Let's talk some politics here #3

[Scott Hays]

Three concerns:

(1) Last week, the major oil corporations announced their quarterly earnings. You all know the story: Exxon, $10 billion; Shell, $9 billion; Chevron, $3.6 billion (etc.). This, of course, has taken place at a time when prices at the pump have reached record levels. A talking head from the American Petroleum Institute this morning claimed that this profit margin only represent $.07 on the dollar of investment, and that all profits are reinvested (guaranteeing our "future") ... BUT, where are the new refineries and pipelines that they are investing in? And what would have happened if prices at the pumps had remained at $2.50? Would the profit margin have only been $5 billion (or $2.5 billion)? Of course, the story was underscored by calls from some Congressman to institute a windfalls profit tax on the oil corporations. The talking head said these were not "windfall" profits caused by price gouging; the high prices were caused by natural disruptions in the supply caused by hurricanes that affected the "free" market.

I don't know ... big shot experts claim that the economics of supply and demand and "futures" is way too complicated for anyone to understand. It seems pretty simple to me:

• If you have a limited supply of product, you raise the price and demand goes down; as a result, you don't sell as much but you earn the same amount (not a 200% increase in your normal sales).
• If the demand remains constant, and you sell more product at the higher price, then your profit margin increases accordingly (probably at the 200% rate).

But the obvious question remains ... if there is a "shortage" of supply, were does the "more" come from that forced you to raise your price in the first place? How can you continue to supply the "more" if there supposedly is no more "more"?

(2) What does the Vice President know about Scooter Libby's activities in the Valerie Plame case? As the Republicans and "rule of law" folks are always so quick to point out, if he has nothing to hide, he should immediately tell the American people what he knows, and when he learned it? If he cannot address the American people, look them square in the eye and explain his actions around a topic about which he is such a self-proclaimed expert, then he should resign. NOW!

(3) Did this Administration manipulate data and facts ... did it lie ... in providing information to the Congress and the American people about "proof" it had regarding weapons of mass destruction and the Saddam-alQaida connection in its buildup to the invasion of Iraq? Republican Senator John(?) Roberts, Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee was assigned the task of investigating these allegations. Because he is the Chair, and the Chair has "perogatives", he divided the investigation into two parts: (a) the nature of the intelligence gathered (a report already released, damning the intelligence community in general terms, but essentially a milquetoast report of little consequence and certainly no teeth), and (b) what the Administration did with this intelligence. To complete that second report, Roberts has not yet even begun to call witnesses. Everything has been in place to do so since May (by his own admission), and he claims he is going to initiate hearings in a couple of weeks, but inquiring minds have been wondering just why he has been dragging his feet (some say obstructing the process ... but, hey, that's just partisan babble). Should I reemphasize his title? Republican Senator ...

At any rate, yesterday, the Democrats totally caught the Republican leadership off guard by calling for a closed session to discuss not only this report, but the connected Valerie Plame case and many other issues (reportedly) regarding national security. Republicans came out of the closed door session fuming and spitting, but it ended only when Bill Frist was forced to appoint a bipartisan committee to investigate the investigation, and report back in two weeks. Roberts is fit to be tied ... and naturally blames the delay on beginning the hearings on the Democrats! Everyone else bemoans the "partisan kidnapping" of the Senate and its crucial business by the Democrats.

I say:
• I am not sure what business could be more crucial to the Republic than trying to find out if the current Administration knowingly lied and falsified information in making its case to invade a sovereign nation ...
• I like the "partisanship" line the Republicans are using to defend every single one of their illegal and immoral undertakings, because it is so obviously hypocritical that only the most blind followers can continue to swallow it. Just look at Tom DeLay, who lays all of his problems on a "partisan" D.A., and who just got a judge removed from his trial because he is a Democrat! Now there's a fine precedent to set for anyone!
• I think the Republicans are more worried about the precedents for calling a closed session of the Senate than they are giving notice to (and certainly will do anything to have anyone notice those precedents). The little used Senate rule has only been invoked in situations involving national security and impeachment. Seems to me the big worry would be that, if lying to start a costly war is proven, impeachment seems a logical outcome. Now, what Republican ... living by the "rule of law" ... would want to start walking down that road?

[Mike]

All that matters to "them" is that as long as they appear to be trying to appease the political "christians" they can do whatever they want...and do. Including removing the judge presiding over one of em's trial (Delay), and playing the peanut shell game with another (Rove). Hell, they don't even need their own judicial system, but just for a backup they'll have it.

