Tonight on the way home, I was listening to the radio and they were discussing unions and what not. A female called in and recalled a particularly harrowing story. Both her and her husband worked for United Airlines. They were retired and they began to collect on their pensions. Recently, the airline bypassed the bankruptcy laws and struck a deal to basically gut their retiree employee pension plans.
While I’ll readily admit that I do not know all of the facts, hearing this caller sent shivers down my spine.
One of the many things the union did in order to make United Airlines profitable was to negotiate key settlements with the various machinists, flight attendants and other unions so as to secure their place in the future all the while running an employee friendly airline.
United declared bankruptcy several years ago and most recently they defaulted on the pension obligations to those that agreed on the modest salaries and other negotiated settlements. The end result basically gutted the United Airlines employee pension benefits leaving countless thousands without the promise of their agreement.
In another words, the Union held their end of the bargain, the company did not.
How is it then that this President wants to push his social security plan in the face of Americans who would stand to lose even MORE than they do currently? It seems to me that people would like some assurances that they will be taken care of – which obviously did not happen in United’s case – a case where employees sought out a privatization option for their retirement only to have it gutted.
Bush’s Social Security will not be adequate. It will not work. It has a greater possibility of ending up in the tank just like United’s employees.
Sometimes we just have to think before we act. Sometimes we just need to have the foresight to realize a bad idea from a good one. Sometimes we just need to slow down and let an answer come gradually.
Monday, July 25, 2005
Think Clinton's $500 haircut was bad??
Prime Minister Tony Blair apparently has spent over $3k in cosmetics and other visual enhancements during the last 6 years..
Which is an OBVIOUS sign that he and Bush were HIDING their TREU intentions on the War in Iraq.....
*snicker gigglesnort*
Which is an OBVIOUS sign that he and Bush were HIDING their TREU intentions on the War in Iraq.....
*snicker gigglesnort*
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Not surprised...
All I've been hearing about is how the Supreme Court is so incredibly liberal..
All of the fingers point squarely on Ruth Bader Ginsberg..
I cannot begin to tell you how many times I've heard all of the talk shows saying that Bush needs to appoint someone just like how Clinton appointed Ruth.. That for some reason, there needs to be balance in the highest court of the land..
Okay..
If this were true, then why did Orin Hatch, the Senate Republican and Chairman of the Judiciary Committee warned then President Clinton to avoid naming a nominee that would face a tough political battle?? Those names that Senator Hatch offered were none other than Ruth .... Bader .... Ginsberg..... (as well as Stephen Breyer...)
This afternoon on CNN Senator Hatch hailed the Democrats to effectively accept Bush's recommendation and set aside the political obstructions that we faced with the latest rounds of confirmations..
If this isn't a shining example of political double talk - then I don't know what it is..
I do know this though, it's not limited to one party or the other.. I know the democrats do this as well, I know the Conservative and Liberal talkshows all slant accordingly to satisfy their contingency..
I just don't like it..
I don't care for it..
I hate it..
Politics has been bastardized into one fallen hypocritical disaster after another.. Just as the Liberal talkshows are holding Bush's feet to the fire about Karl Rove, the Conservative talkshows were just as critical when Clinton had oral sex in the Oval Office.
Yup - cuts both ways..
What was also realized today was one of the radio hosts I listened to said that we (liberals) have to win back the house and senate.. Ironically it's the same speech that conservatives were waiving when the likes of Newt Gingrich were in office.. Politics hasn't really evolved much.. It remains today, just as it did long ago..
That alone bothers me plenty..
Let alone how the rest of the world thinks we're total fuck-ups..
When we venture to our voting precincts to cast our one vote towards the betterment of society, there is an expectation that most people that *can* vote, don't vote.. And who can really blame them?? When there's the double-speak, the hypocrisy, the irresponsible, and flagrant disregard for the law, rules and ethics --- how can anyone realistically expect a better than majority turnout at our elections when crap like this goes on daily??
If politicians were to ever try to apply for a job somewhere - there is a thing called integrity that most employers look for.. And for some really bizarre reason - most everyone in politics lacks this attribute..
*ughs* - I should post more, but I'm tired..
All of the fingers point squarely on Ruth Bader Ginsberg..
I cannot begin to tell you how many times I've heard all of the talk shows saying that Bush needs to appoint someone just like how Clinton appointed Ruth.. That for some reason, there needs to be balance in the highest court of the land..
Okay..
If this were true, then why did Orin Hatch, the Senate Republican and Chairman of the Judiciary Committee warned then President Clinton to avoid naming a nominee that would face a tough political battle?? Those names that Senator Hatch offered were none other than Ruth .... Bader .... Ginsberg..... (as well as Stephen Breyer...)
