There is a second, very important, and unnamed issue behind President Obama's decision to oppose release of more prisoner abuse photos. Consider the time factor.
There is a court order in place ordering the release of 21 photos by May 28. To avoid being forced to comply, the Dept. of Defense, must file a motion with the Supreme Court before then. If the Supreme Court refuses to hear the motion, which could happen with days of the filing, the court order to release remains.
Under this likely scenario President Obama's decision represents a short term delay and will limit the release to 21 photos rather than 2000.
The primary focus of this is almost certainly the current very hot war against Taliban insurgents in Pakistan. That situation is highly unstable and includes literally millions of "soft" targets, viz. civilian and particularly displaced Pakistanis. If the civilian population of Pakistan becomes inflamed at this truly critical moment, a localized battle against a foreign insurgency could turn into a broader rebellion accompanied by significant nationwide unrest.
This is the only highly time critical US interest which could see a significant impact from the release of the photos.
Caveat: I have been unable to confirm the date of the court order, the issueing court, and the fact that there are no other cases involving these photos.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Flu "Pandemic" Overblown:
Every year the flu infect several million Americans, hospitalizes 200,000, and kills 36,000. That means that every single day (on average), 10,000 or more are infected 700 are hospitalized, and 100 die. That's every day.
To combat this, there is new combination vaccine prepared every year to cover the anticipated strains for treatment of those at highest risk. In other words, the strains change every year.
This strain is just one among many which we can anticipate this year. In comparison to the baseline infection rate and death rate, this is a tiny blip.
Why is there such a big megillah about it? I don't know. It doesn't make sense. The flu is always dangerous. It kills 100 American every day (on average). This one has killed none. It has infected less than 100 in about a week, whereas 10,000 per day (on average) are infected with the flu.
I can only presume that WHO is pushing it to cover their asses, to assert their importance, and to promote financial support. And the same for the CDC, Texas Children's Hospital, Rick Perry, who just declared a statewide emergency because there was a death in a Texas hospital.
It sure has pushed the real news into the background: torture, NYC AF 1 flyover, Iraq war, Aghan war, Pakistan, ... I sure would like to see someone ask or answer some real questions in one of these news conferences.
Don
Don Krieger, Ph.D., D.ABNM
Pittsburgh, PA
http://publicservice.evendon.com
BLOG: http://DonKrieger.blogspot.com
To combat this, there is new combination vaccine prepared every year to cover the anticipated strains for treatment of those at highest risk. In other words, the strains change every year.
This strain is just one among many which we can anticipate this year. In comparison to the baseline infection rate and death rate, this is a tiny blip.
Why is there such a big megillah about it? I don't know. It doesn't make sense. The flu is always dangerous. It kills 100 American every day (on average). This one has killed none. It has infected less than 100 in about a week, whereas 10,000 per day (on average) are infected with the flu.
I can only presume that WHO is pushing it to cover their asses, to assert their importance, and to promote financial support. And the same for the CDC, Texas Children's Hospital, Rick Perry, who just declared a statewide emergency because there was a death in a Texas hospital.
It sure has pushed the real news into the background: torture, NYC AF 1 flyover, Iraq war, Aghan war, Pakistan, ... I sure would like to see someone ask or answer some real questions in one of these news conferences.
Don
Don Krieger, Ph.D., D.ABNM
Pittsburgh, PA
http://publicservice.evendon.com
BLOG: http://DonKrieger.blogspot.com
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Water Boarded for Charity?
Keith Olbermann offers $1000/second to charity for every second Hannity can tolerate water boarding.
Keith Olbermann had Lawrence O'Donnell on tonight and asked about this. It's not up on YouTube yet. Sorry but it'll be worth your while to view it when it shows up.
O'Donnell called Hannity and everyone in the Cheney family cowards. He stated that they're convinced water boarding works because they know it would work on them, since they are soft fearful people who would do anything to avoid putting themselves in a position of significant danger. To his credit, O'Donnell included himself in the same group.
