There was some local story about Des Moines (WA) residents being “outraged” by the killing of a dog named “Rosie” by a local police officer. Of course, one would naturally be inclined to ask what does it take for the same neighborhood to be “outraged” by the killing of a human by the same officer. Being unarmed seldom is sufficient for this purpose; merely acting erratically due to mental illness or alcohol is not going to win your dead body any sympathy points from an inquest jury, either. In the end, it is always rationalized away as a fact of life (everybody dies) or the victim must be a bad guy anyways. But on occasion certain elements conspire to undo the rogue officer and force the public to look facts straight in the eye.
Take the case of the shooting death of Native American woodcarver John T. Williams. From the very beginning of its reportage, something seemed quite fishy, but one suspected that if Officer Ian Birk’s story had even a grain of truth to it, he was going to get away with it. It was initially reported that Birk saw Williams perched on a wall with an open knife, and when Birk approached him, Williams jumped off the wall and advanced toward him in menacing manner, knife threatening. Birk had no choice but to pump four bullets in him. If that story was even 25 percent correct, this would have been forgotten the next day. The problem was that this story was so far removed from the truth, given the testimony of numerous witnesses, that Birk had to huddle with police union personnel to concoct a new story. The problem with the new story, of course, was that it was just as incredible as the first, as revealed by a recent story in the Seattle Times.
To wit: Birk fired five gunshots at Williams four seconds after issuing his first command to drop his carving knife. Birk was confronted by a witness asking him why he shot him. “He had a knife, but he wouldn’t drop it.” That’s it? Oh, but Williams also had a small piece of wood; so Birk felt doubly threatened, not being able to put two and two together like any normal person? But wait: Did not Birk initially make no statement to officers who arrived at the scene shortly thereafter that indicated that he had been threatened or assaulted? Did he not tell those officers that “He had it out; he was carving up that board with it open. I approached him… and instructed him to drop it multiple times, and he wouldn’t do it.” Now, witnesses say that four seconds had elapsed between the first command and the gunfire; four seconds generally isn’t enough time for anyone to “respond,” even when sober. This description of the encounter (it is not clear if this was before or after Williams was seen perched on that fictional wall) was immediately seen as bad business by the police union reps, whose interest was less in truth but in whitewashing the facts as best they could, even if it meant resorting to blatant fabrication. This time it was no late night encounter in a lonely alley with no witnesses, where invention is presumed to be fact merely on the word of a police officer.
The new version claimed that it was a 10 second encounter—and became an “extended, threatening confrontation” that forced Birk to shoot as a last resort. Birk claimed that Williams was facing him, holding the knife up in a “very confrontational posture.” Now, you might ask “Don’t police ever stop lying?” but why get in the way of a fascinating yarn even if badly told. Birk then made the observation that Williams—who according to witnesses never faced Birk—had his “jaw set and his expression stern,” and continued to look at him with a “serious expression.” Can you believe this? This is enough to set his guns a’blazing? Only for a police officer. Then—all this in the space of ten seconds (actually four) Williams became more “aggressive” as if he was “preparing to fight.” Birk—get this—claimed that Williams turned to face him “slowly and deliberately,” which led him to believe that “he was either seriously detached or knew I was trying to stop him and attempting to avoid contact with the police.” Forget the ludicrousness and improbability of this tale—Birk made these “determinations” all within the 10 seconds he said he had made his first command (actually four). Williams showed “pre-attack indicators,” and Birk was “struck with an immediate fear for my own life.” So the officer armed with a Glock 40 felt more threatened than the intoxicated man who was just minding his own business with a by now closed and legal three-inch knife, that even the officer knew was being used to cut a small piece of wood and not a person. So he had to fire his gun five times, four of the bullets lodging in Williams side. Birk claimed that the drunken Williams—who was not in fact facing him—could attack him “at any moment.”
Forensic evidence and witnesses at the scene flatly contradicted this version of events, and the disgust one feels for the very blatancy of the lies and deceptions are just the kind of thing that police should be thinking about before they concoct such absurd and unbelievable stories. The front page of the Seattle Times displayed still pictures from the police camera in Birk’s patrol car; Williams is seen passing by clearly immersed in the carving of his piece of wood, completely unaware of or unperturbed by the officer’s presence; he was clearly threatening no one. The police are doing themselves no favors with such inventions when everyone can see the facts point elsewhere. People are not as stupid as they think. Birk’s attorney, Ted Buck, states that we don’t know the “whole story,” but what could the rest of the story be but that police psychological examinations had failed to reveal Birk’s paranoid, bullying streak and complete lack of judgment?
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Palin's Alaska has no room for Native Americans
Sarah Palin has a new book out (I wonder who the ghostwriter for this one is) in which she expounds upon life and faith, although in regard to the latter I’m not sure she’s actually referring to religion. This so-called “Christian” has a certain lacking in Christian charity, as do most Republicans; Mother Palin spends considerable time trashing other people who done her wrong, mainly by questioning her many head-scratching commentaries. But don’t you criticize my mother, tweets Willow Palin, or I will tell you “stfu” and call you a “faggot.” At least we know the manner of language that goes on in the Palin household. Bristol says that everybody is “jealous” of the family’s success, although judging from her “Dancing with the Stars” performances, there is no accounting for lousy taste; Bristol’s partner is energetic and clearly knows what he’s doing, but that arrogant, clumsy tubby with no personality (and always seems to look as if she’d rather be somewhere else) has now been voted into the finals. The deadly silence of the audience that greeted this announcement could just as easily be interpreted as silent booing. Afterward, Brandy—a much better dancer who didn’t make the final cut—said it was all OK because Bristol was “shy and sweet”; she clearly has not spent much time inside the Palin Klan.
Meanwhile, Matt Bai of the NY Times had an absurd story about how Palin “allowed herself to be shaped by the “demands of the marketplace”—the “crowd-sourced candidate.” He says that she was “unformed.” The fact is that Palin was fully-formed before, and what you see is what you always had—someone with a thirst for attention and power, and treads on anyone to get it; that Palin’s knowledge on the issues of the day hasn’t improved much since her Katie Couric interview also suggests that she hasn’t “re-formed” to any noticeable extent. It is also true that people who despise other people and are contemptuous of them and their rights also have a tendency to be “culturally conservative,” so we don’t really need to wonder at questions of ideology. The question of why Palin is such a “hit” in the media is easily explained by the fact that many in that estate require a white female to be a symbol of power for their own self-aggrandizement, and with Hillary Clinton strangely in the shadows, the media has latched on to Palin for undeserved credibility on a variety of issues she clearly has no business expressing an opinion on.
Palin also has a new “reality show” called “Sarah Palin’s Alaska.” Boy, doesn’t that sound exciting. I bet one thing Palin won’t discuss is her “respect” for Alaska’s Native American culture. Although her husband, Todd Palin, is 1/16th Yu'pik and has a Yu'pik grandmother, that’s like saying John Boehner is part Cherokee. According to many of Alaska’s Native Americans, Palin seems to support the concept that nature’s bounty is for the use and enjoyment of humans—that is, if they are white like she is. Palin apparently does not like the fact that whenever she goes out hunting or fishing she might run into Natives who must do the same for subsistence and not sport, or take into consideration their needs (“I’m pro subsistence for all Alaskans” she proclaimed in opposing Native American fishing and hunting rights). According to tribal leaders, Palin seemed to have an agenda from the moment she was elected governor (apparently because she was not the unpopular Frank Murkowski), stifling efforts to protect Native people's livelihoods from commercial and sport fishing and hunting. The lawsuit Palin initiated in opposition to the Interior Department’s decision to list the polar bear as an endangered species would also have had the effect of removing protection--from oil and mining interests-- for lands used by the Natives; she also opposed and helped defeat the Alaska Clean Water initiative, which sought to limit toxic chemicals into Alaska waterways by mining companies, which tribes saw as endangering their livelihoods and health.
Palin was also criticized for failing to appoint any Native Americans to the Alaska Coastal Management Program, which oversees coastal conditions, which naturally is of vital interest to tribes—and who were likely to get in the way of white conservative “needs.” Alaska’s natives have additionally complained of Palin’s disinterest in improving living conditions in remote areas where there is no running water or sewage systems. Palin also tried to interfere with the Bureau of Indian Affairs authority, particularly on issues of tribal sovereignty. Palin further angered Native Alaskans by refusing to provide bi-lingual voting ballots for Yu'pik speakers; she was later forced by court order to provide them. Last but not least, she fired Native American Walt Monegan, the Public Safety Commissioner, for failing to fire the trooper ex-husband of her sister—which later transmuted into Troopergate, for which Palin only escaped censure when she decided to quit being governor.