This afternoon on CNN Senator Hatch hailed the Democrats to effectively accept Bush's recommendation and set aside the political obstructions that we faced with the latest rounds of confirmations..
If this isn't a shining example of political double talk - then I don't know what it is..
I do know this though, it's not limited to one party or the other.. I know the democrats do this as well, I know the Conservative and Liberal talkshows all slant accordingly to satisfy their contingency..
I just don't like it..
I don't care for it..
I hate it..
Politics has been bastardized into one fallen hypocritical disaster after another.. Just as the Liberal talkshows are holding Bush's feet to the fire about Karl Rove, the Conservative talkshows were just as critical when Clinton had oral sex in the Oval Office.
Yup - cuts both ways..
What was also realized today was one of the radio hosts I listened to said that we (liberals) have to win back the house and senate.. Ironically it's the same speech that conservatives were waiving when the likes of Newt Gingrich were in office.. Politics hasn't really evolved much.. It remains today, just as it did long ago..
That alone bothers me plenty..
Let alone how the rest of the world thinks we're total fuck-ups..
When we venture to our voting precincts to cast our one vote towards the betterment of society, there is an expectation that most people that *can* vote, don't vote.. And who can really blame them?? When there's the double-speak, the hypocrisy, the irresponsible, and flagrant disregard for the law, rules and ethics --- how can anyone realistically expect a better than majority turnout at our elections when crap like this goes on daily??
If politicians were to ever try to apply for a job somewhere - there is a thing called integrity that most employers look for.. And for some really bizarre reason - most everyone in politics lacks this attribute..
*ughs* - I should post more, but I'm tired..
Monday, July 18, 2005
raising the bar ... again
Okay – as everyone is realizing … Bush is raising the bar…
I listened to AirAmerica throughout the day when they had Joseph Wilson on. Wow. All I can say is that the answers he offered made sense – unlike the answers offered by the talking heads of the right.
Now as everyone knows, Bush has revised his position stating that anyone who commits a CRIME will now be kicked out of the White House. It’s no longer at the “anyone who is involved” as it was earlier stated…
Even as all of the AirAmerica talkies were getting their panties in a wad – this is nothing new for this administration. It’s status quo. In fact, it’s come to be expected. Moreover, it goes along with the spirit of the Downing Street Memos – make the facts fit.
This administration has lost more credibility than people realize.
… or maybe it’s a matter of people just not caring.
I listened to AirAmerica throughout the day when they had Joseph Wilson on. Wow. All I can say is that the answers he offered made sense – unlike the answers offered by the talking heads of the right.
Now as everyone knows, Bush has revised his position stating that anyone who commits a CRIME will now be kicked out of the White House. It’s no longer at the “anyone who is involved” as it was earlier stated…
Even as all of the AirAmerica talkies were getting their panties in a wad – this is nothing new for this administration. It’s status quo. In fact, it’s come to be expected. Moreover, it goes along with the spirit of the Downing Street Memos – make the facts fit.
This administration has lost more credibility than people realize.
… or maybe it’s a matter of people just not caring.
One more rant - losing the faith
Another tell tale sign that we’ve failed the people of Iraq:
”Frustrated Iraqis Ready to take law into own hands”
As quoted in the article, the confidence of the police and security is almost non-existent. This comes on the heels of another 98 people who were killed in various bombings over the last few days.
What I hate the most is when this administration calls the Iraqi situation a success. It’s not Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair, Mr. Cheney. These attacks will continue so as long as our influence is anywhere in that region. Anyone who arbitrarily dismisses the loss of life and infrastructure as what is happening in Iraq right now – is running the Iraqi people through the ground.
Where is all of this international backing and support that we were supposed to be gaining after the G8 summit?? Where are the new levels of cooperation and backing for the stabilization of the country of Iraq?? Where is it all going??
We’re sending countless amounts of our friends, neighbors, relatives, wives, husbands and children overseas to fight in a conflict where the residing people have lost faith in our ability (as well as the newly formed Iraqi government) to protect them.
The Bush spin on this will say: “the Iraqi people are fighting back! This is a good thing!” The reality of it – is that the Iraqi people are sick of it, but when we made this “promise” to help the Iraqi people out – we’re failing miserably. Not when scores of people are dying each day on account that we’re not protecting them to the best of our ability – because we’re doing all that we can to protect OUR OWN TROOPS much less trying to protect someone else!!
