been commenting on the health care debate over this past year, I have been watching the debate take shape. This is a huge, monster crisis with major stakes for everybody. Progressives want to model a new, public-provided health care system, possibly modeled after the British or Canadian public health care system. Big Insurance and Health Care Providers want to maintain the status quo on the current system. And as the recession sheds even more U.S. jobs, more Americans are finding their health care coverage either curtailed, or losing it altogether. We've seen congressional town hall meetings become disruptive by angry conservatives, who were bussed in by grass roots organizations funded by big corporations. Then there were the death panels, where Republicans accused President Barack Obama and the Democrats of rationing health care as a means of killing senior citizens. Then again, the Republicans have been opposed of everything that President Obama or the Democrats have introduced as legislation in Congress. The Republicans have shown themselves over this past year to be a Party of No.

But that has now slightly changed. We have one of the last few, remaining, Republican moderates to have actually voted in favor of this health care reform. Senator Olympia J. Snowe broke with the Party of No to approve the health care legislation in the Senate Finance Committee vote. If the bill comes before the entire Senate, Snowe may end up voting against it--especially if the House version of the health care bill provides some form of a public option, resulting in an angry compromise between the House and Senate versions. Either way, we have a bipartisanship bill of one Republican vote. That is going to be the best that the president, or the Democrats will ever get on this health care vote.

We'll see what happens next.

GOP wants Sarah Palin to stay home

Now here is a fascinating twist to my previous posting, where Sarah Palin may have resigned from the Alaskan governorship to cash in on fame and fortune. I'm sure some of that fame would have included campaigning for GOP candidates. And yet, this Hill.com story reveals that some GOP candidates want her to stay home:

Republicans facing tough elections in 2010 don’t want Sarah Palin campaigning with them.

Though the soon-to-be-former Alaska governor is seen as popular with the conservative grass roots, several Republicans said she’d help them by staying home in Wasilla.

Several of these Republicans hail from districts or states carried in 2008 by President Obama, a frequent target of Palin’s criticism. Republicans must keep these districts and win others where Obama is popular if they are to gain seats next year.

GOP Rep. Lee Terry (Neb.), who squeaked out a victory despite his district’s overwhelming turnout for Obama, said he’d rather have House colleagues campaign for him than Palin.

“There’s others that I would have come in and campaign and most of them would be my colleagues in the House,” Terry said.

Rep. Frank Wolf, a Republican from Northern Virginia, which is increasingly becoming Democratic territory, offered caution when asked whether he’d welcome a Palin fundraiser.

“I don’t generally need people from outside my district to do a fundraiser,” Wolf said.

Several other lawmakers indicated a wariness about accepting help from Palin, but did not want to criticize the GOP’s vice presidential candidate from last year. They said Palin could hurt them by firing up Democrats.

An unnamed GOP lawmaker representing a district that Obama carried in 2008 told The Hill that if Palin came into his district, his opponent would “probably be doing a dance of joy.”

The head of the House Democrats’ campaign arm said he’d welcome Palin’s involvement in the 2010 campaign.

“We hope that she will be part of the future debate on the direction of the country,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC).

Sarah Palin is a polarizing figure. We've seen it with her polarizing poll numbers, where the Republican voters love her, the Democratic voters hate her, and the independent voters want her to leave the national stage. This story is another confirmation of just how polarizing Sarah Palin can be. Those Republicans that do not want her campaigning in their states that are turning purple, or blue with Democratic and independent voters--voters that the GOP candidates will need to solicit if they are to win offices in 2010. The last thing they want is to be linked to Sarah Palin.

So which GOP candidates are welcoming Sarah Palin to stump for them? Going back to the Hill.com story:

Senate hopeful Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), who faces a tough election in Missouri, said he wants Palin to come to his state.

“I think she would be helpful,” he said.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) also said he’d welcome a Palin visit.

“The answer is, if she can raise a lot of money for me, yes,” Grassley told reporters Tuesday. Grassley, who is up for reelection in 2010, said he remembers Palin having a big Iowa following during the 2008 campaign.

“[A]t three events I spent with her in Iowa during the last campaign, she had bigger turnouts than McCain had,” Grassley said.

Since the Iowa caucuses are the first test for Republican presidential candidates in 2012, a visit could also be beneficial to Palin, whom many still think could lead a future GOP ticket.

It is the red states! We're talking the conservative states here. Both Iowa and Missouri are conservative states, although Iowa's electoral votes went to Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election. Still, Chuck Grassley may feel that his U.S. Senate seat is strongly cemented so that he would welcome Sarah Palin to stump for him. The key point here is that Sarah Palin can campaign in the red, conservative states, drawing huge crowds of conservative voters who are obviously going to vote for the Republican candidate anyways, and not feel any fallout from tepid Democratic, or independent, opposition, in those conservative, red states. In other words, Palin plays off the strong red states where Democrats won't have much of a chance to win, claiming her own victory as a strong campaigner for GOP candidates. This brings us back to Sarah Palin's polarizing persona--use the polarizing persona where the base is strong, but stay away from the battleground where that same polarizing persona can weaken you. Considering Sarah Palin's own naked ambitions, and a potential 2012 presidential run, I'm thinking she'll be campaigning in those red states next year.