I was reminded of my spring weekend more than 40 years ago. We went to an amusement part on Saturday afternoon and everyone got very drunk. One of the amusements was a water cooler sized machine with two copper balls on the top. You put in a penny, held on to the copper balls with your two hands, and got knocked on your ass by a shock. There was a line with more than a hundred people in it all day long. Maybe there should be a "water boarding" amusement at parks. Maybe they'll have one at Disneyland soon.
Don
Keith Olbermann had Lawrence O'Donnell on tonight and asked about this. It's not up on YouTube yet. Sorry but it'll be worth your while to view it when it shows up.
O'Donnell called Hannity and everyone in the Cheney family cowards. He stated that they're convinced water boarding works because they know it would work on them, since they are soft fearful people who would do anything to avoid putting themselves in a position of significant danger. To his credit, O'Donnell included himself in the same group.
I was reminded of my spring weekend more than 40 years ago. We went to an amusement part on Saturday afternoon and everyone got very drunk. One of the amusements was a water cooler sized machine with two copper balls on the top. You put in a penny, held on to the copper balls with your two hands, and got knocked on your ass by a shock. There was a line with more than a hundred people in it all day long. Maybe there should be a "water boarding" amusement at parks. Maybe they'll have one at Disneyland soon.
Don
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Mystified: Continuing Somali Piracy
Piracy is a capital offense under international and US law. I do not understand why we and the rest of the world are failing to deal with this definitively as we surely can.
First we must establish constant satellite surveillance of this area. Since it is near the equator, we can do so with a geosyncronous satellite. Although such satellites are most commonly commercial and equipped primarily to support communications, it is well with our capabilities to use one for this purpose. There may already be a commercial satellite in place with the capabilities we need.
Use the satellite surveillance to identiy the "mother ships" used to launch attacks on ships far from the coastline. The small boats used to board are far too small to operate on their own. They must be launched near the targeted vessel in reasonably good weather.
Once "mother vessels" are identified, they can be followed closely by satellite. As they approach potential victim ships, helicopter or other airplanes can be directed to the area to destroy any small boats which are launched and the mother ship itself.
A few such actions would, I assert, serve to dramatically curtail piracy in the Indian Ocean near Somalia. The cost would be far less than that required to maintain enough military warships in the area to check this illegal and dangerous activity. Keep in mind that the money involved is 100's of milions of dollars per year, certainly enough to represent a danger in the middle east
should the money be used to acquire weapons.
First we must establish constant satellite surveillance of this area. Since it is near the equator, we can do so with a geosyncronous satellite. Although such satellites are most commonly commercial and equipped primarily to support communications, it is well with our capabilities to use one for this purpose. There may already be a commercial satellite in place with the capabilities we need.
Use the satellite surveillance to identiy the "mother ships" used to launch attacks on ships far from the coastline. The small boats used to board are far too small to operate on their own. They must be launched near the targeted vessel in reasonably good weather.
Once "mother vessels" are identified, they can be followed closely by satellite. As they approach potential victim ships, helicopter or other airplanes can be directed to the area to destroy any small boats which are launched and the mother ship itself.
A few such actions would, I assert, serve to dramatically curtail piracy in the Indian Ocean near Somalia. The cost would be far less than that required to maintain enough military warships in the area to check this illegal and dangerous activity. Keep in mind that the money involved is 100's of milions of dollars per year, certainly enough to represent a danger in the middle east
should the money be used to acquire weapons.
Monday, April 6, 2009
North Korea's Unreal ICBM Nuclear Threat
Newt Gingrich and others on the right assert we should have destroyed the North Korean rocket before or was launched or shortly thereafter. Let's be clear:
That would be an unprovoked Act of War.
The President declared the North Koreans to be "rule breakers," which may be true. But which "rule" are we talking about? Their rocket launch certainly was not an Act of War in itself. At worst, it was a provocative act which violated UN resolutions.
- Was North Korea party to those resolutions?
- Has the UN censured or otherwise declared that North Korea is in violation of one or more resolutions?