To put this into perspective: 98 people died out of a country of roughly 26 million. We have ten times that amount living here in America. Imagine if you will, a terrorist attack in this country where almost 1000 Americans died – in one suicide bombing. Now imagine that transpiring on a fairly regular basis.
We’d lose faith in our government’s ability to protect our homeland too, wouldn’t you say??
”Frustrated Iraqis Ready to take law into own hands”
As quoted in the article, the confidence of the police and security is almost non-existent. This comes on the heels of another 98 people who were killed in various bombings over the last few days.
What I hate the most is when this administration calls the Iraqi situation a success. It’s not Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair, Mr. Cheney. These attacks will continue so as long as our influence is anywhere in that region. Anyone who arbitrarily dismisses the loss of life and infrastructure as what is happening in Iraq right now – is running the Iraqi people through the ground.
Where is all of this international backing and support that we were supposed to be gaining after the G8 summit?? Where are the new levels of cooperation and backing for the stabilization of the country of Iraq?? Where is it all going??
We’re sending countless amounts of our friends, neighbors, relatives, wives, husbands and children overseas to fight in a conflict where the residing people have lost faith in our ability (as well as the newly formed Iraqi government) to protect them.
The Bush spin on this will say: “the Iraqi people are fighting back! This is a good thing!” The reality of it – is that the Iraqi people are sick of it, but when we made this “promise” to help the Iraqi people out – we’re failing miserably. Not when scores of people are dying each day on account that we’re not protecting them to the best of our ability – because we’re doing all that we can to protect OUR OWN TROOPS much less trying to protect someone else!!
To put this into perspective: 98 people died out of a country of roughly 26 million. We have ten times that amount living here in America. Imagine if you will, a terrorist attack in this country where almost 1000 Americans died – in one suicide bombing. Now imagine that transpiring on a fairly regular basis.
We’d lose faith in our government’s ability to protect our homeland too, wouldn’t you say??
I think therefore ....
What’s amazing in the aftermath of London – is how people seem surprised that an attack like this happened.. Wrong.. Sorry.. How naive are these people?? I was a little more than appalled when I read the headline "Backing U.S. in Iraq put UK at risk, think tank says…"
You think??
Wow..
I think the Spaniards realized this when their trains blew up.
I’m pretty sure the Aussies realized this when their contractors were kidnapped and killed.
I’m also thinking the Japanese figured this out when their people were also taken captive.
Holy Hell, people!!
WE HAVE A THINK TANK THAT BELIEVES THE UK WAS VULNERABLE BECAUSE OF THEIR SUPPORT IN THE IRAQ SITUATION!?!?!?!?
THAT'S BLOODY BRILLIANT!!!
Holy Shit, why didn't *I* think of that?!?!?!?!?
What’s utterly remarkable, even impossible to conceptualize is the fact that THINK TANKS like this one are the ones responsible for rebuilding Iraq since we’ve gone in there. No WONDER we’re in the crap we’re in right now when we have THINK TANKS like these overstating the fucking obvious…
No wonder we have lapses of intelligence: we're dealing with people who run our country worse than a Grease Monkey......
You think??
Wow..
I think the Spaniards realized this when their trains blew up.
I’m pretty sure the Aussies realized this when their contractors were kidnapped and killed.
I’m also thinking the Japanese figured this out when their people were also taken captive.
Holy Hell, people!!
WE HAVE A THINK TANK THAT BELIEVES THE UK WAS VULNERABLE BECAUSE OF THEIR SUPPORT IN THE IRAQ SITUATION!?!?!?!?
THAT'S BLOODY BRILLIANT!!!
Holy Shit, why didn't *I* think of that?!?!?!?!?
What’s utterly remarkable, even impossible to conceptualize is the fact that THINK TANKS like this one are the ones responsible for rebuilding Iraq since we’ve gone in there. No WONDER we’re in the crap we’re in right now when we have THINK TANKS like these overstating the fucking obvious…
No wonder we have lapses of intelligence: we're dealing with people who run our country worse than a Grease Monkey......
Monday, July 11, 2005
Finding the right time....
Scott McClellan's press conference 07-11-05:
Q Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003 when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliott Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, "I've gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this" -- do you stand by that statement?
MR. McCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that as part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation we're not going to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time, as well.
Q Scott, I mean, just -- I mean, this is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand before us after having commented with that level of detail and tell people watching this that somehow you decided not to talk. You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium, or not?
MR. McCLELLAN: And again, David, I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said, and I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation --
Q Why are you choosing when it's appropriate and when it's inappropriate?