Levi Johnston claims Sarah Palin resigned to cash in on fame

I'm not sure if I'm buying this story from Bristol Palin's former fiancee, but I still find it rather interesting in the light that former Alaskan governor Sarah Palin has yet to provide and adequate reason why she resigned from the governorship. This is the entire story from Yahoo News:

ANCHORAGE, Alaska – A spokeswoman for Gov. Sarah Palin is scoffing at comments by Bristol Palin's former fiance, who says he thinks Palin resigned to cash in on her fame.

"It is interesting to learn Levi is working on a piece of fiction while honing his acting skills," Palin family spokeswoman Meghan Stapleton said in an e-mail to The Associated Press.

Levi Johnston, 19, whose wedding to Bristol Palin was called off earlier this year, said Thursday he lived with the Palin family from early December to the second week in January. He claimed he heard the governor several times say how nice it would be to take advantage of the lucrative deals that were being offered, including a reality show and a book.

"She had talked about how nice it would be to take some of this money people had been offering us and you know just run with it, say 'forget everything else,'" he said.

He said he thinks book deals were really what appealed to Palin.

"I think the big deal was the book. That was millions of dollars," said Johnston, who has had a strained relationship with the family but now says things have improved.

Compensation details of Palin's book projects haven't been disclosed. The former GOP vice presidential candidate has said she is facing more than $500,000 in legal fees.

Johnston made his comments at a news conference Thursday at the office of his attorney, Rex Butler.

Johnston came forward, Butler said, because Alaskans want to know why Palin has decided to resign, effective the end of the month.

Johnston is pursuing his own book deal and movie deal while working as a carpenter.

Asked if he would vote for her if she ran for president, Johnston said: "I think she's a great lady, but after seeing what she did now, you know, leaving Alaska, I would have to say, 'no.' Obviously she's stressed out as governor. I mean moving up to the vice president or president is huge. I just don't think anymore that she's cut out for the job."

If Johnston was living with the Palin family, from early December to the second week in January, then he certainly would have had an intimate access to Sarah Palin just after her loss as the GOP vice presidential candidate in the 2008 election. Sarah Palin went through a media wringer over questions of whether she was qualified for the vice presidential office, and was embroiled in ethical questions over Troopergate, the Wasilla ice hockey rink, and the Bridge to Nowhere. She certainly had her own share of fights with the Alaskan state legislature over the ethics investigations and charges against her. Sarah Palin also became the hottest GOP political personality, when John McCain chose her to be his running mate. So why go back to the Alaskan governor's office, and the squabbling with the Alaskan state legislature, when you can cash in on the fame and fortune of being the darling for the GOP? It certainly is a siren call for Palin's naked ambitions.

And since Sarah Palin has refused to provide an explanation for her resignation, then perhaps what Levi Johnston is saying could have a ring of truth.

Saturday Morning Cartoons--The Rebel Without Claws

To kick off today's Saturday Morning Cartoons, I found a Tweety and Sylvester cartoon that even I have not seen--The Rebel Without Claws. In this 1961 Civil War drama, the Confederates need to send an important message to General Lee, however all their carrier pigeons are missing in action with the exception of Tweety. So Tweety is given the dangerous mission, only to realize that the Union army is countering with their "Secret Messenger Destroyer," also known as Sylvester--I tat I taw a damn Yankee cat! And the battle jokes are engaged. What is especially nice to see here is Warner giving some better background scenery for this cartoon. You actually see some of the set battles, no man's land, the plantation homes, and even a Confederate ironclad--all serenaded with the rumble of explosions, cannon fire, and rifle shots. So here is Looney Tunes 1961 Rebel Without Claws. From YouTube:

Sarah Palin's polarizing poll numbers

I saw this story on Countdown with Keith Olbermann last night, and I found it especially interesting. First, here is Olbermann's story about Alaska governor Sarah Palin's polarizing poll numbers:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

And here is the USA Today source story for all this:

WASHINGTON — Sarah Palin's bombshell that she is resigning as Alaska governor actually has boosted her a bit among Republicans, a nationwide USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, though it also has dented her standing among Democrats and independents.

Two-thirds of Republicans want Palin, the party's vice presidential nominee in 2008, to be "a major national political figure" in the future. Three-fourths of Democrats hope she won't be.

Independents by 55%-34% would prefer she leave the national stage.

The findings underscore how polarized opinions of Palin were even before Friday's surprise announcement. Seven in 10 polled say their views weren't affected by her decision. Among those whose opinions shifted, Democrats by a 4-1 ratio and independents by 2-to-1 view her less favorably. Republicans are somewhat inclined to see her more favorably.

"For independents and Democrats, she's already not their candidate, and with Republicans her support is not based on her record as governor of Alaska," says GOP consultant Alex Castellanos.

The poll Monday of 1,000 adults — including 321 Democrats, 323 independents and 316 Republicans — has a margin of error of +/–3 percentage points for the full sample and 6 points for the partisan subsamples.

Palin's complaints about unfair treatment by the news media resonate with many respondents. Three-fourths of Republicans, more than half of independents and a third of Democrats say coverage of Palin has been unfairly negative.