Not surprisingly, in every negative economic, health, educational, criminal justice and social indicator, Native Alaskans rank far beyond their numbers comparative to whites. Palin’s opposition to stimulus money for education and rejection of “donated” heating fuel from Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez naturally most affected native peoples. Gov. Palin’s attention to diversity (or lack thereof) didn’t escape the attention of Alaskans who are African-American, either. Black leaders met with Palin to discuss her problem in regard to minority hiring; Gwen Alexander, the head of the African-American Historical Society of Alaska, later reported that Palin’s position was that she felt no compulsion to hire blacks at all, and had no plans on doing so in the future.
What are we to make of this? As the Empress of Tea Partydom, and given the racist underpinnings of that movement, we should not be surprised by any of these doings. Given the facts—which the “lamestream” and “blamestream” media that Palin derides never seem to discover on their own—what you see is what you get. If we take the recent Gallup poll on the “Palin effect,” perhaps some people are starting to get wise: 52 percent of the public have a negative view of her.
Meanwhile, Matt Bai of the NY Times had an absurd story about how Palin “allowed herself to be shaped by the “demands of the marketplace”—the “crowd-sourced candidate.” He says that she was “unformed.” The fact is that Palin was fully-formed before, and what you see is what you always had—someone with a thirst for attention and power, and treads on anyone to get it; that Palin’s knowledge on the issues of the day hasn’t improved much since her Katie Couric interview also suggests that she hasn’t “re-formed” to any noticeable extent. It is also true that people who despise other people and are contemptuous of them and their rights also have a tendency to be “culturally conservative,” so we don’t really need to wonder at questions of ideology. The question of why Palin is such a “hit” in the media is easily explained by the fact that many in that estate require a white female to be a symbol of power for their own self-aggrandizement, and with Hillary Clinton strangely in the shadows, the media has latched on to Palin for undeserved credibility on a variety of issues she clearly has no business expressing an opinion on.
Palin also has a new “reality show” called “Sarah Palin’s Alaska.” Boy, doesn’t that sound exciting. I bet one thing Palin won’t discuss is her “respect” for Alaska’s Native American culture. Although her husband, Todd Palin, is 1/16th Yu'pik and has a Yu'pik grandmother, that’s like saying John Boehner is part Cherokee. According to many of Alaska’s Native Americans, Palin seems to support the concept that nature’s bounty is for the use and enjoyment of humans—that is, if they are white like she is. Palin apparently does not like the fact that whenever she goes out hunting or fishing she might run into Natives who must do the same for subsistence and not sport, or take into consideration their needs (“I’m pro subsistence for all Alaskans” she proclaimed in opposing Native American fishing and hunting rights). According to tribal leaders, Palin seemed to have an agenda from the moment she was elected governor (apparently because she was not the unpopular Frank Murkowski), stifling efforts to protect Native people's livelihoods from commercial and sport fishing and hunting. The lawsuit Palin initiated in opposition to the Interior Department’s decision to list the polar bear as an endangered species would also have had the effect of removing protection--from oil and mining interests-- for lands used by the Natives; she also opposed and helped defeat the Alaska Clean Water initiative, which sought to limit toxic chemicals into Alaska waterways by mining companies, which tribes saw as endangering their livelihoods and health.
Palin was also criticized for failing to appoint any Native Americans to the Alaska Coastal Management Program, which oversees coastal conditions, which naturally is of vital interest to tribes—and who were likely to get in the way of white conservative “needs.” Alaska’s natives have additionally complained of Palin’s disinterest in improving living conditions in remote areas where there is no running water or sewage systems. Palin also tried to interfere with the Bureau of Indian Affairs authority, particularly on issues of tribal sovereignty. Palin further angered Native Alaskans by refusing to provide bi-lingual voting ballots for Yu'pik speakers; she was later forced by court order to provide them. Last but not least, she fired Native American Walt Monegan, the Public Safety Commissioner, for failing to fire the trooper ex-husband of her sister—which later transmuted into Troopergate, for which Palin only escaped censure when she decided to quit being governor.
Not surprisingly, in every negative economic, health, educational, criminal justice and social indicator, Native Alaskans rank far beyond their numbers comparative to whites. Palin’s opposition to stimulus money for education and rejection of “donated” heating fuel from Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez naturally most affected native peoples. Gov. Palin’s attention to diversity (or lack thereof) didn’t escape the attention of Alaskans who are African-American, either. Black leaders met with Palin to discuss her problem in regard to minority hiring; Gwen Alexander, the head of the African-American Historical Society of Alaska, later reported that Palin’s position was that she felt no compulsion to hire blacks at all, and had no plans on doing so in the future.
What are we to make of this? As the Empress of Tea Partydom, and given the racist underpinnings of that movement, we should not be surprised by any of these doings. Given the facts—which the “lamestream” and “blamestream” media that Palin derides never seem to discover on their own—what you see is what you get. If we take the recent Gallup poll on the “Palin effect,” perhaps some people are starting to get wise: 52 percent of the public have a negative view of her.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Debt, and more debt
The recent cover of The Economist portrays a gaggle of Republicans on horseback in front of the U.S. Capitol building, in a posse pose copped from the film “The Magnificent Seven”—with Sarah Palin in the Yul Brynner role. A poor analogy; in the movie, the seven (as in the original “Seven Samurai”) were protecting defenseless peasants against marauding bandits. The Republican horsepersons have very different priorities: their defending the marauding bandits (Wall Street, corporations, financial and insurance companies) against the defenseless peasants (the working poor). During the Bush administration, when these mostly the same Republicans road into town, they let the bandits run wild throughout the countryside, doing as much as they could get away with. Naturally, the bandits pleaded poverty when they ran out of plunder and demanded replenishment from the government and hapless taxpayers. When the peasants became upset by these demands, the replenished bandits tried to convince them that the Democrats who road into the village with the idea of saving them from the bandits (or at least keeping the bandits at bay with contributions from the Treasury) were the real villains. The bandits and their Republican allies succeeded in convincing a majority of the peasants through clever propaganda that their marauding ways had been forced upon them by budget deficits; what they didn’t mention was that these deficits might make discontinuing tax cuts for the rich and looking askance at corporate welfare and attempts to dodge tax liabilities, with an eye to reducing the deficit and maintain programs for a civil society, more likely.
Meanwhile, Barack Obama’s recent trade mission was unsuccessful, in part due to the fact that our trade partners seemed to be less inclined to the U.S. attempt to open up markets for U.S. goods and inflate Chinese currency. Why? Because they see now that the Republicans are dead-set crazy against him, at least in the House, and this has weakened U.S. influence. Is it not remarkable how the Republicans actually weaken the U.S. internationally? They always think that playing bully wins friends, but only in the short term, as tempers simmers and the desire for vengeance increases. The international community instead is demanding that the U.S. clean-up its debt problem, the excuse they always use to when the U.S. demands open markets. The rest of the world knows that the U.S. is the world’s biggest consumer market, and they want to keep it that way. What they don’t seem to understand is that with jobs going overseas and wages decreasing in order to compete with low-wage labor, there are fewer Americans with the cash to buy their products. Nobody wants a trade war, but nobody wants to play fair either.
Domestically and internationally, the U.S. is being hammered for its federal deficit, but it isn’t the only debt issue this country faces. Back in 2006, U.S. private debt was 126 percent of income, and some were predicting that this problem would be the harbinger of another economic depression (something like what we are in now). Today, private debt is around $13.5 trillion, comparable to that of the federal national debt. Non-financial business debt, according to a Fed study out last September, is about $11 trillion. State and local government debt is “only” about $3 trillion. Total debt is a mind-boggling $50 trillion dollars, three times the GDP. The same study noted that the total value of U.S. financial assets is $131 trillion, while liabilities are $106 trillion. These numbers are just too big for my little head to comprehend, but they do indicate that the problem is too big for simplistic statements and token measures.
Things could get a lot worse. The underfunded amount of future pension programs around the country is estimated at $3 trillion. Although some studies suggest that the claim that Social Security is in dire straits is overblown and an attempt to force privatization, runaway health care costs are expected to double by 2018. The people who will be hurt by this more than anyone are not Republicans and their wealthy corporate and big banking backers who pay for the propaganda they feed the masses, but the masses themselves who are paid insufficiently or are jobless—and accumulating ever more debt. Thomas Jefferson foresaw the problem of this sort of debt, warning that:
“If the American people ever allow the banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless. I sincerely believe the banking institutions (having the issuing power of money) are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies. My zeal against these institutions was so warm and open at the establishment of the Bank of the United States, that I was derided as a maniac by the tribe of bank mongers who were seeking to filch from the public.”