MR. McCLELLAN: If you'll let me finish --
Q No, you're not finishing -- you're not saying anything. You stood at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we find out that he spoke out about Joseph Wilson's wife. So don't you owe the American public a fuller explanation? Was he involved, or was he not? Because, contrary to what you told the American people, he did, indeed, talk about his wife, didn't he?
MR. McCLELLAN: David, there will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it.
Q Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003 when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliott Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, "I've gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this" -- do you stand by that statement?
MR. McCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that as part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation we're not going to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time, as well.
Q Scott, I mean, just -- I mean, this is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand before us after having commented with that level of detail and tell people watching this that somehow you decided not to talk. You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium, or not?
MR. McCLELLAN: And again, David, I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said, and I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation --
Q Why are you choosing when it's appropriate and when it's inappropriate?
MR. McCLELLAN: If you'll let me finish --
Q No, you're not finishing -- you're not saying anything. You stood at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we find out that he spoke out about Joseph Wilson's wife. So don't you owe the American public a fuller explanation? Was he involved, or was he not? Because, contrary to what you told the American people, he did, indeed, talk about his wife, didn't he?
MR. McCLELLAN: David, there will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it.
Red Rove-r.... red Rove-r......
Well, well, well....
After many months of speculation (by myself and anyone who can read a paper) Karl Rove has been implicated as being "one" of the secret sources that ultimately led to the revealing of the identity of an undercover CIA operative..
Hmmmm..
But the story even gets more twisted..
Plame's role, not her name - was revealed 3-days after Rove apparently met with Matthew Cooper - writer for Time Magazine.. So Rove's defense is simply: "I never revealed the name, just the role..."
Or did he??
From the Washington Post: "In the conversation, Rove gave Cooper a "big warning" that Wilson's assertions might not be entirely accurate and that it was not the director of the CIA or the vice president who sent Wilson on his trip. Rove apparently told Cooper that it was "Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip," according to a story in Newsweek's July 18 issue."
Ohhhhhh, we're playing the "let's get specific game...." So Cooper already named Wilson, Rove merely said "Wilson's WIFE" as though "I didn't do anything wrong..."
Okay..
Remember not so long ago, right here in this galaxy when all of the talking heads and republicans were outraged when Clinton tried to wiggle about his definition of the word "sex??" Technically speaking?? Did Clinton have sex with Monica?? Hell yeah.. Was Bill looking for some wiggle room?? Of course - he's admitting he had an extra-marital affair!!
Oh - but we're supposed to sit blindly while RoveR decides he didn't do anything wrong by referring to Wilson's WIFE and pretend that he didn't offer up Plame's name...... *wiggle wiggle*
What RoveR decided to do was to cut the story before it was revealed.. Stealing the thunder, the growing mass of ick, before it became something much larger.. It's a way to lessen the impact of the story.. And by airing it out on the coattails of the bombing in London, Hurricane Dennis' soiree through Alabama and Florida - means that the story will get lost, buried under several news cycles.. As of this morning - only 97 google news hits on the story..
What will happen with it?? Probably nothing.. Remember the Downing Street memos?? Remember how the mainstream press basically ignored them on the basis that it's "old news, been there - done that, this was nothing new.." I predict the same thing will happen here.. (but I do hope I'm wrong..)
Why did it happen?? Considering how Plame's husband blamed the administration for outing his wife on account of his report that no evidence was found to an allegation that Iraq had bought stores of Uranium from Niger.. Joseph Wilson contends that the administration retaliated against him and his wife for the unfavorable report..
Of course - administration officials denied this..
They further denied any such leak.....
... until yesterday..
Even if Rove didn't say the name "Valerie Plame" in the 3-minute conversation with Cooper, he nevertheless actually *did* reveal her identity - even if in passing.. Did Cooper already have the name and was seeking further angles from the White House?? That's possible.. But if Cooper was trying to connect the dots - meaning that he had a pared list of which he needed confirmation before he ran the story - Rove graciously handed it to him..
Regardless, it's not exactly leaving me warm and fuzzy that Bush's chief advisor wantonly confirmed the operative's role.. That's almost as bad as someone leaking information about troop whereabouts at a time of war..
Remember how the press wasn't able to say their actual location because it could mean that it would endanger the troops of the company?? How is Rove's conduct any better than that?? The press during the war didn't name a name of a soldier, and they were restricted in terms of what they could report and what they couldn't..
Rove seems to have slipped up a bit..
Regardless - I'm convinced that the Teflon suit will prevail - only because we have a conservative-controlled government who will idly sit on their hands and do nothing..
hypocrisy galore..
If this were a democrat or some other liberal - I doubt the administration would be so silent....