When it comes to a potential presidential run, the USA TODAY Poll displays Palin's strength in the Republican base and weakness among swing voters, who traditionally decide national elections. Republicans by 71%-27% say they'd be likely to vote for her if she ran for president in 2012, while independents by 51%-44% would not.

The results are just fascinating. Two-thirds of Republicans want Sarah Palin to be a major political figure, while three-fourths of Democrats don't want Palin on the stage. Independents want Palin to leave the national stage by a 55%-34% majority. Sarah Palin is the darling of the conservative base here, but she stinks like a dead fish among Democrats and independents. Palin's inability to provide a reason why she resigned as Alaska's governor still implies that Sarah Palin is a quitter.

There is also another interesting polarizing poll number that I found on Palin. This is from Rasmussen Reports, with graphic via Daily Kos:

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is second only to Mitt Romney as the presidential candidate Republican voters say they’ll vote for in 2012 state GOP primaries, but she’s also one of two candidates they least hope wins the party’s nomination.

Graph showing Sarah Palin's contradictory polling stance among GOP voters. From Daily Kos.

In a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, it’s close to a three-way tie when GOP voters are asked whom they would vote for – from among a list of six prominent Republicans - in the 2012 party primary in their state: 25% say Romney, while 24% say Palin and 22% opt for former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee.

After that, GOP primary voters list former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (14%), while Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour and Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty each received one percent (1%) of the vote. Six percent (6%) prefer some other candidate.

However, among those same six potential candidates, Palin and Barbour are tied as the ones GOP voters would least like to see win the party nomination in 2012. Twenty-one percent (21%) of Republican voters nationwide say that of both Palin and Barbour.

[....]

Forty percent (40%) of GOP voters nationally believe Palin has hurt her chances of winning the Republican presidential nomination in 2012 by resigning as governor of Alaska. Twenty-four percent (24%) say the resignation helps her chances, and 28% say it will have no impact on the race.

Forty percent (40%) of GOP voters nationally believe Palin has hurt her chances of winning the Republican presidential nomination in 2012 by resigning as governor of Alaska. That is the key reason for Palin's contradictory polling numbers in the Rasmussen poll numbers. While the GOP voters may love Sarah Palin, and select her in a hypothetical 2012 presidential race, these same GOP voters are also saying that they don't want Palin to win the GOP nomination in 2012. I think the GOP voters are fearful that, if Sarah Palin wins the 2012 GOP primary, she still will not be able to explain why she quit as Alaska's governor, allowing a huge opportunity for the Obama campaign to attack Palin. The USA Today / Gallup poll reveals some interesting insights among Democrats fears of Sarah Palin. The Democratic voters see Sarah Palin as a national political figure that can ignite, and excite, the conservative and Republican base. And she certainly can excite the Republican base, considering the crowds that came out to see her during last year's election. The Democratic voters do not want Sarah Palin to be a national political figure because she could end up challenging President Barack Obama in 2012, perhaps winning as the first female U.S. president.

What I'm trying to say here is that I think fear is gripping both sides of the political spectrum on Sarah Palin, bringing us these rather polarizing poll numbers. We don't know what is going to happen in 2012, or what Sarah Palin's political future, or presidential aspirations may be--only Sarah Palin knows that. Either way, Sarah Palin is here to stay.

Burris will not run for Senate in 2010

I guess Roland Burris finally realized just how Blago-radioactive he was for the Democrats in the Senate. From USA Today:

WASHINGTON (AP) — A Democratic official says Roland Burris will not run for a full Senate term in 2010.

The source says Burris has begun informing Democratic officials about his decision. The official spoke on condition because Burris had yet to announce his decision.

Burris was appointed by disgraced Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich to fill the Senate seat vacated by President Obama. His appointment was criticized from the moment it was announced and prompted calls for Burris to resign.

In the Senate, Burris has been treated as something of a pariah because of his ties to Blagojevich, who was arrested in part on allegations he tried to sell the Senate seat.

By not seeking a full term, Burris increases Democrats chances of holding on to the Senate seat in 2010. Republicans had viewed Burris as a potentially easy target if he were to run for a full-term in the Senate.

Burris was treated as something of a pariah. It is not surprising, since the Senate Democrats never liked Burris because of Burris' ethics taint--not only was Burris selected by former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who was indicted for trying to sell Barack Obama's former Senate seat, but Burris may have perjured himself on allegations that Burris "talked to some people" about raising money for Blagojevich. Burris has presented multiple stories about his contacts with Blagojevich, all contradictory. So the Senate Democrats wanted nothing to do with Burris. The Senate Republicans, however, loved Burris. The Republicans would love to see Burris run for re-election, after which the GOP could then drag the entire Blago scandal out during the 2010 election, and smear the Democrats with it. Of course, the Republicans wouldn't give Burris the time of day either. So Burris is sitting in Senate purgatory--damned by both political parties. It is ironic that Burris may have thought that Blago's selecting him to Obama's former Senate seat would have furthered Burris' political ambitions. Instead, I seriously wonder if Burris' political career is now over.

Michael Jackson's death reverberates through the halls of Congress

I honestly don't know what to say about this, except that I wonder if our congressmen have any frickin' brains in their thick skulls. I guess not. From Yahoo News:

WASHINGTON — Amid the great debates of the day over health care, global warming and economic recovery, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that there will be no pause in the action to honor Michael Jackson .