Although there technically is no “Bank of the United States,” the Federal Reserve in fact has all the elements that Jefferson warned against—and worse. The Fed is not a government entity, but a private corporation whose basic interest is in maintaining the profit margins of corporations and stockholders; its interest in job creation is only peripheral to its principle mission. Note that the Fed gave trillions of dollars (most of it unaccounted for) to financial and business entities during the current crisis (and even before), while untold numbers of people have lost their homes and jobs because the Fed didn’t require that some of this money be used to relieve public distress or create jobs.
Every nation in the world (except maybe China) has massive debt problems relative to their GDP. Japan, in fact, has a much worse debt problem than the U.S.; by next year, it is estimated that it will have 200 percent as much government debt in relation to its GDP, compared to 100 percent in the U.S.; surprisingly, Latin American as a whole has government debt only one-third of GDP. The Republicans talk a big game about what they are going to do about the deficits; those without short memories might recall that during the Bush administration the national debt ballooned out of control, but that was so yesterday for the short of memory. The cutting of earmarks—something we’ve heard about many, many times before—even if implemented will barely be noticeable, and may cause more harm than good to cash-strapped states. Cutting “welfare” and social programs—unless we’re talking about corporate welfare—won’t be much help; even excluding government pensions, Social Security and Medicare, only 18 percent of so-called “welfare programs,” which includes unemployment insurance, goes to what some people disparagingly refer to the “welfare queens,” as well as food assistance and school lunches. Surely there are ways to trim Medicare and the defense budget to make a noticeable (but not substantial) impact on the budget reduction. No further stimulus packages will make a dent on next year’s deficits, but otherwise even eliminating Education and HUD will have little noticeable impact while only causing more pain on the state and local level. Health care costs—with or without reform—continues to run out-of-control, and the Republicans have offered zero plans on how to deal with it, short of allowing many more millions to go without health insurance.
Anyone who claims that tax increases are not necessary to close the gap is just playing to the crowd. Economist Robert Reich has recently written that the poor need the crumbs that the Bush tax cuts gave them more than the rich need the massive cuts they were given. Allowing the tax cuts for the top 1 percent to sunset would free-up $120 billion over the next two years, which would be enough to cover further unemployment insurance costs for the jobless. Republicans continue to insist that tax cuts for the rich will “trickle down” into job creation. When are people who vote Republican going to wake-up and realize that this is simply not true? With unemployment continuing near 10 percent and those tax cuts for the rich in place these past two years—where are those jobs?
As if that isn’t bad enough, tax-cheating is rampant. Back in 2007, it was reported that the tax gap between what people owed and what they paid that year was $345 billion—and we are not even talking about off-shored assets not subject to taxation. In some states, the tax payment gap exceeds their budget shortfalls. These days, law firms are telling you how to they will help tax cheats pay pennies on the dollar when the IRS comes calling. Some of the largest corporations pay no taxes at all. Why are not Republicans and their lemming constituency not concerned about this? Oh, I forgot: They don’t like paying taxes if they can help it.
I frankly don’t foresee the new Republican “posse” doing anything useful for the long-term. In 2008, they seemed dead in the water after all the crimes against America they committed. They committed further crimes by lying to the American public about their culpability in the current malaise the country is facing by manipulating the darkest aspects of the national character. We may soon see what they really are: intolerant, bigoted bullies beating on the most vulnerable in this society, just to keep their own power.
Meanwhile, Barack Obama’s recent trade mission was unsuccessful, in part due to the fact that our trade partners seemed to be less inclined to the U.S. attempt to open up markets for U.S. goods and inflate Chinese currency. Why? Because they see now that the Republicans are dead-set crazy against him, at least in the House, and this has weakened U.S. influence. Is it not remarkable how the Republicans actually weaken the U.S. internationally? They always think that playing bully wins friends, but only in the short term, as tempers simmers and the desire for vengeance increases. The international community instead is demanding that the U.S. clean-up its debt problem, the excuse they always use to when the U.S. demands open markets. The rest of the world knows that the U.S. is the world’s biggest consumer market, and they want to keep it that way. What they don’t seem to understand is that with jobs going overseas and wages decreasing in order to compete with low-wage labor, there are fewer Americans with the cash to buy their products. Nobody wants a trade war, but nobody wants to play fair either.
Domestically and internationally, the U.S. is being hammered for its federal deficit, but it isn’t the only debt issue this country faces. Back in 2006, U.S. private debt was 126 percent of income, and some were predicting that this problem would be the harbinger of another economic depression (something like what we are in now). Today, private debt is around $13.5 trillion, comparable to that of the federal national debt. Non-financial business debt, according to a Fed study out last September, is about $11 trillion. State and local government debt is “only” about $3 trillion. Total debt is a mind-boggling $50 trillion dollars, three times the GDP. The same study noted that the total value of U.S. financial assets is $131 trillion, while liabilities are $106 trillion. These numbers are just too big for my little head to comprehend, but they do indicate that the problem is too big for simplistic statements and token measures.
Things could get a lot worse. The underfunded amount of future pension programs around the country is estimated at $3 trillion. Although some studies suggest that the claim that Social Security is in dire straits is overblown and an attempt to force privatization, runaway health care costs are expected to double by 2018. The people who will be hurt by this more than anyone are not Republicans and their wealthy corporate and big banking backers who pay for the propaganda they feed the masses, but the masses themselves who are paid insufficiently or are jobless—and accumulating ever more debt. Thomas Jefferson foresaw the problem of this sort of debt, warning that:
“If the American people ever allow the banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless. I sincerely believe the banking institutions (having the issuing power of money) are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies. My zeal against these institutions was so warm and open at the establishment of the Bank of the United States, that I was derided as a maniac by the tribe of bank mongers who were seeking to filch from the public.”
Although there technically is no “Bank of the United States,” the Federal Reserve in fact has all the elements that Jefferson warned against—and worse. The Fed is not a government entity, but a private corporation whose basic interest is in maintaining the profit margins of corporations and stockholders; its interest in job creation is only peripheral to its principle mission. Note that the Fed gave trillions of dollars (most of it unaccounted for) to financial and business entities during the current crisis (and even before), while untold numbers of people have lost their homes and jobs because the Fed didn’t require that some of this money be used to relieve public distress or create jobs.
Every nation in the world (except maybe China) has massive debt problems relative to their GDP. Japan, in fact, has a much worse debt problem than the U.S.; by next year, it is estimated that it will have 200 percent as much government debt in relation to its GDP, compared to 100 percent in the U.S.; surprisingly, Latin American as a whole has government debt only one-third of GDP. The Republicans talk a big game about what they are going to do about the deficits; those without short memories might recall that during the Bush administration the national debt ballooned out of control, but that was so yesterday for the short of memory. The cutting of earmarks—something we’ve heard about many, many times before—even if implemented will barely be noticeable, and may cause more harm than good to cash-strapped states. Cutting “welfare” and social programs—unless we’re talking about corporate welfare—won’t be much help; even excluding government pensions, Social Security and Medicare, only 18 percent of so-called “welfare programs,” which includes unemployment insurance, goes to what some people disparagingly refer to the “welfare queens,” as well as food assistance and school lunches. Surely there are ways to trim Medicare and the defense budget to make a noticeable (but not substantial) impact on the budget reduction. No further stimulus packages will make a dent on next year’s deficits, but otherwise even eliminating Education and HUD will have little noticeable impact while only causing more pain on the state and local level. Health care costs—with or without reform—continues to run out-of-control, and the Republicans have offered zero plans on how to deal with it, short of allowing many more millions to go without health insurance.
Anyone who claims that tax increases are not necessary to close the gap is just playing to the crowd. Economist Robert Reich has recently written that the poor need the crumbs that the Bush tax cuts gave them more than the rich need the massive cuts they were given. Allowing the tax cuts for the top 1 percent to sunset would free-up $120 billion over the next two years, which would be enough to cover further unemployment insurance costs for the jobless. Republicans continue to insist that tax cuts for the rich will “trickle down” into job creation. When are people who vote Republican going to wake-up and realize that this is simply not true? With unemployment continuing near 10 percent and those tax cuts for the rich in place these past two years—where are those jobs?
As if that isn’t bad enough, tax-cheating is rampant. Back in 2007, it was reported that the tax gap between what people owed and what they paid that year was $345 billion—and we are not even talking about off-shored assets not subject to taxation. In some states, the tax payment gap exceeds their budget shortfalls. These days, law firms are telling you how to they will help tax cheats pay pennies on the dollar when the IRS comes calling. Some of the largest corporations pay no taxes at all. Why are not Republicans and their lemming constituency not concerned about this? Oh, I forgot: They don’t like paying taxes if they can help it.