After many months of speculation (by myself and anyone who can read a paper) Karl Rove has been implicated as being "one" of the secret sources that ultimately led to the revealing of the identity of an undercover CIA operative..
Hmmmm..
But the story even gets more twisted..
Plame's role, not her name - was revealed 3-days after Rove apparently met with Matthew Cooper - writer for Time Magazine.. So Rove's defense is simply: "I never revealed the name, just the role..."
Or did he??
From the Washington Post: "In the conversation, Rove gave Cooper a "big warning" that Wilson's assertions might not be entirely accurate and that it was not the director of the CIA or the vice president who sent Wilson on his trip. Rove apparently told Cooper that it was "Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip," according to a story in Newsweek's July 18 issue."
Ohhhhhh, we're playing the "let's get specific game...." So Cooper already named Wilson, Rove merely said "Wilson's WIFE" as though "I didn't do anything wrong..."
Okay..
Remember not so long ago, right here in this galaxy when all of the talking heads and republicans were outraged when Clinton tried to wiggle about his definition of the word "sex??" Technically speaking?? Did Clinton have sex with Monica?? Hell yeah.. Was Bill looking for some wiggle room?? Of course - he's admitting he had an extra-marital affair!!
Oh - but we're supposed to sit blindly while RoveR decides he didn't do anything wrong by referring to Wilson's WIFE and pretend that he didn't offer up Plame's name...... *wiggle wiggle*
What RoveR decided to do was to cut the story before it was revealed.. Stealing the thunder, the growing mass of ick, before it became something much larger.. It's a way to lessen the impact of the story.. And by airing it out on the coattails of the bombing in London, Hurricane Dennis' soiree through Alabama and Florida - means that the story will get lost, buried under several news cycles.. As of this morning - only 97 google news hits on the story..
What will happen with it?? Probably nothing.. Remember the Downing Street memos?? Remember how the mainstream press basically ignored them on the basis that it's "old news, been there - done that, this was nothing new.." I predict the same thing will happen here.. (but I do hope I'm wrong..)
Why did it happen?? Considering how Plame's husband blamed the administration for outing his wife on account of his report that no evidence was found to an allegation that Iraq had bought stores of Uranium from Niger.. Joseph Wilson contends that the administration retaliated against him and his wife for the unfavorable report..
Of course - administration officials denied this..
They further denied any such leak.....
... until yesterday..
Even if Rove didn't say the name "Valerie Plame" in the 3-minute conversation with Cooper, he nevertheless actually *did* reveal her identity - even if in passing.. Did Cooper already have the name and was seeking further angles from the White House?? That's possible.. But if Cooper was trying to connect the dots - meaning that he had a pared list of which he needed confirmation before he ran the story - Rove graciously handed it to him..
Regardless, it's not exactly leaving me warm and fuzzy that Bush's chief advisor wantonly confirmed the operative's role.. That's almost as bad as someone leaking information about troop whereabouts at a time of war..
Remember how the press wasn't able to say their actual location because it could mean that it would endanger the troops of the company?? How is Rove's conduct any better than that?? The press during the war didn't name a name of a soldier, and they were restricted in terms of what they could report and what they couldn't..
Rove seems to have slipped up a bit..
Regardless - I'm convinced that the Teflon suit will prevail - only because we have a conservative-controlled government who will idly sit on their hands and do nothing..
hypocrisy galore..
If this were a democrat or some other liberal - I doubt the administration would be so silent....
Thursday, July 07, 2005
in the news...
I meant to comment on the Sandra Day O'Connor retirement announcement, but the news is riddled with the London bombings..
Early indications was that the British had prior knowledge or "intelligence" (assuming they know what the word means) of the bombings before it happened.. If the Brits care to say that they had no idea it was coming -- then they should have listened to the Israeli Finance Minister's intel....
From the pile of "I saw it coming"...
Iraq signs military pact with Iran...
No one has said one word about the fact that the people of Iraq elected someone who had close affiliations with the Iranian government.. Iraq doesn't have the means to draft a Constitution without weeks and months of haggling, but they can sign a military pact with Iran that fell completely under the radar screen .... or so it would seem..
Early indications was that the British had prior knowledge or "intelligence" (assuming they know what the word means) of the bombings before it happened.. If the Brits care to say that they had no idea it was coming -- then they should have listened to the Israeli Finance Minister's intel....
From the pile of "I saw it coming"...
Iraq signs military pact with Iran...
No one has said one word about the fact that the people of Iraq elected someone who had close affiliations with the Iranian government.. Iraq doesn't have the means to draft a Constitution without weeks and months of haggling, but they can sign a military pact with Iran that fell completely under the radar screen .... or so it would seem..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