A while back I mentioned that I thought Dubya was running a game on us with Harriet Miers. "They" never intended for her to be appointed. It was a prelude to sneaking in "Scalito".

There is no interest what so ever among our political "leaders" in uniting this country. Why would there be?
If this country could be united with common interest and goals...Dubya etal would be in jail, or at least back to ruining ball clubs and promoting dry holes in the oilfields. And Bin Laden would be captured "Dead or Alive". As it is, I for one am pretty "Shocked and Awed".
Divide and Conquer! "Mission Accomplished!".

[Mike]

However...if you're just plain sick and tired of the political thugs business as usual then here you go. You'll probably even get to hear his slogan..."once you remove special interest and corporate control..how hard can it be?" A good one for TiVo!
I got this in my email from the Kinky folks:

You're about to have a chance to help boost Kinky's visibility into the
stratosphere--and all you have to do is watch TV.

On Wednesday, November 9th, Country Music Television will run a sneak
preview of "Go Kinky," the reality show they've been producing about the
Kinkster's campaign. The show provides a glimpse of life on the
campaign trail with Kinky, following him and his “circus with a purpose” from
fundraisers and speeches to trips to the barber.

CMT will decide whether to turn the show into a full-blow reality TV
series based on the success of the pilots. So we ask you to stay up late
– or set your recorder – and tune in. Then visit our web site and take
our poll. We want to know what you think of “Go Kinky,” and we’ll share
our poll results with CMT.

The pilots will air at 1:00 AM and 1:30 AM CST on Wednesday, November
9th. (Yes, technically it’s Wednesday, but you’ll really need to stay up
late on Tuesday night.)

Happy viewing!

[Scott Hays]

Go Kinky!

We need to remove the professional politicians from office and replace them all with rank amateurs. Offspring of office holders should also be barred from holding office (damn their constitutional "right").

Soupy Sales for President!

[Scott Hays]

Do you realize that not even Joseph Stalin (or anyone in his government) ever leaked the name of a KGB officer to the Russian press? Maybe he just had them terminated, but he never did what conservatives are blithely dismissing as "overzealousness" (maybe) by a single individual. Adolf Hitler never divulged the names of any of his espionage agents.

Has anyone put together the dates that all of this was going down, and the even more important dates in which Skippy Libby was lying to cover his tracks? How about right before the last election, when news of such activities might have had a much more costly effect?

[Rollin' Mark]

mike said:

However...if you're just plain sick and tired of the political thugs business as usual

[/b][/quote]

talk about political thugs and business as usual....
(this should hit close to home, Mike)
Repeal the Wright amendment and set Love free!!!
www.setlovefree.com/

[Mike]

I couldn't agree more! It doesn't make sense to handicap one of the most successful and efficient business's in the nation.

If I'm flying on Southwest to El Paso or the valley, I drive 20 miles from home and leave from Love Field because it's still in state. When I fly to Seattle or LA, I have to drive to Austin or Midland to leave for the savings. Nonsense.

Two airlines based out of the same area, and Southwest has always had American running scared.
Around here they do have some funny commercials on TV tho. "Please release me let me go...."

It's heating up now with Southwest talking possibly moving their HQ's elsewhere if the Wright stays.

[Scott Hays]

Jayhawks around the world are hiding their head in the sand today ... either in shame, or because that is how they look at the world. One does not have to believe in evolution. It doesn't operate from a democratic principle and is not subject to the ping-pong nature of who controls the majority vote. It happens. Just like the natural world continues to do what it does regardless of what you or I or athiests or creationists think about it, how it began, or even why it began.

Life goes on, within you and without you.

The "scientific" debate about evolution ... the questions that creationists want to include in the science curriculum ... are already a part of the science curriculum at the appropriate level. Questions about potential designers, on the other hand, also exist in the curriculum where they belong ... in the social sciences.

To argue that good science includes opening a discussion of the natural world to include the supernatural as a causative agent is a pile of crap. Not only that, but it could only be done by legislatively redefining science, which is what six conservative and religious members of the Kansas State Board of Education just did. Six people!!