For the record, the San Francisco Democrat said that Jackson was "a great, great performer" and that his death has brought "lots of sadness . . . for many reasons."

However, she also made clear that she won't allow the House to debate a resolution honoring the fallen pop star from California .

"A resolution, I think, would open up to contrary views to — that are not necessary at this time to be expressed in association with a resolution whose purpose is quite different," Pelosi said.

Huh?

A little background is in order.

Shortly after Jackson's death last month, Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas introduced a resolution saluting the singer's life and work. She held a framed copy of it on the stage at Jackson's memorial service Tuesday at the Staples Center in Los Angeles .

However, Republican Rep. Peter King of New York , who called Jackson a "pervert" and a "pedophile," had vowed to block the resolution.

Apparently not wanting anything to do with the fight, Pelosi addressed the issue at her weekly press conference, beginning with this: "We're into the popular culture now."

Not wanting to entirely quash the discussion, however, Pelosi said members could give short speeches honoring Jackson but that no roll call vote would be allowed.

"What I have said to my colleagues over the years, and certainly as leader and as speaker, is that there's an opportunity on the floor of the House to express their sympathy or their praise any time that they wish," Pelosi said. "I don't think it's necessary for us to have a resolution."

Okay, so we have this Texas Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee introducing a resolution in the House, honoring Michael Jackson life and work, just after the singer died. However, New York Republican Rep. Peter King wants to block this resolution because he has called Jackson a "pervert" and a "pedophile." Of course, King ignores the fact that Jackson was never convicted of child molestation--King just assumes Jackson is guilty. Is it no wonder that our congressmen are idiots at times, arguing over Michael Jackson's dead body? Never mind the fact that the U.S. economy is still in the dumps, or that the CIA has admitted to lying to Congress. The big political controversy today is Michael Jackson!

At least Pelosi was smart enough to quash this idiotic resolution. Jackson has been honored enough over the past three weeks. Let him rest in peace.

Update: OMG! This is getting rich! Apparently King posted a YouTube video in which he called Jackson a "pervert," "child molestor," and a "pedophile. The video is not on King's YouTube website, but can be found here on Conservative New Media YouTube site:



Again, Jackson was tried on child molestation charges back in 2005, but was acquitted, and Jackson was cleared of all child molestation charges. And yet, here is this idiot King blathering on in saying Jackson is still saying that Jackson is still guilty. King continues to defend his comments, now claiming that he was criticizing the media for their excessive coverage of Jackson, and yet he still continues to call Jackson a child molester. I would guess that King is enjoying the negative coverage he is getting from his malicious comments on Jackson, using that negative coverage to stir up the hard-lined conservative base that may agree with King's comments. King may be stirring up his hard-lined conservative base, but at the cost of alienating an even larger group of voters that would at least respect Jackson's musical talent, and realize that these negative comments should have no place in the aftermath of the singer's death.

CIA lied to Congress

In some ways, this really isn't surprising. From the New York Times:

WASHINGTON — The director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Leon E. Panetta, has told the House Intelligence Committee in closed-door testimony that the C.I.A. concealed “significant actions” from Congress from 2001 until late last month, seven Democratic committee members said.

In a June 26 letter to Mr. Panetta discussing his testimony, Democrats said that the agency had “misled members” of Congress for eight years about the classified matters, which the letter did not disclose. “This is similar to other deceptions of which we are aware from other recent periods,” said the letter, made public late Wednesday by Representative Rush D. Holt, Democrat of New Jersey, one of the signers.

In an interview, Mr. Holt declined to reveal the nature of the C.I.A.’s alleged deceptions,. But he said, “We wouldn’t be doing this over a trivial matter.”

The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Silvestre Reyes, Democrat of Texas, referred to Mr. Panetta’s disclosure in a letter to the committee’s ranking Republican, Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, Congressional Quarterly reported on Wednesday. Mr. Reyes wrote that the committee “has been misled, has not been provided full and complete notifications, and (in at least one occasion) was affirmatively lied to.”

As I've said, I'm not surprised that the CIA lied to Congress from 2001 onwards. You have to go back to the individual sitting in the White House in 2001 that initiated this cult of lying--we're talking former President George W. Bush here. The Bush administration lied to Congress and the American people on just about everything--the WMDs in Iraq, intelligence failures and the reasons sending the U.S. into war in Iraq, the secret prisons, Abu Ghraib, waterboarding and torture, the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame, the U.S. attorney firings--the list just goes on. When President Barack Obama came into the White House of this year, I'd say that the CIA continued to lie to Congress because the Obama administration wanted to sweep the Bush administration's transgressions under a rug. I would say that President Obama doesn't want congressional investigations into the Bush administration for fears that a future Republican president may demand investigations into the Obama administration. In other words, it is politics as usual, and forget whether serious laws were broken by former leaders and public officials.

And we're seeing politics as usual continuing on in the NY Times story:

In a related development, President Obama threatened to veto the pending Intelligence Authorization Bill if it included a provision that would allow information about covert actions to be given to the entire House and Senate Intelligence Committees, rather than the so-called Gang of Eight — the Democratic and Republican leaders of both houses of Congress and the two Intelligence Committees.