I frankly don’t foresee the new Republican “posse” doing anything useful for the long-term. In 2008, they seemed dead in the water after all the crimes against America they committed. They committed further crimes by lying to the American public about their culpability in the current malaise the country is facing by manipulating the darkest aspects of the national character. We may soon see what they really are: intolerant, bigoted bullies beating on the most vulnerable in this society, just to keep their own power.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
The Favre saga continues...
At least for this week, Brett Favre cannot be blamed for global warming, the economy or armed conflict in the world. Perhaps he can be blamed for not being able to will his team to victory against the Chicago Bears on Sunday. I don’t think the Vikings will have a first down the entire second half. It was all his fault; Brad Childress insists on his “system,” meaning giving the ball to Adrian Peterson even when he isn’t functioning. He had a run of 20 yards, and a couple more for 5 yards. Then it was 13 carries for 11 yards. Why don’t they go into the no-huddle offense that worked against Arizona last week, when you know the “system” isn’t working? Is that what this is? Another pass intended for Peterson intercepted just after Harvin was knocked out of the game following a fumbled kick-off that was reversed on review. Peterson fell down running the route. That play is under review. Play upheld under review. Oh the horror, the horror. I have to go back to work now…I’m back. The Bears didn’t score after the last turnover, the Vikings are on the move, sort of. A shot of all three of last year’s starting receiving corps sitting on the bench, all injured. The big tight end, Visanthe Shiancoe, is now the “deep threat.” Favre throws deep to Shiancoe, and is intercepted for the third time. Damn, but life bleeps. I think Favre should retire now. What’s the point? Even if Sidney Rice does decide he’s not too sore to play, it’s too late in season for him to have much of an impact; Bernard Berrian—who did have his only productive game this year last week, helping Favre to his career best 446 yards—has otherwise been a nonfactor even without that groin injury that he “aggravated” during pre-game warm-ups, and Harvin re-injured his injured ankle. Highly unlikely he will be on the field next week against the Packers. Favre may not have the “magic” of last year, but he hasn’t had a healthy receiving corps this year either; you can’t win with practice squad guys, which allows teams to key on Peterson and neutralize him, like the Bears did.
Anyways, the Vikings defense has taken some heat for lack of sacks, and they are on pace to have half of last year’s total (and half of those came against Arizona) but otherwise it has been consistent with last year. Yards-per-game is about the same as last year, as have been the relative dearth of takeaways. At the midway point of the season, the Vikings’ takeaway total of nine was only worse than two other teams, but is not much worse than last year’s total of 24, which was in the bottom third of the NFL; the Vikings were the only team with a plus takeaway ratio that forced so few, mainly because Favre threw for a career low seven interceptions. With Favre’s turnovers galore this year, that weakness is only now more apparent.
As for the offense, Favre’s age and injuries is only a part of the team’s problems; after all, the Bears only scored three points on the ensuing possession following the Favre turnovers, and his yardage performance against Arizona should indicate that against a bad defense the Vikings can move the ball up and down the field at will. The Vikings were at the half-way point 11th in total offense (Green Bay is only 16th), but unlike last year they have had an inability to put points on the board. For the Vikings to have had any chance to repeat last year’s performance, Favre had to be as near flawless as he was then. The major difference is not, as many would suggest, that Favre is just playing terrible, and making terrible mistakes. Childress said after the loss against the Packers that just punting the ball was OK, except that the Vikings would be doing an awful lot more of that if Favre wasn’t being his usual “reckless” self—especially with that porous offensive line. Watching the Bears game, I never thought the Vikings were going to win it; with two starting receivers out and the other on a gimpy ankle, Favre—as he has been for most of the year—forced to do that dinking and dunking, but in this game the fourth and fifth-stringers were not getting separation even on the quick short routes, or dropping or juggling away easy catches. Favre was continuously forced either to try to laser the ball in tight places or throw the ball away. If the Vikings had any chance, Favre had to take chances, or they wouldn ’t be able to move the ball at all. As pointed out before, Peterson was a non-factor on the ground, and given the lack of receiving depth, the 53-yard touchdown pass to Harvin in the first half (before he was knocked out of the game) was example of Favre taking the chance to make something out of nothing. When it works, it is a great play that only Favre can make; when it ends in an interception, it’s a “bad” decision.
Speaking of bad decisions, Jenn Sterger did finally talk to NFL investigators. Her lawyer claims that she handed over “substantial material,” which several tabloid media outlets translated as “overwhelming evidence.” My guess is that Sterger presented a bunch of “material” that will give investigators a headache to sift through to determine if quantity equates to quality. I wonder if investigators asked her to explain why she was such an avid collector of male body parts sent to her from “celebrities” and “athletes” over the years (as Allison Torres testified to) and why they would feel comfortable doing that. They might not have done this if they knew that Sterger was going to store these on her computer for years. Why would she do this? For she and her friends personal amusement, as she originally told Deadspin? For a tell-all picture book? Or for extortion, just in case she her career was going into the hopper, as it is now?
It remains remarkable to me how the “mainstream” media continues to portray Sterger as a “victim.” Frankly, it just makes me nauseous just thinking about how Sterger expects “swift” action from the NFL—probably as swift as Comcast pulled the plug on her contract, probably for “character” issues as much as anemic ratings. It sounds to me that she wants “swift” action so she can hurry-up and sell her story before she runs out of money to pay her lawyer; I hear that Playboy is calling again, and since her career as a “serious” sports journalist is over, that seems the next step for someone whose career trajectory has based on selling her frame. It’s amazing how this sleazeball—who first claimed that she found all these “naked pics” and voice mails “fun to laugh at” with friends, now all of a sudden wants to play the moral paladin and justice-seeking victim.
There are a few people out there doing their homework, but only a few. Mary Ann Reitano of Bleacher Report wrote a three-part report on Sterger and her antics. “Who is Jenn Sterger?” To find out, Reitano states that her attempt to read Sterger’s blog posts over the years was an ordeal:
“To say that Sterger has a very high opinion of herself would be an understatement. Her posts focus more around what she does to keep herself in the mainstream of the sports pop culture than sports at all. If anything, the sports world is simply a backdrop for Jenn. Her lack of any sports analysis or even superficial commentary regarding the games she attended is very telling and she rarely references their outcomes…What we do hear about is all the “awesome people” she met, what a “great time” she had and an array of photos of her and “her fake girls” with anyone and everyone. She certainly is a walking photo-op.” Perhaps we can assume that what she means by “fake girls” are those with artificially-enhanced breasts, like the ones she has.
Sterger, despite the fact she has no talent for serious journalism, nevertheless is “her own biggest fan,” as revealed by these various references to herself:
“I call it like it is. I’m a brutally honest chick. I say what's on my mind: No B.S. No Drama. I hate girls who hate on other girls, especially people they don't even know. I hate overly vain individuals...I am a really vivacious person...just a good person...I’m the most loyal person you’ll ever meet...I’m loyal to a fault...I’m a pretend cynic...I laugh at my own jokes and swear people would find me a lot funnier if I had been born a dude. I'm an individual. I'm real. But most of all, I'm myself. You've never met a girl like me before and you probably never will.”
As I suggested in a previous post, when Sterger says she “hates girls who hate on other girls,” she’s just talking about girls who hate on her—not about her hating on other “girls,” like Erin Andrews. At any rate, I suspect that all the people who sent her “naked pics” of themselves” are probably wondering if someone like Favre isn’t safe from this “just a good person” and “most loyal person you’ll ever meet,” if they are next on her list. Reitano notes that this “good person” also derides all the “losers” using the worst pick-up lines “ever.”
Reitano also discovered this interesting tidbit: Sterger apparently deleted all her blog entries from August 12, 2008 to November 28, 2008—the entire period in which she was employed by the New York Jets. Very curious. One suspects that she might have said something in those entries that might not be “appropriate” to the current discussion. Perhaps some revealing comments that suggest a fascination with Brett Favre, perhaps? After all, as Retaino pointed out, Sterger also likes to talk about all the “awesome” people she allegedly knows.
There are other incongruities: Sterger, according to Deadspin, did not want to release the Favre voicemails and alleged pics, but eventually they “surfaced” from a “third party” for a price. Sterger allegedly has a degree in criminology from Florida State, but apparently it was no concern of hers that someone “borrowed”—or stole—the voicemails and pics off her computer and sold them to Deadspin without her knowledge and for personal own gain. Wouldn’t this be a criminal offense? Or more likely she gave them to another party to sell on her behalf, so that she wouldn’t be “tainted” by the connection. As Mike Florio commented, it had appeared that Sterger and her lawyer’s initial strategy was to “try to get Favre’s camp to offer a settlement without having to ask for it, possibly because asking for it could be characterized as extortion.” Florio went on to say that it appears that Favre called Sterger’s “bluff,” because he knows that “there’s nothing she can say that will lead to a conclusion that his conduct (whatever it may have been) was unwelcome.”