Just because 57% of the population believes in the Genesis account of creation doesn't make it true. Cases in point: How many people agreed with lofty 15th century thinkers who claimed the world was round? ... How many years did Galileo Galilee remain imprisoned in his home because his telescopic observations of the natural world suggested that Earth went around the Sun instead of the intuitive opposite observed by all normal people who believed otherwise? ... And do you really think just because the President of the United States ... and all the oil corporate executives funneling money toward his election ... doesn't believe the planet is getting warmer as a result of human activities over the past 200 years, that his beliefs (and inaction) will stop or slow the natural processes that are going on anyway?

Science has nothing to do with belief. It doesn't matter what scientists "believe". And, to be honest, it doesn't really matter what scientists say either, because whatever it is that they say is going on is only the best possible explanation at the time -- dependent upon evidence from the natural world and arguments that are consistent with those observable phenomena. Many pronouncements are so firmly supported by evidence that they take on the aura of "belief" (gravitation comes to mind, atomic structure, also ... but actually, almost all basic axioms of science -- which is why they are axioms, by the way ... things scientists call theory), but they must all be readjusted and reexplained when the evidence supporting them no longer holds true.

Creationists have been unable to advance a theory to support their "science". They can only ask rhetorical questions. The questions are interesting, especially when they point to things supposedly missing from the evolutionary record, but questions do not make "science". Nor do supernatural explanations. Nor do having the right number of votes.

Science operates outside of political decisions. Science is not controlled by vote, or democracy, or even authoritarian decision-making. And the bottom line fear that I have (not necessarily shared by anyone else, but I hope some folks are looking down the road) is that once conservatively religious Christians get a foothold, they will become emboldened and attempt to impose their beliefs on everyone else. This includes various forms of punishment leveled against those who refuse to follow the dogma. If you don't believe Christians are capable of such behavior (especially in this so-called modern era, when superstititon and fear supposedly no longer guide or control our daily lives), then look again at the lot of a few innocent women in Salem, or thousands of Spanish scholars and Jews who experienced simple "inquisitions" about their beliefs.

All Jayhawks are hiding their head in the sand today

[chadgumbo]

From Scott:

One does not have to believe in evolution. It doesn't operate from a democratic principle and is not subject to the ping-pong nature of who controls the majority vote. It happens.

An interesting, and accurate, way of putting it. And despite my religious beliefs, the world will continue to do what the world does. Whether one believes in evolution or not, you can believe this... one of these days the H5N1 virus (avian influenza) is going to mutate. And when it does it will be transmissible from human to human, instead of just bird to human. And as Scott says, voting on it won't change a thing.

That's only the most recent piece of solid evidence that supports the science of evolution. Isn't it interesting that when a non-threatening life form creates a more secure place for itself in the world by changing its genetics we call it evolution, but when a disease spreading organism does the same thing we call it mutating?

My wife got a little upset with me a couple of weeks ago. We were doing small little jobs around the house, and on the television was a show about WWII survivors. They were talking about the horrors they had experienced and they all had one thing in common. They were giving God the credit for their survival of the whole ordeal. One man interviewed said, "I made a deal with God. I told Him that if He would let me get out this foxhole alive, then He could do with me as He pleased for the rest of my life." What this guy, at least in my mind, didn't seem to understand was this. Anytime someone makes a statement like that, they're unknowingly and inadvertantly making God out to be a murderer. Because I'd bet my next paycheck that for every person who made that deal and survived, there were at least 2 more who made the same deal and didn't survive. And so if we give God the credit for saving the ones who made that deal and survived, we also must recognize that He then turned a deaf ear to those who didn't survive. In a courtroom, wouldn't we call that negligent homicide? When I quipped something along those lines in a much more abbreviated and, admittedly, a bit sarcastic, fashion, that didn't sit so well with Chris.

So I explained to her, "I'm not calling God a murderer. I'm just saying I think this guy's logic is flawed if he believes he was saved by God in that foxhole. He either did something to save himself, or he was just lucky. Simple as that. Wars are the creation of man, and the consequences of wars will be paid by man. But if this guy sleeps better at night thinking that God saved him, and if that strengthens his faith, then I suppose that's a good thing for him. I just wish people would think a little more about what they're really saying when they make statements like that."

How did we get from bird flu to this? Or, for that matter, from a vote in Kansas to bird flu? Your guess is as good as mine. I musta just felt like rambling a bit tonight.

Goosfraba all -

[Scott Hays]

I ramble, too ...