A White House statement released on Wednesday said the proposed expansion of briefings would undermine “a long tradition spanning decades of comity between the branches regarding intelligence matters.” Democrats have complained that under President George W. Bush, entire programs were hidden from most committee members for years.

This is frickin' bullcrap on President Obama's part. The Obama administration doesn't want the CIA to disclose their activities, and their lying, to the entire congressional intelligence committees. So they make up this dog and pony show of saying that the CIA provided "a long tradition spanning decades of comity" to the congressional intelligence panels. That may have been true in the previous decades, but I can't recall a time when the CIA, and a previous presidential administration, engaged in such egregious lying to Congress--the Nixon administration's lying seems like child's play compared to what the Bush administration did. In this case, President Obama does not want to provide a fuller disclosure of intelligence matters to Congress, but would rather keep the status quoe of informing the congressional leaders, rather than the full committees.

Of course, this brings up another problem. Who is to say that a future presidential administration will probably order the CIA to continue lying to Congress--whether it is the congressional leaders, or the full intelligence committee members? If a future president, or an executive department, is going to lie to Congress about anything, then Congress is pretty much screwed here. There is no recourse that Congress has to punish such liars in the executive branch, with the exception of cutting off money funding such executive departments. Cutting off CIA funding may be a powerful punishment for the CIA's lying to Congress, but in today's polarizing political climate, that is not going to happen.

Which brings us to the polarizing political climate of today. Continuing with the NY Times story:

The question of the C.I.A.’s candor with the Congressional oversight committees has been hotly disputed since Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused the agency of failing to disclose in a 2002 briefing that it had used waterboarding against a terrorism suspect. Ms. Pelosi said the agency routinely misled Congress, though she later said she intended to fault the Bush administration rather than career intelligence officials.

Since then, Republicans have called Ms. Pelosi’s complaint an unwarranted attack on the integrity of counterterrorism officers and have demanded an investigation. Democrats have rebuffed the demand.

In a statement Wednesday night, a C.I.A. spokesman, George Little, noted that the agency “took the initiative to notify the oversight committees” about the past failures. He said the agency and Mr. Panetta “believe it is vital to keep the Congress fully and currently informed.”

A couple of points here. First, the CIA is continuing to lie to Congress about previously lying to Congress. You just have to love the statement about the CIA taking the initiative to "notify the oversight committees" about the department's previous lies to Congress, but then implicitly rejecting the congressional Democrats demands for CIA director Leon Panetta to explain his lying to Congress for the past nine years, saying that Panetta believes it vital "to keep Congress fully and currently informed." Talk about doublespeak here. Panetta is not going to give squat to Congress.

But the more interesting point was the GOP attacks against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, when Pelosi complained about the CIA lying to her back in May, 2009. Republican leaders were demanding that Pelosi retract her accusations that the CIA lied to her. Former GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich called for Pelosi's resignation. House Minority Leader John Boehner demanded that Pelosi should apologize for her accusations. Even CIA Director Leon Panetta jumped into the fray, saying in a May 15, 2009 message to agency employees, which was released to the public, "Let me be clear. It is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress...That is against our laws and our values." Now it turns out that Pelosi was right about the CIA lying to her, the GOP was wrong in demanding Pelosi to retract her statements, apologize, or resign, and Panetta continued his lying, which furthered the GOP attacks against Pelosi. This was partisan politics, where the Republicans found an opportunity to smear Pelosi on this CIA lying--regardless of the facts. Now that it turns out that Pelosi was right on the CIA lying to her, the GOP has suddenly turned quiet, fearing that any criticism would now undermine their smear campaign against Pelosi. And you can bet that every GOP politician will never apologize to Pelosi for their own smears against her.

Man dies after falling into vat of chocolate

Talk about Death by Chocolate! This is from The MercuryNews.com:

CAMDEN, N.J. — Authorities say a man died after falling into a vat of melted chocolate in a New Jersey processing plant.

A spokesman for the Camden County prosecutor's office says the 29-year-old temporary worker at the Cocoa Services Inc. plant fell after a blade used to mix raw chocolate hit him. His name has not been released.

The accident happened Wednesday morning as the worker was loading chocolate into the vat where it's melted and mixed before being shipped elsewhere to be made into candy.

Prosecutor's spokesman Jason Laughlin says a co-worker tried to shut off the machine and two others tried to pull the man out of the 8-foot-deep vat.

Cocoa Services hires a second company — Lyons and Sons — to do the mixing.

California issues IOU's in wake of budget stalemate, banks will accept them until July 10th

It appears that the California budget stalemate between the legislature, and the Governator, is heading into a full-blown, statewide crisis. Or maybe I should say that this entire California budget crisis is heading into the toilet? Either way, the state is now printing out IOU's to pay for its bills. This is from a July 3, 2009 Los Angeles Times story:

Deep in debt and short on cash, California on Thursday churned out its first batch of IOUs in nearly two decades amid grumbles from bankers, growing public outrage and scant progress in negotiations to resolve the state's widening budget deficit.