If we had attacked their rocket, either on the ground or shortly after launch, it would be we who are in the wrong. The Japanese did threaten to shoot the rocket down if it threatened Japanese territory. But where would they be had they attempted to do so and had failed?
And where would we have been had we failed? And failure is a real possibility with the Patriot anti-missile system. During the first Gulf War, reliable estimates of successful shoot-downs of Iraqi missiles were at 10%. Improvements have presumably been made to the Patriot system since then, but this missile was not a single state SCUD, but rather a 3-stage vehicle potentially capable of far greater range and speed and potentially far more difficult to intercept.
The Imaginary Threat
Newt Gingrich and others on the right raise the possibility that this rocket could potentially deliver a nuclear weapon to Hawaii or further, to the West Coast of America. They threaten us with the possibility that such a weapon could produce an ElectroMagnetic Pulse (EMP) powerful enough to disable virtually all electrical devices over a third of America, in an instant turning back the clock of our 21st century civilization to pre-industrial.
Clearly, this is an attempt to frighten. It is an "over the top" extreme scenario, a flight of imagination, the worst possibility. What does it imply?
First, in order for that to be true, the rocket would have to carry a large nuclear device into space, for only in space does detonation of a nuclear device produce a large EMP. How large would the device have to be? The greatest estimates of the payload for the Korean rocket, the Taepodong-2, are 500 Kg, 1100 pounds.
Is that large enough? Almost certainly not. The minimum size reported for a nuclear device is 51 pounds for a so-called "suite case" bomb, capable of 1 Kton yield, enough to demolish a large building. Only the US and The Soviet Union have ever been reported to be capable of producing such a weapon. Miniaturizing an atom bomb is a formidable project. Recall that our B29's were able to carry only one atom bomb at a time. And a bomb powerful enough to produce this large scale effect would be at least 100,000 times as powerful as a suitcase bomb.
The Real Threat
The only significant threat from a North Korean ICBM at this time and for the forseeable future is not a massive nuclear weapon. There is little question about this.
They could create a payload with high level nuclear waste, which on impact would amount to a dirty bomb. That would transiently disable the activities of relatively local area until the fallout producing material was cleaned up.
The could create a payload carrying a biological or chemical weapon if they have those types of weapons in their arsenal. Again the effects of the attack would be relatively local to the area of impact.
Update: Russians Test Fire ICBM - Apr 10, 2009
Reuters reported that the Russians successfully test fired one of their RT-2PM (Nato SS-25 Sickle) mobile launch ICBM's. http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5391A320090410
This vehicle is reportedly capable of carrying a singe 550 KTon warhead 6,000 miles. Its payload is in the neighborhood of 1100+ pounds : http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/rt-2pm.htm
References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_bomb
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taepodong-2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse
Sunday, April 5, 2009
60 Minutes Report: Torture in Iran - If It's False, It's Hate Speech
This is a very disturbing story, both because of its content and because, in my opinion, it is presented without adequate collaborative support. It may be true; it may not be. If it's not, it's hate speech.
The impact of the story is huge. There are so many people here in America for whom this is all they need to justify virtually any action we may take towards Iran.
But where is the supportive evidence for what happened to Mr. Batebi? There is mention of the statements of an Iranian judge who admitted that there has been torture in Iranian prisons. But where is the direct support?
Please understand me. I do not really question the truth or untruth of Mr. Batebi's statements. There just isn't enough supportive evidence presented in the piece to justify it. And there are additional things which could have been done. Physicians expert in assessing the physical, psychological, and emotional effects of long term torture could have examined Mr. Batebi and then provide statements that he does display effects typical of those who have been tortured. Mr. Batebi could also have taken a lie detector test.
The problem with this kind of story is that the impact on the public is huge. It is not, in my opinion, responsible journalism to present the story without sufficient supportive material. Else we are left to rely on the support of the journalist's reputation. But if he knew more, why wouldn't he present it?