When I was in college, I was an anthropology minor. One of the more interesting things I did was a research project on comparative "witchcraft" practices amongst various Southwest Native American tribal groups. Witchcraft, it might be pointed out, is a term used by Catholic priests to identify what it was that Navajo shamans and curanderos did. While the power of shamans was mysterious (and that power included the ability to cast spells or to extract things from individuals against their will), and it was feared because of the mystery shrouding it, only the Catholic Church would apply a label usually associated with "evil" or "demonic" practices to an otherwise noble profession in order to co-opt practitioners. That practice is the subject of a different post.

But native shamans were very powerful because of the things they did for the benefit of the community. They brought the rain, they helped the crops to grow and the sheep to have lots of babies, they were the medical practitioners of native society. And they were successful!

In part, their success can be attributed to skillful understanding of the natural world. Years of training taught them to read the seasons, to know the weather patterns, to understand (if only intuitively) the nature of life cyles, and to accumulate vast knowledge about the powers and properties of plants.

They also were skilled readers of the human psyche. They knew which remedy to apply to any problem, and they knew that the patient (or client) had to have not only a stake in the outcome, but a strong belief that when the proper rituals were followed, the remedy would work. They therefore knew when to isolate a problem (be it an individual with an illness, a problem pregnancy, a stolen item) and when to present it to a larger group (including the entire community, if necessary and warranted).

They knew all the songs and all the ceremonies. Singing and ceremonial practices strengthened the individual and the group. If you were ill, a whole lot of people pulling for you by doing elaborate dances and songs is a very powerful aid to recovery. Of course, so are the appropriate medicines (potions, ointments, meals, smokes, saunas, etc.), which requires a great deal of flat out knowledge connected to a whole bunch of sleight-of-hand and hocus-pocus.

The cool thing about belief, however, is this ... if the shaman's methods failed (say the patient didn't recover, or even died; or the corn all withered on the stalk), it was NEVER the shaman's fault. It was always the fault of the practitioners ... they sang the wrong song, they sang the song wrong, one person had bad thoughts while performing the dance, the dance was done at the wrong time of day. And so on.

Every single belief system on this planet has built in excuses to explain why it doesn't "work" when it doesn't work. That is the nature of belief. Belief is beyond evidence, doesn't require evidence, and is capable of looking conflicting evidence square in the eye and spitting at it. This does not make belief "wrong". Strong belief, in fact, generally unites people (unless the people have many, conflicting beliefs ... or a single strong conflict in one basic belief ... in which case unity is practically impossible and/or confrontation likely) and gives them courage, strength and conviction. But it is NOT evidence-based.

In short, belief that God (or Hermes, for that matter) spared the life of a soldier in a foxhole, but took the life of two other soldiers does not make God (or Hermes) a "murderer". Those people's time had just come! The soldier in question's time might have come also, but a "miracle" protected him ... God (or Hermes) is benevolent and to be thanked!

Right this moment, a minority of people living in Kansas are thankful that God (or Hermes) gave them a small majority on a transient administrative board, and that their faith has trumped evidence once again. More than fifty percent of all Americans may believe in a Genesis version of creation (and the percentage may be higher in Kansas than in other parts of the country, as far as I know), but most are able to make the distinction between faith and evidence. In fact, the majority are able to hold both views, simultaneously. Evidence of phenomena in the natural world is just that ... evidence for what happens. Explanations based upon that evidence are quite different than explanations based on faith: one explains how or what, the other explains why. Most people understand the difference, and realize they are not competitive views.

Some cannot. They are either so closed-minded that they can accept only one explanation, or they are so insecure in their faith that any evidence that appears to challenge it must be evil. As in Dover, Pennsylvania (indeed, as has happened in Kansas already) ... when given an opportunity, the majority of clear thinking human beings will exercise their majority and kick the thickheaded, narrow-minded minority out of office.

Unfortunately ... because science is not really trusted in this country (just as learning, itself, is not truly respected) ... decisions of this nature will continue to be dictated by vote and popular sentiment.

As if the bird flu will wait for God (or Hermes) to create a new species.

[Mike]

Well Bush now sez that his critics are just a bunch of "irresponsible hypocrites". I hate to resort to grade school, but "it takes one to know one." ;D

There's another Texas Political Puke emerging in the spotlight. John Cornyn (R) Texas Senator and former attorney general of TX seems to have been part of "The Jack Abramoff Gang" and helped in scalping the Indians round here while he was AG. Claims he doesn't know Abramoff. I would too if I were him.