The state controller's office fired up a pair of printing presses and began rolling out nearly 29,000 IOUs totaling more than $53 million, most of them destined for residents around the state still awaiting income tax refunds. Recipients also include some businesses, pensioners, health clinics, college students and many others who get checks from the state.

"We never thought we would do it again," said Dorothy Cottrill, who manages check disbursement at the state controller's office and still remembers the last time the state spun out IOUs in the lean days of 1992.

The unusual move came hours after a panel of state finance officials set the annual interest rate for the IOUs at 3.75% for banks and other financial institutions willing to accept the vouchers. Some banks, including Bank of America, Citi and Wells Fargo, have agreed to honor the paper, but only until July 10. Many recipients could receive their IOUs after that date.

Those who don't have a bank that will cash the IOUs can redeem them from the state Oct. 2, or sooner if officials settle on a solution to the financial crisis.

Rodney K. Brown, president and chief executive of the California Bankers Assn., said the state's failure to resolve the budget crisis "has placed a tremendous burden on California's citizens, communities and banks."

State officials estimated that without a budget resolution they will have to issue $3.2 billion in IOUs in July and $1.65 billion in August.

State Controller John Chiang said the IOUs "are a sign that the state is being fiscally mismanaged" and a precursor to further credit downgrades for California, already the lowest-rated state on Wall Street.

The IOUs come two days after state Senate Republicans, with the support of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, blocked an eleventh-hour attempt by Democratic leaders to push through budget proposals that would have staved off the IOUs, at least temporarily.

And in the wake of these IOU's being printed, the banks are saying that they will only honor the IOU's until July 10th. From this July 3, 2009 Los Angeles Times story:

Bank of America announced late Wednesday that it would redeem in full the state's IOUs (formally, "registered warrants") from current BofA customers who want to cash them in. But the bank set a cutoff date of July 10.

On Thursday, other big banks including Chase, Wells Fargo & Co. and Union Bank followed BofA's lead, saying they'll cash the IOUs from customers only through July 10.

Some banks, including City National, didn't set a cutoff date, but they didn't preclude doing so at some point. Many credit unions also have agreed to accept the IOUs from customers without setting a time limit, the California Credit Union League said.

The big banks' hardball strategy will create hardships for their customers if no budget deal is struck soon and the state continues to issue IOUs instead of checks. The state set a redemption date of Oct. 2 for the IOUs, although it said it might redeem them before then if it has the cash. Other lenders may step up to buy the IOUs in the interim, but probably at a discount to face value, unlike the big banks' redemption programs.

When asked why it set such a narrow window for customers to cash IOUs, BofA cited the "operational and financial" challenge of accepting them.

In some ways, I'm not surprised that the California budget crisis is going down the toilet. It seems like every year, there is a budget crisis taking place between the legislature and the governor--budget crisis after budget crisis going on for the past couple of decades. Meanwhile, bond proposition after bond proposition is passed every election year by California voters--with no way to pay for these bonds. So in the end, the California budget crisis has grown from a slow burning house fire, to an exploding conflagration, while the firefighters are bickering over how to pay for the water bill. In the end, everything burns to a crisp.

Google introduces PC operating system, takes on Microsoft Windows

All I can say is wow--we've got a battle between two software titans. From MSNBC News:

SUN VALLEY, Idaho — Google Inc. is hoping to gain greater control over how personal computers work with its plans to develop a free operating system that will attack Microsoft Corp.'s golden goose — its long-dominant Windows franchise.

The new operating system will be based on Google's 9-month-old Web browser, Chrome. Google intends to rely on help from the community of open-source programmers to develop the Chrome operating system, which is expected to begin running computers in the second half of 2010.

The early versions of the Chrome operating system will be tailored for "netbooks," a breed of low-cost, less powerful laptop computers that are becoming increasingly popular among budget-conscious consumers primarily interested in surfing the Web.

That is a direct challenge to Microsoft, whose next operating system, Windows 7, is being geared for netbooks as well as larger computers. (Msnbc.com is a joint venture of Microsoft and NBC Universal.)

The vast majority of netbooks already run on Windows, and that is unlikely to change unless Google can demonstrate the Chrome operating system is a significant improvement, said Forrester Research analyst Paul Jackson. He pointed out that many customers had returned the original netbooks that used open-source alternatives to Windows.

"It was not what people expected," he said. "People wanted Windows because they knew how to use it and knew how applications worked."

This is going to be an interesting battle to watch. Google is the king of search engine technology. If you want to search for something on the web, you "google" the topic, and get a ton of results to plow through. Microsoft Windows is THE operating system that has been installed on desktop, laptop, and now netbook, computers for both business and consumer use for years. If you purchase a new computer, more than likely the computer will be installed with some flavor of a Microsoft Windows OS [Sorry, I'm not going into Macs, or Linux systems here]. Google attempted to challenge Microsoft in the internet browser market with their Google Chrome, but it hasn't made much of a dent against MS Internet Explorer. Microsoft has tried to challenge Google in the search engine market with their own Bing search engine, which obviously hasn't toppled Google from the top search engine spot. Now Google is raising the stakes with an introduction of a Google operating system to challenge Microsoft Windows? What is even more amazing is that this Google Chrome will be some type of graphical user OS that may be sitting on top of a Linux engine--can you say Windows 3.1 sitting on top of DOS?