I repeat, the potential of this report to resonate with the hatred in America for those things symbolized by it and by what little we know of Iran is too great. Please take more care in the future. And I sincerely hope that this note comes to the attention of Anderson Cooper and the 60 Minutes Producer.
The impact of the story is huge. There are so many people here in America for whom this is all they need to justify virtually any action we may take towards Iran.
But where is the supportive evidence for what happened to Mr. Batebi? There is mention of the statements of an Iranian judge who admitted that there has been torture in Iranian prisons. But where is the direct support?
Please understand me. I do not really question the truth or untruth of Mr. Batebi's statements. There just isn't enough supportive evidence presented in the piece to justify it. And there are additional things which could have been done. Physicians expert in assessing the physical, psychological, and emotional effects of long term torture could have examined Mr. Batebi and then provide statements that he does display effects typical of those who have been tortured. Mr. Batebi could also have taken a lie detector test.
The problem with this kind of story is that the impact on the public is huge. It is not, in my opinion, responsible journalism to present the story without sufficient supportive material. Else we are left to rely on the support of the journalist's reputation. But if he knew more, why wouldn't he present it?
I repeat, the potential of this report to resonate with the hatred in America for those things symbolized by it and by what little we know of Iran is too great. Please take more care in the future. And I sincerely hope that this note comes to the attention of Anderson Cooper and the 60 Minutes Producer.
It's Better To Be Lucky ...
President Obama delivered a big speech this morning in Prague, The Czech Republic.
His topic was global nuclear disarmament.
A few hours before his speech, North Korea carried out their plan to launch a satellite
in violation of a UN resolution and the protestations of the US, Japan, and numerous other nations.
While the launch was a belligerent act of defiance, it would have been even more so had it been carried out after the speech. In that case it would have been directly addressed to President Obama's comments.
President Obama, in addition to being extraordinarily talented, is lucky. This is in sharp contradistinction to both John McCain and George W. Bush.
There is a question here regarding the subtlety of North Korea's action: Did they launch prior to the speech rather than after it to send a message of potential conciliation specifically to the US? During the Clinton administration, they did demonstrate their willingness to stand down in return for payments circa 1$ Billion/year.
His topic was global nuclear disarmament.
A few hours before his speech, North Korea carried out their plan to launch a satellite
in violation of a UN resolution and the protestations of the US, Japan, and numerous other nations.
While the launch was a belligerent act of defiance, it would have been even more so had it been carried out after the speech. In that case it would have been directly addressed to President Obama's comments.
President Obama, in addition to being extraordinarily talented, is lucky. This is in sharp contradistinction to both John McCain and George W. Bush.
There is a question here regarding the subtlety of North Korea's action: Did they launch prior to the speech rather than after it to send a message of potential conciliation specifically to the US? During the Clinton administration, they did demonstrate their willingness to stand down in return for payments circa 1$ Billion/year.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
New Package, Same Old Scam
Russell Simmons published an article yesterday touting his support of a fund-raising concert to held at Radio City Music Hall tonight.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/russell-simmons/meditating-with-one-milli_b_182946.html
Here is some of what he states. Why doesn't he state that this is a fund-raiser to promote a particular meditation technique, Transcendental Meditation as taught by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi?
"... join David Lynch, Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, Donovan, Mike Love and many others in joining in the visionary work of the David Lynch Foundation who are hard at work chasing the dream of bringing meditation to a million students worldwide.
The daily practice of meditation ..."
"... There's a mountain of scientific data that supports the fact that consciousness-based education and having quiet time at the beginning and end of the school day improves academic performance and spills over to happier and healthier young people at home. ..."
The David Lynch Foundation website ( http://www.davidlynchfoundation.org/ ) provides additional information from this proponent for Transcendental Meditation. The Rick Ross Foundation website ( http://www.rickross.com/groups/tm.html ) and my own ( http://www.angelfire.com/cantina/donandmarcy/TM.html ) provide additional information from critics.