[Scott Hays]

Bush says Senators and Representatives now critical of him once had the same information that he did, hence they are "hypocrites" to be asking him to change policies, or to claim that the road to Iraq was somehow "cooked". This, however, is just another blatant example of how this President (or the guys setting up his one-act play) parses words and cooks the message. Yes ... Congressmen were shown information concluding the Saddam Hussein posed an "imminent" threat to the U.S. The point, though, is that this information was distilled through the lens of the Bush Administration political operatives who selected the bits and pieces that pointed to the conclusion all drew. Not only that, but Congress did NOT have all the information that Bush had. That is just a flat out misassertion.

Secondly, Bush claims that the Clinton Administration had the same information and the same interpretation about Saddam Hussein's capabilities as his Administration did. He (and his flunky spokesperson's) reiterate (repeatedly) the things that members of Clinton's Administration said about Saddam to prove their point.

But there is one major difference!! Clinton, with that information, did not march us off to war!

Finally, I have to return to statements I made in 2002 (and subsequently, whenever I get the chance ... one reason I talk so much, huh Hank?) ... the REASON we "knew" he had those wmd capabilities is that is was US WHO GAVE THEM TO HIM! If nothing else, we are good beancounters, and we knew what we had given him, when we gave it, and how much. Those are the things everyone was looking for, because there was a record of them. Never stated, mind you ... how silly would it look for Cheney and Rumsfield to admit that the wmds they were looking for were the very same ones they gave to Saddam in his war with Iran? So where did they go? Syria? possibly ... and now we have them under the microscope. Iran? Hardly! Afghanistan and al-Qaida? Nope ... Saddam and Osama are not good buddies (at least, they weren't before they found themselves confronting a common enemy). Or maybe ... just maybe ... he actually DID destroy them?

[Mike]

shays said:

Nope ... Saddam and Osama are not good buddies (at least, they weren't before they found themselves confronting a common enemy).

Right on Scott! Bush has opened a dangerous can of worms here. And since it is apparent that he has no idea of how to conclude closing said can of worms, even more concern for anyone that bothers to think they should be concerned.

Bush evokes some old sayings for me.
"Don't let your mouth overload your ass!" And an even more vital one..."Don't take a knife to a gunfight!"

With Hussein in jail, and Bin Laden still thumbing his nose at us 5 yrs after 9-11, the economy, levees, borders, ect ect all crumbling...I for one just don't feel any more secure.

I want my money back from Homeland Security. Services not rendered!!!

[Mike]

A little earlier today I watched (Ghost President) Cheney give the old "if you're not with us then you must be a traitor and a spineless wimp...and you're making the soldiers feel bad...and blah blah blah.." speech to re-affirm his sidekick Dubya's "irresponsible hypocrite" bullshit campaign tour they've got going on currently, obviously as a counter to their approval numbers starting to suck. Hmmm..Rove is really starting to get transparent. He must be preoccupied with something else. ;D

Has it never occurred to these guys to forget their greed and chips and step up in a time of dire need and actually be a heroic leader? That way they wouldn't have to continuously campaign and "manipulate the sheep" (not a difficult task) for 8 years. If not, then "they" truly are evil zombies with no souls and a lot of money with any integrity and honor completely beyond their reach.

And by the way, I've done this war protest thing for around 35 years now, and I've yet to see anyone not agreeing with the war disrespect a soldier. Not one!!!
Twice now, it's not war I disagree with. It's been the reasons (or lack of) that I disagree with.

It's not the soldier that I have no respect for.

[Mike]

The 3 Presidents with the lowest approval ratings:

1) George W. Bush
2) his daddy
3) Lyndon B. Johnson

Yeah, I know that Nixon hit 21%, but I think this list was referring to even better actors or someone not yet under impeachment as these are the 3 it listed.

Texans (actually the Bush's are Yankee's that musta got lost ). Victims of war. Their own...wars.
It is told that for the last 2 or 3 years of his life the gov't paid a Dr. a $Million a year to live on the ranch with LBJ because between the alcohol and Viet Nam he went pretty nuts after he resigned. See what eventually having a conscience will do to ya! I don't see Dubya etal ever having to deal with something like that.

Sure would be great to see Kinky break that cycle!