Meanwhile, the tabloid media (including Fox News and CNN) are wondering if this is the “end of Brett Favre’s Hall of Fame dreams.” As if he killed or raped someone, or betted on games. Commentators like Adam Schefter on ESPN still refuse to put the microscope on Sterger, for fear of being accused of being sexist and misogynistic.
It’s amazing how all these tabloid media sites are assuming the worst for Favre. I hope the NFL does the right thing and rule that Favre’s behavior did not conform with the moral standards expected of a married man, but otherwise that the evidence is at worst inconclusive that he had “harassed” Sterger, and at best apparent that Sterger engaged in a two-way “conversation” that she did not overtly discourage—and probably encouraged, given Torres’ testimony. Even if the league finds Favre at fault for personal conduct, if Sterger seeks legal action as some of the tabloid journalists say is “inevitable,” Torres (and others that might surface) would prove not only a damaging witness, but put Sterger in the light that most of the media (but not most of the public that has weighed-in on the ESPN and Fox Sports websites) has refused to shed on her.
What about Favre? He’s probably been living like a monk since this story broke; he has to answer to his wife and family, and not to the NFL, not to anyone who claims to be without sin and especially not to Sterger who used him just she used (or will use) many others in her climb to (in)famy.
Anyways, the Vikings defense has taken some heat for lack of sacks, and they are on pace to have half of last year’s total (and half of those came against Arizona) but otherwise it has been consistent with last year. Yards-per-game is about the same as last year, as have been the relative dearth of takeaways. At the midway point of the season, the Vikings’ takeaway total of nine was only worse than two other teams, but is not much worse than last year’s total of 24, which was in the bottom third of the NFL; the Vikings were the only team with a plus takeaway ratio that forced so few, mainly because Favre threw for a career low seven interceptions. With Favre’s turnovers galore this year, that weakness is only now more apparent.
As for the offense, Favre’s age and injuries is only a part of the team’s problems; after all, the Bears only scored three points on the ensuing possession following the Favre turnovers, and his yardage performance against Arizona should indicate that against a bad defense the Vikings can move the ball up and down the field at will. The Vikings were at the half-way point 11th in total offense (Green Bay is only 16th), but unlike last year they have had an inability to put points on the board. For the Vikings to have had any chance to repeat last year’s performance, Favre had to be as near flawless as he was then. The major difference is not, as many would suggest, that Favre is just playing terrible, and making terrible mistakes. Childress said after the loss against the Packers that just punting the ball was OK, except that the Vikings would be doing an awful lot more of that if Favre wasn’t being his usual “reckless” self—especially with that porous offensive line. Watching the Bears game, I never thought the Vikings were going to win it; with two starting receivers out and the other on a gimpy ankle, Favre—as he has been for most of the year—forced to do that dinking and dunking, but in this game the fourth and fifth-stringers were not getting separation even on the quick short routes, or dropping or juggling away easy catches. Favre was continuously forced either to try to laser the ball in tight places or throw the ball away. If the Vikings had any chance, Favre had to take chances, or they wouldn ’t be able to move the ball at all. As pointed out before, Peterson was a non-factor on the ground, and given the lack of receiving depth, the 53-yard touchdown pass to Harvin in the first half (before he was knocked out of the game) was example of Favre taking the chance to make something out of nothing. When it works, it is a great play that only Favre can make; when it ends in an interception, it’s a “bad” decision.
Speaking of bad decisions, Jenn Sterger did finally talk to NFL investigators. Her lawyer claims that she handed over “substantial material,” which several tabloid media outlets translated as “overwhelming evidence.” My guess is that Sterger presented a bunch of “material” that will give investigators a headache to sift through to determine if quantity equates to quality. I wonder if investigators asked her to explain why she was such an avid collector of male body parts sent to her from “celebrities” and “athletes” over the years (as Allison Torres testified to) and why they would feel comfortable doing that. They might not have done this if they knew that Sterger was going to store these on her computer for years. Why would she do this? For she and her friends personal amusement, as she originally told Deadspin? For a tell-all picture book? Or for extortion, just in case she her career was going into the hopper, as it is now?
It remains remarkable to me how the “mainstream” media continues to portray Sterger as a “victim.” Frankly, it just makes me nauseous just thinking about how Sterger expects “swift” action from the NFL—probably as swift as Comcast pulled the plug on her contract, probably for “character” issues as much as anemic ratings. It sounds to me that she wants “swift” action so she can hurry-up and sell her story before she runs out of money to pay her lawyer; I hear that Playboy is calling again, and since her career as a “serious” sports journalist is over, that seems the next step for someone whose career trajectory has based on selling her frame. It’s amazing how this sleazeball—who first claimed that she found all these “naked pics” and voice mails “fun to laugh at” with friends, now all of a sudden wants to play the moral paladin and justice-seeking victim.
There are a few people out there doing their homework, but only a few. Mary Ann Reitano of Bleacher Report wrote a three-part report on Sterger and her antics. “Who is Jenn Sterger?” To find out, Reitano states that her attempt to read Sterger’s blog posts over the years was an ordeal:
“To say that Sterger has a very high opinion of herself would be an understatement. Her posts focus more around what she does to keep herself in the mainstream of the sports pop culture than sports at all. If anything, the sports world is simply a backdrop for Jenn. Her lack of any sports analysis or even superficial commentary regarding the games she attended is very telling and she rarely references their outcomes…What we do hear about is all the “awesome people” she met, what a “great time” she had and an array of photos of her and “her fake girls” with anyone and everyone. She certainly is a walking photo-op.” Perhaps we can assume that what she means by “fake girls” are those with artificially-enhanced breasts, like the ones she has.
Sterger, despite the fact she has no talent for serious journalism, nevertheless is “her own biggest fan,” as revealed by these various references to herself:
“I call it like it is. I’m a brutally honest chick. I say what's on my mind: No B.S. No Drama. I hate girls who hate on other girls, especially people they don't even know. I hate overly vain individuals...I am a really vivacious person...just a good person...I’m the most loyal person you’ll ever meet...I’m loyal to a fault...I’m a pretend cynic...I laugh at my own jokes and swear people would find me a lot funnier if I had been born a dude. I'm an individual. I'm real. But most of all, I'm myself. You've never met a girl like me before and you probably never will.”
As I suggested in a previous post, when Sterger says she “hates girls who hate on other girls,” she’s just talking about girls who hate on her—not about her hating on other “girls,” like Erin Andrews. At any rate, I suspect that all the people who sent her “naked pics” of themselves” are probably wondering if someone like Favre isn’t safe from this “just a good person” and “most loyal person you’ll ever meet,” if they are next on her list. Reitano notes that this “good person” also derides all the “losers” using the worst pick-up lines “ever.”
Reitano also discovered this interesting tidbit: Sterger apparently deleted all her blog entries from August 12, 2008 to November 28, 2008—the entire period in which she was employed by the New York Jets. Very curious. One suspects that she might have said something in those entries that might not be “appropriate” to the current discussion. Perhaps some revealing comments that suggest a fascination with Brett Favre, perhaps? After all, as Retaino pointed out, Sterger also likes to talk about all the “awesome” people she allegedly knows.
There are other incongruities: Sterger, according to Deadspin, did not want to release the Favre voicemails and alleged pics, but eventually they “surfaced” from a “third party” for a price. Sterger allegedly has a degree in criminology from Florida State, but apparently it was no concern of hers that someone “borrowed”—or stole—the voicemails and pics off her computer and sold them to Deadspin without her knowledge and for personal own gain. Wouldn’t this be a criminal offense? Or more likely she gave them to another party to sell on her behalf, so that she wouldn’t be “tainted” by the connection. As Mike Florio commented, it had appeared that Sterger and her lawyer’s initial strategy was to “try to get Favre’s camp to offer a settlement without having to ask for it, possibly because asking for it could be characterized as extortion.” Florio went on to say that it appears that Favre called Sterger’s “bluff,” because he knows that “there’s nothing she can say that will lead to a conclusion that his conduct (whatever it may have been) was unwelcome.”
Meanwhile, the tabloid media (including Fox News and CNN) are wondering if this is the “end of Brett Favre’s Hall of Fame dreams.” As if he killed or raped someone, or betted on games. Commentators like Adam Schefter on ESPN still refuse to put the microscope on Sterger, for fear of being accused of being sexist and misogynistic.