Given the focus of the TM movement on children, it is worthwhile to note the case of Malnak Et. Al. v Yogi Et. Al., New Jersey Federal District Court #76-341 ( http://trancenet.net/law/nj/nj1.html ): "... Science of Creative Intelligence/Transcendental Meditation ... the puja ceremony, are all religious in nature within the context of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and the teaching thereof in the New Jersey public schools is therefore unconstitutional. ..."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/russell-simmons/meditating-with-one-milli_b_182946.html
Here is some of what he states. Why doesn't he state that this is a fund-raiser to promote a particular meditation technique, Transcendental Meditation as taught by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi?
"... join David Lynch, Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, Donovan, Mike Love and many others in joining in the visionary work of the David Lynch Foundation who are hard at work chasing the dream of bringing meditation to a million students worldwide.
The daily practice of meditation ..."
"... There's a mountain of scientific data that supports the fact that consciousness-based education and having quiet time at the beginning and end of the school day improves academic performance and spills over to happier and healthier young people at home. ..."
The David Lynch Foundation website ( http://www.davidlynchfoundation.org/ ) provides additional information from this proponent for Transcendental Meditation. The Rick Ross Foundation website ( http://www.rickross.com/groups/tm.html ) and my own ( http://www.angelfire.com/cantina/donandmarcy/TM.html ) provide additional information from critics.
Given the focus of the TM movement on children, it is worthwhile to note the case of Malnak Et. Al. v Yogi Et. Al., New Jersey Federal District Court #76-341 ( http://trancenet.net/law/nj/nj1.html ): "... Science of Creative Intelligence/Transcendental Meditation ... the puja ceremony, are all religious in nature within the context of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and the teaching thereof in the New Jersey public schools is therefore unconstitutional. ..."
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
MSNBC Morning Mania
The 9-10 AM segment of MSNBC News was anchored by Camron Hall. She announced that they were waiting for tape of the meeting between The President and President Medvadev of Russia.
A few minutes later they began showing the tape, which included a significant off-the-cuff statement by President Obama. This was repeatedly interrupted by "breaking news" type announcement from Camron Hall. The first showed the opening bell for the New York Stock Exchange. The seconds was a fluff piece about Michelle Obama's clothing for her upcoming meeting with The Queen and informed commentary that she would not be executing a curtsy because this was not a state visit.
I can only presume that this madness of interrupting real news with nonsense is whoring for ratings. Perhaps the producers have access to real time numbers show their viewership. This would enable them to assess the impact of the stories shown in the previous segments and would suggest which stories to reshow to increase their viewership.
A few minutes later they began showing the tape, which included a significant off-the-cuff statement by President Obama. This was repeatedly interrupted by "breaking news" type announcement from Camron Hall. The first showed the opening bell for the New York Stock Exchange. The seconds was a fluff piece about Michelle Obama's clothing for her upcoming meeting with The Queen and informed commentary that she would not be executing a curtsy because this was not a state visit.
I can only presume that this madness of interrupting real news with nonsense is whoring for ratings. Perhaps the producers have access to real time numbers show their viewership. This would enable them to assess the impact of the stories shown in the previous segments and would suggest which stories to reshow to increase their viewership.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
The Push and The PushBack
The Push and The PushBack:Chris Wallace and Barney Frank
On Sunday, Mar 15, Congressman Barney Frank appeared on Chris Wallace'Fox News Sunday with Senator Bob Corker and Mark Zandi, chief economistat Moody's Economy.com .Here is the transcript of the discussion from foxnews.com:
This last remark exemplifies an epidemic and important problem.His use of "food fight" is totally inappropriate while carrying a powerful emotional message.On the one hand, it is a clear criticism of Mr. Frank's "Push Back" against the distracting and potentiallydeceptive effects of the "second stimulus" comments.More than that, it introduces a vivid and emotionally charged image from outside the realm of the conversation.For some, it will resonate with their awareness of Mr. Frank's body habitus, which is overweight.For some, it will resonate with their homophobic disgust and revulsion for Mr. Frank.Because of the striking and over-the-top inappropriateness of the comment, I suggest that this lastapplies to Chris Wallace himself.