I don't know how successful Google Chrome will be against MS Windows. There are too many variables here--how robust, or easy to use will Google Chrome be in running on computers? Will Google Chrome crash as badly as Windows (Can you say Vista?) has at times? Will businesses and consumers be willing to drop Windows for Chrome? How will Microsoft's new Windows 7 fare in the OS market--especially in the aftermath of the disaster OS called Vista? Will consumers buy into Windows 7, or will the continue using XP? I do not believe that Google Chrome will topple Windows, but Chrome may find a niche in the OS market, similar to Linux or Mac.

All Michael Jackson News, all the time

Michael Jackson died.

I'll admit that I was a little surprised when I read the June 25, 2009 story on the King of Pop's death. What I found even more ironic is was how the mainstream news started out with their big morning news story about Charlie's Angel Farrah Fawcett's death from cancer, but then suddenly dropped Farrah's death for what would become the incessant coverage of EVERYTHING MICHAEL! For the past two weeks, the mainstream news media has been playing All Michael News, all the time. Here's the ambulance that transported Michael to the hospital. Here's the helicopter transporting Michael's body to the morgue--Look! There's Michael's body being transported from the morgue to the funeral home! If watching Michael Jackson's body being transported from one place to another was bad enough, with news pundits filling the video time of Jackson's body being transported with bloated commentary, then there was the Michael Jackson special tributes, the old pop star interviews, and the new, exclusive interviews with brother Jermain, the stories revolving around Michael's prescription drug use, the financial problems, the legal questions of who gets custody of Michael's children. It was endless. Of course, then there was the public funeral for Michael Jackson--a media moment that The New York Times called "a star-studded live concert infused with all the pageantry, sorrow and ghoulish curiosity that attends the untimely demise of a beloved, troubled superstar."

I just avoided watching the TV news for the past two weeks, trying to stay away from the All Michael Jackson News, all the time.

I'm sorry to hear that Michael Jackson died. I'm sorry for what his family has to endure, and that his children will no longer be with their father. I'll admit that Jackson was a musical genius, and possibly a troubled child trapped in a man's body. But watching the incessant media coverage of Michael Jackson was part exasperating, and part disgusting. This was not news--this was ghoulish entertainment pre-packaged as news, for big corporate media profit. Michael Jackson's death was milked by the corporate media for two weeks of advertising profit. Consider this NY Times story, where more than 31 million viewers watched Michael Jackson's memorial yesterday:

More than 31.1 million viewers tuned in to watch the memorial service held on Tuesday for Michael Jackson, according to numbers released on Wednesday by the Nielsen Company. The broadcast of the Staples Center event, at which the Jackson family and an ensemble of performers and political figures paid their respects to the King of Pop, was carried live from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. Eastern time on 18 television networks: ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, Telefutura, Telemundo, Univision, CNN, Fox News Channel, MSNBC, Headline News, BET, E!, MTV, VH1, VH1 Classic, TV Guide Network and TV ONE.

By historical standards, the Jackson memorial was among the most watched funeral services of a notable personality in recent years. According to data provided by Nielsen, the funeral for Pope John Paul II in 2005 was watched by more than 8.8 million people, and the funeral of President Gerald R. Ford in 2007 drew more than 15 million viewers. In 2004, the funeral of President Ronald Reagan was watched by 20.8 million people and his burial drew 35 million viewers. The funeral of Princess Diana was watched by more than 33.2 million people in 1997.

You can bet that a lot of viewers were also watching all the Michael Jackson tributes, which were quickly put on by the news networks in the aftermath of the pop singer's death. And with that many viewers watching the All Michael Jackson News, all the time, all those viewer ratings translate to big advertising dollars that the corporate media could charge.

Of course, the All Michael Jackson News is not yet finished. Because now we've got the post-Michael Jackson RIP analysis currently taking place. It appears that nobody knows where Michael Jackson will be buried:

LOS ANGELES -- Now that the memorial is over, the question remains, 'What will happen to Michael Jackson's body?"

It was rumored the body would be buried at Forest Lawn Memorial Park in the Hollywood Hills.

But police and cemetery officials say Jackson's body would not be returning to the cemetery where the family held a private service Tuesday morning.

Jackson's death certificate lists Forest Lawn as the responsible mortuary because the body was embalmed there.

[....]

Assistant Chief Coroner Ed Winter said Jackson's brain, or at least part of it, was still being held by investigators and would be returned to the family for internment once neuropathology tests were completed.

It's not uncommon for the coroner to hold onto a brain or samples from it. Winter said families sometimes delay burying a loved one until after the brain has been returned, but he had received no word from the Jackson family about their plans.

"The last I heard, they are not burying the body yet," Winter said.

All I can think of is put Michael Jackson in the ground, and let him rest in peace. And maybe we can move away from the All Michael Jackson News, all the time.