It’s amazing how all these tabloid media sites are assuming the worst for Favre. I hope the NFL does the right thing and rule that Favre’s behavior did not conform with the moral standards expected of a married man, but otherwise that the evidence is at worst inconclusive that he had “harassed” Sterger, and at best apparent that Sterger engaged in a two-way “conversation” that she did not overtly discourage—and probably encouraged, given Torres’ testimony. Even if the league finds Favre at fault for personal conduct, if Sterger seeks legal action as some of the tabloid journalists say is “inevitable,” Torres (and others that might surface) would prove not only a damaging witness, but put Sterger in the light that most of the media (but not most of the public that has weighed-in on the ESPN and Fox Sports websites) has refused to shed on her.
What about Favre? He’s probably been living like a monk since this story broke; he has to answer to his wife and family, and not to the NFL, not to anyone who claims to be without sin and especially not to Sterger who used him just she used (or will use) many others in her climb to (in)famy.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Armistace Day blizzard improved weather forecasting--a little
Anyone who lives in the Seattle area knows that local weather forecasting `seems to be done by alchemy, astrology or just plain guessing. Five-day forecasts are simply not to be believed, especially during winter; on occasion you will see weather forecasts that “predict” rain, hail, sleet, showers, snow, thunderstorms and sunshine all in the same day—and none of the above occurs. There was a time, of course, when weather forecasting was much worse. Back in the “good old days” weather patterns were little understood, and the jet stream—whose fast speeds and warped patterns frequently result in serious weather disturbances—was not discovered until World War II. I bring this up because while I was checking-up on the latest news on the Vikings saga on the Minneapolis Star-Tribune website (doesn’t anybody like Brad Childress?), there was a story about the “famous” Armistice Day (now Veterans Day) blizzard of 1940. Even the second week of November is early for major snow fall in the Midwest, and people were caught completely off-guard by the storm that raged for three days. Although the "forecast" for November 11 called for cooler temperatures and snow flurries, it in fact began with unseasonably high temperatures reaching the mid-60s in some areas, but by evening winds were roaring—the same winds that took down the Tacoma Narrows Bridge a few days earlier—bringing with it rain followed by heavy snow as a low pressure system combined moist southern air with arctic air. But this is in hindsight; weather forecasters had little idea that this was about to occur. Residents in the Midwest, fooled by the initial warm temperatures, found themselves ill-equipped to cope with the storm, especially those caught in the countryside and on waterways. As much as 27 inches of snow fell, with snow drifts—whipped-up by winds of up to 80 mph—as high as 20 feet. People who were forced to venture outside were literally blown against buildings or forced to crawl. Over 150 people would eventually be killed as a direct result of the storm, as communications and transport were at a standstill for days.
The ensuing outrage over the failure of weather forecasters to accurately predict the storm led to the creation of more localized weather stations that updated conditions hourly instead of daily. World War II brought additional technology to enhance forecasting, including the discovery that radar could detect moisture patterns in the atmosphere. The least we can say is that meteorologists are better guessers now.
The ensuing outrage over the failure of weather forecasters to accurately predict the storm led to the creation of more localized weather stations that updated conditions hourly instead of daily. World War II brought additional technology to enhance forecasting, including the discovery that radar could detect moisture patterns in the atmosphere. The least we can say is that meteorologists are better guessers now.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Norquist's fantasy world
The other day I listened to Grover Norquist being interviewed by KOMO radio’s extreme right commentator John Carlson (who gets his jollies telling paranoid listeners “what happened while you were asleep”). Norquist talked about the tenets of his “leave me alone” theory of governance, which can be summed-up by this quote: "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.” In a nutshell, this means no taxes, no government, no regulation (well, except a teeny-tiny amount to go fight wars against the terrorists, and protect the rich from the poor). This, he says, is supposed to create jobs—a lot of jobs, so many jobs that everyone will have one. Everyone will have a good-paying job that enables them to afford decent health insurance, and be able to save enough money in order to retire at a still ambulatory age. No need for Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, welfare etc., etc. Bridges would never fall down, and roads would never crack. It will be a utopian world where no one will have a care to worry about. No need even to worry about getting an education; in the state I reside in, thirty years ago 75 percent of public higher education costs were covered by the state; twenty years ago, it was 50 percent. Today it is 20 percent. Will it be 5 percent in another decade? Perhaps by then only the children of the rich will need “worry” about the “privilege” of higher education.
The problem with Norquist’s theories, of course, is that we live in a much different world than the one he fantasizes in. We don’t live in a world where the agrarian economy predominates, and “self-sufficiency” shibboleth, if ever true, is not the mechanism in which economies or jobs grow. We don’t live in a world where there are sufficient jobs found in one locality, or where families all live together and have sufficient resources to care for their aged. We no longer live in a world where a nation has natural resources in sufficient quantities where it is not dependent on another. We don’t live in a world where a nation produces all its own goods and services. We don’t live in a nation where multi-billion dollar corporations have the national interest in mind. What we do live in is a nation where the national interest is subverted into more and more profits, most of which line the pockets of the richest. We live in “global economy” where corporations see the entire planet as sources of employment and consumerism. Creating a job or consumer in China or India is just as profitable—or more profitable—than creating one in the U.S. In order to create “full employment” in this country (in theory) and off-set this tendency means that wages must fall to “market clearing levels,” meaning the point where supply and demand are equal. Note that wages must “fall”—not rise. This makes sense to a certain extent—people can only buy so much of what they need, but it doesn’t take into account other factors, like continuously skyrocketing health care costs that eat into spendable cash, of which the Norquists of the world continuously fail to offer intelligible ideas to fix.
The Norquists of the world would tell us that we have to trust corporate America, the financial industry, and the insurance industry to play good Americans, and do what is in the interest of the nation, not for their own greedy selves. As we have seen especially in the past decade of Republican control, left to their own devices, the hoarders of wealth and financial gamblers in this country will leave average Americans in the ditch without a second thought. They will complain of allegedly high taxes preventing them from creating new jobs, except that the massive Bush tax cuts didn’t create jobs even one-tenth the level during the Clinton years. Instead of investing money in new growth and employment opportunities, they off-shored it, they gambled in unregulated financial casinos—anything to make certain that their pocketbooks became more and more bloated. They didn’t care about the condition of the nation or the path it was taking. Well, maybe they “cared” a little, but only in as much as they were creating jobs in other countries; I just read a story from the Washington post about high tech jobs going overseas. In Bangalore, India, engineers are designing lighter, more aerodynamic wings for Boeing jets, while a nearby call center handles U.S. credit card and banking customer service. Silicon Valley is losing high tech jobs to India and other countries. India has been pressed to reciprocate with investment in this country, but they complain of onerous work visa issues—that is to say, they want to employ Indian nationals, not Americans. Meanwhile, Boeing’s new 787 is now three years late on deliveries, and will be delayed still further after a recent electrical fire in a test plane. This and many, many other problems with production of this plane could have been avoided if Boeing had chosen to build the aircraft whole in this country and keep jobs and quality control local; instead of saving money building parts of the plane all over the globe like it thought it would, Boeing likely has cost itself billions of dollars in cost over-runs and lost orders. Stupidity and greed were never better bedfellows.
Someone has to pay for the fantasies of the Norquists, the libertarians, the right-wing media demagogues and the right-wing extremists of the Tea Party movement who carry the water for corporate America. These fanatics think that they can just wall themselves up like Prince Prospero while the rest of the country is mired in uncertainty, poverty and despair. But like for Prince Prospero, these people cannot escape from the reckoning. It will take time, given the stupidity displayed in the 2010 mid-term elections. Hopefully, it will only entail these deceivers losing favor with the public becoming wise to their game, that will only lead to one result: an uncivil society the nature of which none of us should wish to contemplate.
The problem with Norquist’s theories, of course, is that we live in a much different world than the one he fantasizes in. We don’t live in a world where the agrarian economy predominates, and “self-sufficiency” shibboleth, if ever true, is not the mechanism in which economies or jobs grow. We don’t live in a world where there are sufficient jobs found in one locality, or where families all live together and have sufficient resources to care for their aged. We no longer live in a world where a nation has natural resources in sufficient quantities where it is not dependent on another. We don’t live in a world where a nation produces all its own goods and services. We don’t live in a nation where multi-billion dollar corporations have the national interest in mind. What we do live in is a nation where the national interest is subverted into more and more profits, most of which line the pockets of the richest. We live in “global economy” where corporations see the entire planet as sources of employment and consumerism. Creating a job or consumer in China or India is just as profitable—or more profitable—than creating one in the U.S. In order to create “full employment” in this country (in theory) and off-set this tendency means that wages must fall to “market clearing levels,” meaning the point where supply and demand are equal. Note that wages must “fall”—not rise. This makes sense to a certain extent—people can only buy so much of what they need, but it doesn’t take into account other factors, like continuously skyrocketing health care costs that eat into spendable cash, of which the Norquists of the world continuously fail to offer intelligible ideas to fix.