The important point, though, is that the comment provides a powerful "Push" against the weight andcredibility of Mr. Frank's comments.It is intensely personal, unfair, and very difficult to "Push Back" if only due to the lack of time.The one who made the remark is in the preeminent position of power.His voice is that of the moderator, the "House."
But there is another way to "Push Back" against this.Mr. Frank's comments leading up to it are a good example of a "Push Back" at the top.He speaks and argues directly against an intellectual point and his arguments will havesome sway as heard by the many who are listening.But for the unanswered and emotional "Push," the best potential "Push Back" would comefrom recognition and comprehension by each individual listener of the importance of ChrisWallace' "food fight" comment.
This would be a true "grass roots" PushBack.It can be enabled by education alone.We must educate ourselves to at least recognize the presence of "The Push" in what we are told.And we can, rather quickly and easily."The Push" takes many forms but they all fall into just a few categories: - Intellectual. If the facts are true and the logic is true, it can be convincing. If the facts are false, the logic is confusing or fallacious, it can fail to convince or be deceptive. - Emotional. If what is said includes dogma, bigotry, or a sexual or hateful element, it can be powerfully convincing and/or deceptive.
But recognition by the listener of attempts to deceive or manipulate powerfully undermines the capabilityof a speaker to effect our thinking.That recognition instantly eliminates the credibility of the speaker.It eliminates any inclination to suspend our critical thinking, our trust, and thereby protects us frombeing bamboozled.
On Sunday, Mar 15, Congressman Barney Frank appeared on Chris Wallace'Fox News Sunday with Senator Bob Corker and Mark Zandi, chief economistat Moody's Economy.com .Here is the transcript of the discussion from foxnews.com:
|
This last remark exemplifies an epidemic and important problem.His use of "food fight" is totally inappropriate while carrying a powerful emotional message.On the one hand, it is a clear criticism of Mr. Frank's "Push Back" against the distracting and potentiallydeceptive effects of the "second stimulus" comments.More than that, it introduces a vivid and emotionally charged image from outside the realm of the conversation.For some, it will resonate with their awareness of Mr. Frank's body habitus, which is overweight.For some, it will resonate with their homophobic disgust and revulsion for Mr. Frank.Because of the striking and over-the-top inappropriateness of the comment, I suggest that this lastapplies to Chris Wallace himself.
The important point, though, is that the comment provides a powerful "Push" against the weight andcredibility of Mr. Frank's comments.It is intensely personal, unfair, and very difficult to "Push Back" if only due to the lack of time.The one who made the remark is in the preeminent position of power.His voice is that of the moderator, the "House."
But there is another way to "Push Back" against this.Mr. Frank's comments leading up to it are a good example of a "Push Back" at the top.He speaks and argues directly against an intellectual point and his arguments will havesome sway as heard by the many who are listening.But for the unanswered and emotional "Push," the best potential "Push Back" would comefrom recognition and comprehension by each individual listener of the importance of ChrisWallace' "food fight" comment.
This would be a true "grass roots" PushBack.It can be enabled by education alone.We must educate ourselves to at least recognize the presence of "The Push" in what we are told.And we can, rather quickly and easily."The Push" takes many forms but they all fall into just a few categories: - Intellectual. If the facts are true and the logic is true, it can be convincing. If the facts are false, the logic is confusing or fallacious, it can fail to convince or be deceptive. - Emotional. If what is said includes dogma, bigotry, or a sexual or hateful element, it can be powerfully convincing and/or deceptive.
But recognition by the listener of attempts to deceive or manipulate powerfully undermines the capabilityof a speaker to effect our thinking.That recognition instantly eliminates the credibility of the speaker.It eliminates any inclination to suspend our critical thinking, our trust, and thereby protects us frombeing bamboozled.
Pistachio Recall Source - Setton Farms
Here is an email received from Paramount Farms, the supplier for Sunkist brand Pistachios:
Thank you for contacting Sunkist concerning pistachios processed and packaged by Paramount Farms.