Robert McNamara died

In this Jan. 23, 1961, photo released by the John Fitzgerald Kennedy Library in Boston, President Kennedy sits with Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara, right, in the White House Oval Office in Washington. McNamara, the cerebral secretary of defense vilified for his role in escalating the Vietnam War, a disastrous conflict he later denounced as 'terribly wrong,' died Monday, July 6, 2009. He was 93.(AP Photo/Cecil Stoughton, White House via John Fitzgerald Kennedy Library, Boston)

I guess Robert McNamara will no longer be tormented by the ghosts of Vietnam. From The New York Times:

Robert S. McNamara, perhaps the most influential defense secretary of the 20th century, who helped lead the nation into the maelstrom of Vietnam and spent the rest of his life wrestling with the war’s moral consequences, died early Monday at his home in Washington, the Associated Press reported, citing his wife, Diana. He was 93, and according to the news agency, had been in failing health for some time.

Serving Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson from 1961 to 1968, Mr. McNamara oversaw hundreds of military missions, thousands of nuclear weapons and billions of dollars in military spending and foreign arms sales. He also enlarged the defense secretary’s role, handling foreign diplomacy and the dispatch of troops to enforce civil rights in the South.

“He’s like a jackhammer,” President Johnson said. “No human being can take what he takes. He drives too hard. He is too perfect.”

As early as April 1964, Senator Wayne Morse, Democrat of Oregon, called Vietnam “McNamara’s War.” Mr. McNamara did not object. “I am pleased to be identified with it,” he said, “and do whatever I can to win it.”

Half a million American soldiers went to war on his watch. More than 16,000 died; 42,000 more would fall in the seven years to come.

The war became his personal nightmare. Nothing he did, none of the tools at his command — the power of American weapons, the forces of technology and logic or the strength of American soldiers — could stop the armies of North Vietnam. He concluded well before leaving the Pentagon that the war was futile, but he did not share that insight with the public until late in life.

Coming back from an absence with Sarah Palin's resignation as Alaska's governor

Coming back from an absence with Sarah Palin's resignation as Alaska's governor

My apologies for the lack of posting. I've stepped away from my blog for a while since I felt that either a) The content I was writing was becoming more of the same stuff day after day, or b) The political BS that was taking place over the past year was the same ole BS day after day--how am I suppose to write something analytical with the same crap coming down the pipe?

But then, I learned on Friday that Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin resigned from office. From The Washington Post:

Sarah Palin, the Republican Alaska governor who captivated the nation with a combative brand of folksy politics, announced her resignation yesterday in characteristic fashion: She stood on her back lawn in Wasilla, speaking into a single microphone, accompanied by friends and neighbors in baseball hats and polo shirts.

The announcement that she will step down by the end of July stunned the political establishment, fueling speculation about why she is leaving office with 18 months left in her first term and whether her future will include a run for the presidency.

Palin offered few clues about her ambitions but said she arrived at her decision in part to protect her family, which has faced withering criticism and occasional mockery, and to escape ethics probes that have drained her family's finances and hampered her ability to govern. She said leaving office is in the best interest of the state and will allow her to more effectively advocate for issues of importance to her, including energy independence and national security.

"I love my job and I love Alaska, and it hurts to make this choice, but I'm doing what's best for them," Palin said, the sun glinting off a seaplane on Lake Lucille behind her.

And you can watch the video of Sarah Palin's resignation speech here:

Part One;


Part Two;


I'll be honest, I'm just as surprised that Palin would quit the governor's post. And I'm not sure why she decided to quit. Her transcript of the resignation speech is rambling and disjointed--she claims that she wants to fight for Alaska's best interests, but that the media and "political operatives" had forced her to resign so that Alaskan taxpayer dollars would not be wasted on investigations against her office. Maybe there is some truth, in Sarah Palin's view, to that reason.

But in another sense, that is politics. There are always "political operatives" digging up dirt against enemies, and investigations taking place against politicians every day. It is the dirty side of politics. What we have here is a political neophyte, who was thrust into the national scene when she was obviously Not Ready for Prime Time. Sarah Palin was obviously not qualified to be the Republican vice presidential candidate, and that was clearly shown in both her inability to answer tough policy questions from the media (Remember Charlie Gibson's question to Palin about the Bush Doctrine?), and from the McCain campaign's heavy-handed attempt to shield Palin from media scrutiny with orchestrated campaign rallies and rah-rah speeches. There were also Sarah Palin's own skeletons in her closet, such as the Troopergate scandal, or the Bridge to Nowhere, Hockeygate, Palin and her husband's ties to the Alaskan Independence Party, and there is a few other Palin scandals that you can find here. Most of this is old news. But it is something politicians will have to endure, if they want to get into a higher office--and what political office is higher than the U.S. presidency? Did Sarah Palin finally crack under all the skeleton investigation pressures, and called it quits? I can't say.

What I can say here is that I believe Sarah Palin's political career may just be over now. She quit in the middle of her first term as governor--that is as much of a political suicide as you can get. She may still be popular with the hard-lined conservatives in the Republican Party, but if Sarah Palin is going to run for another national office, then she's going to have to seriously explain why she quit in the middle of her governorship to moderate and independent voters. Her resignation speech never gave a good reason why she quit, other than she buckled under serious political pressure. Who is to say that Sarah Palin will quit another political office--say the U.S. presidency--under political pressure that could be a hundred times worst? No one will elect a quitter into political office. That is what Sarah Palin will have to answer for, if she wants to continue a career in politics. And so far, Sarah Palin has yet answered that question.