The Norquists of the world would tell us that we have to trust corporate America, the financial industry, and the insurance industry to play good Americans, and do what is in the interest of the nation, not for their own greedy selves. As we have seen especially in the past decade of Republican control, left to their own devices, the hoarders of wealth and financial gamblers in this country will leave average Americans in the ditch without a second thought. They will complain of allegedly high taxes preventing them from creating new jobs, except that the massive Bush tax cuts didn’t create jobs even one-tenth the level during the Clinton years. Instead of investing money in new growth and employment opportunities, they off-shored it, they gambled in unregulated financial casinos—anything to make certain that their pocketbooks became more and more bloated. They didn’t care about the condition of the nation or the path it was taking. Well, maybe they “cared” a little, but only in as much as they were creating jobs in other countries; I just read a story from the Washington post about high tech jobs going overseas. In Bangalore, India, engineers are designing lighter, more aerodynamic wings for Boeing jets, while a nearby call center handles U.S. credit card and banking customer service. Silicon Valley is losing high tech jobs to India and other countries. India has been pressed to reciprocate with investment in this country, but they complain of onerous work visa issues—that is to say, they want to employ Indian nationals, not Americans. Meanwhile, Boeing’s new 787 is now three years late on deliveries, and will be delayed still further after a recent electrical fire in a test plane. This and many, many other problems with production of this plane could have been avoided if Boeing had chosen to build the aircraft whole in this country and keep jobs and quality control local; instead of saving money building parts of the plane all over the globe like it thought it would, Boeing likely has cost itself billions of dollars in cost over-runs and lost orders. Stupidity and greed were never better bedfellows.
Someone has to pay for the fantasies of the Norquists, the libertarians, the right-wing media demagogues and the right-wing extremists of the Tea Party movement who carry the water for corporate America. These fanatics think that they can just wall themselves up like Prince Prospero while the rest of the country is mired in uncertainty, poverty and despair. But like for Prince Prospero, these people cannot escape from the reckoning. It will take time, given the stupidity displayed in the 2010 mid-term elections. Hopefully, it will only entail these deceivers losing favor with the public becoming wise to their game, that will only lead to one result: an uncivil society the nature of which none of us should wish to contemplate.
An evening fit for reflection of incidents past
The only time King County Metro Transit has someone operating the customer service line at 3 AM is on Daylight Savings Time shifts. Why? Because someone has to explain to confused or irate people who have to work at places that are open 24/7—like the airport—why the redeye buses haven’t showed-up. Last year at this time on Sunday, I woke-up at my usual time (2 AM) so that just in the case the bus driver didn’t change his or her watch, I would be at least an hour ahead of schedule. When I reached my bus stop, I waited an hour, then 90 minutes, then two hours. No bus. At DST-adjusted time of 4:30 AM, I called Metro customer service to find out what the problem was; there was, in fact, a human available to answer my questions. I was informed that the red-eye buses were running on Saturday’s schedule, and I was asked what exactly that meant, I was told that instead of arriving at 3:30, 4 and 4:30, the buses would arrive an hour earlier without taking into account the time change. The conversation continued in the following manner.
“I have been standing here since 2:15, and I haven’t seen a single bus pass here.”
“As I said before, the drivers make their usual stops in Kent at 3:24 and 3:54. That’s all they are required to do.”
"It's 4:30 now, and I haven't seen a single bus pass by here."
"Well, do you think it's fair that the drivers should wait an extra hour?"
“What? You just told me the buses are running on the Saturday schedule. That means there should have been buses here at 2:24 and 2:54 if they did not turn their clocks back. Anyways, why would buses run on that schedule if there is no one to pick-up”
“You’d be surprised how many people are out waiting for buses at that time of night.”
“You mean like I was?”
Of course, the conversation might also have gone something like this:
“I figured your drivers wouldn’t adjust their times, so I arrived at my stop an hour early, and I haven’t seen any bus.”
“Did you look at the schedule? There are no buses at 2:24 or 2:54.”
What the “customer service” rep didn’t want to tell me was that there were no buses running at all; the red-eye buses are just regular routes diverted to do early morning service. Instead of being “inconvenienced” by the time change, they are allowed to just turn in. Metro is tax-payer subsidized, and tax-payers and fare-payers have a right to expect proper service—or maybe not all of them. I have complained many times to King County Metro about real and perceived rude and discriminatory behavior and comments from bus drivers—both black and white—toward patrons who are (or appear to be) “Mexican.” I’ve already talked about some of my own experiences, including an episode where the driver drove right past me at the bus stop, let off a passenger at the street corner, slammed the door shut and drove off—dragging me a few feet because my arm was stuck in the door; you should have seen how frighten witless this bigoted bastard was when I told him I was filing a complaint to Metro. On a few of the buses on this particularly route I now see a posting claiming that “King County Metro Transit does not discriminate in the provision of service,” but if it does occur, there is an explanation of the policy, a phone number and mailing address to contact the General Manager, provided in four different languages. Except that the languages are all Asian languages—the minority demographic least likely to suffer from discrimination around here; there is no policy explanation in Spanish, for the demographic most likely to suffer from discriminatory behavior from Metro drivers. How to interpret this? Given the apparent culture of discrimination at Metro (I have never seen a Latino bus driver in almost twenty years), this must means that it is still “OK” to discriminate against “Mexicans,” because they have no rights a Metro bus driver is bound to respect.
Anyways, because I knew the red-eye buses were not going to be running, and I had no car, I had to make other arrangements, meaning that since the last bus to the airport from Kent leaves at 6:10 PM and the Port of Seattle police would kick me out of the terminal if I tried to spend the night there, I got a couple of hours of sleep before catching a late bus to Seattle, and then a link rail to the airport. It was around midnight, and I had to find some way to waste some time until it was safe for me catch a brief nap in baggage claim. There was a Denny’s down the street, so I decided to get something to eat while I waited. As I was entering the establishment, I noticed a King County Sheriff’s sedan drive into the parking lot. I ordered a burger and sat down on a sofa; at that moment a sheriff’s deputy burst into the place looking quite excited, looking this way and that way for the “Mexican” until he saw me sitting calmly in my yellow work uniform, and he managed to get control of himself. The reason for all this “excitement” was because a local “celebrity” was about to make her grand entrance—King County Sheriff Sue Rahr. Of course, nobody gave a damn who she was and I may have been the only person in the place who knew anyways. Frankly, I was surprised at how slight of build she was, at least compared to the two deputies who stood “guard" while she sat back against the wall in a corner booth.
I wondered if she had read my e-mail about the behavior of one her deputies (the one who looked and acted like Heinrich Himmler) on a bus that I wrote about last month, but I doubted it. I have filed many, many complaints about police harassment, and naturally I didn’t receive satisfaction from any one these that were adjudicated within police departments. The closest I came to scoring a victory over police harassment involved an incident that occurred when I actually had a car that police could arbitrarily pull over—an ancient 1978 Chevette that I removed from someone’s thankful hands for $700. Driving that thing was an adventure; when I was forced to take to the highways, it would shake, rattle and roll so bad that once I hit 55 mph I was certain it left pieces of itself on the road, the nature of which I pretended not to care. At the time I had a job in some “town” called Preston somewhere east of Seattle; it was one of those backwater places where white folks go to “get away” from “the elements.” One evening I was surfing the web too long and all of a sudden it was 1:30 AM when I had to be at be at work at 5:30 AM. I was so tired that I knew if I tried to get some sleep, I’d probably wake-up at 5:30 PM, so I decided to drive to the workplace and nap in the car. I arrived at around 3 AM. At about 3:30 I was awakened by a flashlight blazing in my eyes: it was in the hands of a state trooper standing outside. What the hell did he want? I tried to explain to him that I worked there and why I was early. But my explanation was of little interest to him. He told me he didn’t want to see me in his neighborhood again. That afternoon after work, I was driving down I-90 when suddenly lights were flashing behind me—a state trooper. What was this about?” I was driving steady with the traffic. I found out as soon as I pulled over: It was the same trooper I encountered that morning. With a shit-eating grin he informed me that he had clocked me driving 79 mph; I told him he was crazy, that this car shakes like jack hammer if I go over 55, and the car was not shaking. But it didn’t matter; he took my auto insurance card and went back to his car—laughing as he called the insurance company. When he came back, I told him I was surely going to contest the $180 ticket, which he found amusing.