Paramount Farms has learned that Kraft Foods, maker of Nantucket Blend trail mix, and its supplier the Georgia Nut Company, have issued a voluntary precautionary recall in the United States due to potential Salmonella contamination.
The recall was issued as a result of in-house sampling and testing with respect to pistachios provided by Setton Farms a third-party supplier. There have been no reports of illnesses linked to these products.
The recall does not involve Paramount Farms and our product is not affected by the situation. Paramount Farms has stringent quality control procedures in place and employs the highest food safety standards.
For any media inquiries, please contact the Kraft Foods media help line at 1-847-646-4538. Consumer inquiries should be directed to 1-866-538-8280.
Regards,
Karen Getten-Powell
Paramount Farms
800-528-6887
661-797-6429 Direct
Here is the contact information for Setton Farms from their website:
Setton InternationalFoods, Inc.
http://www.settonfarms.com
85 Austin Blvd.Commack, NY
11725
1-800-CASHEWS within the US,
except NYT: 631.543.8090
F: 631.543.8070
Setton Pistachio of Terra Bella, Inc.
9370 Road 234
Terra Bella, CA 93270
T: 559.535.6050
F: 559.535.
email: info@settonfarms.com
Thank you for contacting Sunkist concerning pistachios processed and packaged by Paramount Farms.
Paramount Farms has learned that Kraft Foods, maker of Nantucket Blend trail mix, and its supplier the Georgia Nut Company, have issued a voluntary precautionary recall in the United States due to potential Salmonella contamination.
The recall was issued as a result of in-house sampling and testing with respect to pistachios provided by Setton Farms a third-party supplier. There have been no reports of illnesses linked to these products.
The recall does not involve Paramount Farms and our product is not affected by the situation. Paramount Farms has stringent quality control procedures in place and employs the highest food safety standards.
For any media inquiries, please contact the Kraft Foods media help line at 1-847-646-4538. Consumer inquiries should be directed to 1-866-538-8280.
Regards,
Karen Getten-Powell
Paramount Farms
800-528-6887
661-797-6429 Direct
Here is the contact information for Setton Farms from their website:
Setton InternationalFoods, Inc.
http://www.settonfarms.com
85 Austin Blvd.Commack, NY
11725
1-800-CASHEWS within the US,
except NYT: 631.543.8090
F: 631.543.8070
Setton Pistachio of Terra Bella, Inc.
9370 Road 234
Terra Bella, CA 93270
T: 559.535.6050
F: 559.535.
email: info@settonfarms.com
Monday, March 30, 2009
Arianna Huffington Comes Off the Tracks on Morning Joe
This morning Arianna appeared on MSNBC's Morning Joe to tout The Post's new initiative to promote investigative Journalism directed at the economy:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-tv/arianna-discusses-huffing_b_180680.html
She was critical of The President's efforts to correct our economic problems, basing her pronouncements on the opinions of several economists she trusts. She stated that our government bailouts are not transparent nor accountable. Please excuse that I am speaking from memory and paraphrasing. - Don
How can you form an informed opinion if the information is not available, i.e. there is "no transparency and no accountability?" How weakly reasoned is it to articulate her opinion based on others' opinions, all of which must, per her pronouncement about transparency, be uninformed by the facts?
She finished her comments by criticizing Larry Summers for appearing sleepy in public and the administration in general for being overworked and undermanned. This is the kind of insidious attack which serves no purpose other than to undermine public confidence. Not unexpectedly, one of the panel hosts chimed in with details about Larry Summers' dependence on Diet Coke.