A month later I found myself in traffic court. I had already written a lengthy letter to the judge describing events as I interpreted them: I was a victim of racial profiling and discrimination; the trooper had targeted me because of my “appearance,” and having spotted me on the highway (not very hard in that Chevette), sought to harass me out of the neighborhood by lying about the speed I was going and giving me an exorbitant fine. I also believed that it was unethical or even illegal to call my insurance company when I had valid insurance. The judge, who was black, told me he had read my statement, and I was allowed to repeat my experience in front of the other alleged traffic offenders, some of whom nodded their heads knowingly. The judge then asked me if I would acknowledge that I had indeed driven over the speed limit; I had observed that this judge was more willing to reduce fines if there was at least a little acknowledgment of guilt, and so I played along. The judge seemed to like me and my story, because it gave him an excuse to launch into a grand speech about how some people are profiled because of their hair color, their hair length, or the color of their cars. He didn’t mention skin color, but I’m sure the people in attendance were not oblivious of the implication. Here was an opportunity to exercise judicial authority to correct an injustice, and so my fine was reduced to $50. It wasn’t quite the victory over injustice that I hoped, but the point was made, and strangely I was never troubled by that trooper again.
Police beat update: The legal three-inch knife that Native American woodcarver John T. Williams was carrying, and prompted a crazed Seattle police officer to shoot him dead with four bullets in his side, was found on the ground—closed. The officer, Ian Birk, has been on a "routine" paid leave since August; he should have been fired immediately after his gun and badge were taken away in October, since he clearly has no business carrying either now or ever. But then again since when has morality and ethics--let alone accountability--been a part of the police rule book?
“I have been standing here since 2:15, and I haven’t seen a single bus pass here.”
“As I said before, the drivers make their usual stops in Kent at 3:24 and 3:54. That’s all they are required to do.”
"It's 4:30 now, and I haven't seen a single bus pass by here."
"Well, do you think it's fair that the drivers should wait an extra hour?"
“What? You just told me the buses are running on the Saturday schedule. That means there should have been buses here at 2:24 and 2:54 if they did not turn their clocks back. Anyways, why would buses run on that schedule if there is no one to pick-up”
“You’d be surprised how many people are out waiting for buses at that time of night.”
“You mean like I was?”
Of course, the conversation might also have gone something like this:
“I figured your drivers wouldn’t adjust their times, so I arrived at my stop an hour early, and I haven’t seen any bus.”
“Did you look at the schedule? There are no buses at 2:24 or 2:54.”
What the “customer service” rep didn’t want to tell me was that there were no buses running at all; the red-eye buses are just regular routes diverted to do early morning service. Instead of being “inconvenienced” by the time change, they are allowed to just turn in. Metro is tax-payer subsidized, and tax-payers and fare-payers have a right to expect proper service—or maybe not all of them. I have complained many times to King County Metro about real and perceived rude and discriminatory behavior and comments from bus drivers—both black and white—toward patrons who are (or appear to be) “Mexican.” I’ve already talked about some of my own experiences, including an episode where the driver drove right past me at the bus stop, let off a passenger at the street corner, slammed the door shut and drove off—dragging me a few feet because my arm was stuck in the door; you should have seen how frighten witless this bigoted bastard was when I told him I was filing a complaint to Metro. On a few of the buses on this particularly route I now see a posting claiming that “King County Metro Transit does not discriminate in the provision of service,” but if it does occur, there is an explanation of the policy, a phone number and mailing address to contact the General Manager, provided in four different languages. Except that the languages are all Asian languages—the minority demographic least likely to suffer from discrimination around here; there is no policy explanation in Spanish, for the demographic most likely to suffer from discriminatory behavior from Metro drivers. How to interpret this? Given the apparent culture of discrimination at Metro (I have never seen a Latino bus driver in almost twenty years), this must means that it is still “OK” to discriminate against “Mexicans,” because they have no rights a Metro bus driver is bound to respect.
Anyways, because I knew the red-eye buses were not going to be running, and I had no car, I had to make other arrangements, meaning that since the last bus to the airport from Kent leaves at 6:10 PM and the Port of Seattle police would kick me out of the terminal if I tried to spend the night there, I got a couple of hours of sleep before catching a late bus to Seattle, and then a link rail to the airport. It was around midnight, and I had to find some way to waste some time until it was safe for me catch a brief nap in baggage claim. There was a Denny’s down the street, so I decided to get something to eat while I waited. As I was entering the establishment, I noticed a King County Sheriff’s sedan drive into the parking lot. I ordered a burger and sat down on a sofa; at that moment a sheriff’s deputy burst into the place looking quite excited, looking this way and that way for the “Mexican” until he saw me sitting calmly in my yellow work uniform, and he managed to get control of himself. The reason for all this “excitement” was because a local “celebrity” was about to make her grand entrance—King County Sheriff Sue Rahr. Of course, nobody gave a damn who she was and I may have been the only person in the place who knew anyways. Frankly, I was surprised at how slight of build she was, at least compared to the two deputies who stood “guard" while she sat back against the wall in a corner booth.
I wondered if she had read my e-mail about the behavior of one her deputies (the one who looked and acted like Heinrich Himmler) on a bus that I wrote about last month, but I doubted it. I have filed many, many complaints about police harassment, and naturally I didn’t receive satisfaction from any one these that were adjudicated within police departments. The closest I came to scoring a victory over police harassment involved an incident that occurred when I actually had a car that police could arbitrarily pull over—an ancient 1978 Chevette that I removed from someone’s thankful hands for $700. Driving that thing was an adventure; when I was forced to take to the highways, it would shake, rattle and roll so bad that once I hit 55 mph I was certain it left pieces of itself on the road, the nature of which I pretended not to care. At the time I had a job in some “town” called Preston somewhere east of Seattle; it was one of those backwater places where white folks go to “get away” from “the elements.” One evening I was surfing the web too long and all of a sudden it was 1:30 AM when I had to be at be at work at 5:30 AM. I was so tired that I knew if I tried to get some sleep, I’d probably wake-up at 5:30 PM, so I decided to drive to the workplace and nap in the car. I arrived at around 3 AM. At about 3:30 I was awakened by a flashlight blazing in my eyes: it was in the hands of a state trooper standing outside. What the hell did he want? I tried to explain to him that I worked there and why I was early. But my explanation was of little interest to him. He told me he didn’t want to see me in his neighborhood again. That afternoon after work, I was driving down I-90 when suddenly lights were flashing behind me—a state trooper. What was this about?” I was driving steady with the traffic. I found out as soon as I pulled over: It was the same trooper I encountered that morning. With a shit-eating grin he informed me that he had clocked me driving 79 mph; I told him he was crazy, that this car shakes like jack hammer if I go over 55, and the car was not shaking. But it didn’t matter; he took my auto insurance card and went back to his car—laughing as he called the insurance company. When he came back, I told him I was surely going to contest the $180 ticket, which he found amusing.
A month later I found myself in traffic court. I had already written a lengthy letter to the judge describing events as I interpreted them: I was a victim of racial profiling and discrimination; the trooper had targeted me because of my “appearance,” and having spotted me on the highway (not very hard in that Chevette), sought to harass me out of the neighborhood by lying about the speed I was going and giving me an exorbitant fine. I also believed that it was unethical or even illegal to call my insurance company when I had valid insurance. The judge, who was black, told me he had read my statement, and I was allowed to repeat my experience in front of the other alleged traffic offenders, some of whom nodded their heads knowingly. The judge then asked me if I would acknowledge that I had indeed driven over the speed limit; I had observed that this judge was more willing to reduce fines if there was at least a little acknowledgment of guilt, and so I played along. The judge seemed to like me and my story, because it gave him an excuse to launch into a grand speech about how some people are profiled because of their hair color, their hair length, or the color of their cars. He didn’t mention skin color, but I’m sure the people in attendance were not oblivious of the implication. Here was an opportunity to exercise judicial authority to correct an injustice, and so my fine was reduced to $50. It wasn’t quite the victory over injustice that I hoped, but the point was made, and strangely I was never troubled by that trooper again.
Police beat update: The legal three-inch knife that Native American woodcarver John T. Williams was carrying, and prompted a crazed Seattle police officer to shoot him dead with four bullets in his side, was found on the ground—closed. The officer, Ian Birk, has been on a "routine" paid leave since August; he should have been fired immediately after his gun and badge were taken away in October, since he clearly has no business carrying either now or ever. But then again since when has morality and ethics--let alone accountability--been a part of the police rule book?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)