When have we ever had a competent President and adminstration which was not overworked? Can we expect otherwise when we know that Treasury, Justice, State, and Homeland Security were in a shambles by the end of the Bush presidency? How silly can you get?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-tv/arianna-discusses-huffing_b_180680.html
She was critical of The President's efforts to correct our economic problems, basing her pronouncements on the opinions of several economists she trusts. She stated that our government bailouts are not transparent nor accountable. Please excuse that I am speaking from memory and paraphrasing. - Don
How can you form an informed opinion if the information is not available, i.e. there is "no transparency and no accountability?" How weakly reasoned is it to articulate her opinion based on others' opinions, all of which must, per her pronouncement about transparency, be uninformed by the facts?
She finished her comments by criticizing Larry Summers for appearing sleepy in public and the administration in general for being overworked and undermanned. This is the kind of insidious attack which serves no purpose other than to undermine public confidence. Not unexpectedly, one of the panel hosts chimed in with details about Larry Summers' dependence on Diet Coke.
When have we ever had a competent President and adminstration which was not overworked? Can we expect otherwise when we know that Treasury, Justice, State, and Homeland Security were in a shambles by the end of the Bush presidency? How silly can you get?
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Michele Bachman, McCarthyism, Wm Ayers - 18Oct2008
First, I too am frightened by the assertions of Michele Bachman and by the widely held views she espouses, which the McCain campaign is clearly attempting to promote. The Nation's editor Katrina vanden Heuvel spoke movingly to this fear and to its clear justification. Pat Buchanan seized on that fear and challenged vanden Heuvel about William Ayers to which, among other things, she said: "I do not defend Bill Ayers."
This was a defeat for sanity. Bill Ayers must be defended. To fail to do so in this context is to yield to the the mob, to fear, and to the attacks of those who would brand those with whom they differ as anti-American. While it is a distraction from the very important economic and foreign policy issues of the campaign, it bears on a very important issue in its own right. The disgrace to our nation of the prevalence of the ideas espoused by Rep. Bachman is the tip of the iceberg of something which must be addressed whenever it is raised.
Bill Ayers is and has been for decades a productive member of society. He has rehabilitated himself. He remains committed to the anti-war stance which led him to violent actions forty years ago. He has repeatedly said: "I wish we could have done more" to oppose the war. But he has long since abandoned violence. He has become an important member and leader for good of his community. His behavior and actions demonstrate his repentence.
That he has not apologized in a manner which satisfies Pat Buchanan means very little on balance against his very real actions for good.
Compare the fervent apology from Senator McCain at the time of the Keating Five savings and loan collapse. He said the right things but continued absolutely unchanged to this day in his commitment to deregulation. Consider too the statements he made after his losses in the 2000 primaries regarding his "blind ambition" and his commitment to clean politics.
We can be afraid. But we cannot yield to it. We must not lose our perspective and yield to attacks. Pat Buchanan is very good at what he does as are many others. We must set fear, outrage, indignation, hurt, frustration, all of it aside. We are not running for office. We are far less constrained in taking an umpopular position that senators McCain or Obama.
This was a defeat for sanity. Bill Ayers must be defended. To fail to do so in this context is to yield to the the mob, to fear, and to the attacks of those who would brand those with whom they differ as anti-American. While it is a distraction from the very important economic and foreign policy issues of the campaign, it bears on a very important issue in its own right. The disgrace to our nation of the prevalence of the ideas espoused by Rep. Bachman is the tip of the iceberg of something which must be addressed whenever it is raised.
Bill Ayers is and has been for decades a productive member of society. He has rehabilitated himself. He remains committed to the anti-war stance which led him to violent actions forty years ago. He has repeatedly said: "I wish we could have done more" to oppose the war. But he has long since abandoned violence. He has become an important member and leader for good of his community. His behavior and actions demonstrate his repentence.
That he has not apologized in a manner which satisfies Pat Buchanan means very little on balance against his very real actions for good.
Compare the fervent apology from Senator McCain at the time of the Keating Five savings and loan collapse. He said the right things but continued absolutely unchanged to this day in his commitment to deregulation. Consider too the statements he made after his losses in the 2000 primaries regarding his "blind ambition" and his commitment to clean politics.
We can be afraid. But we cannot yield to it. We must not lose our perspective and yield to attacks. Pat Buchanan is very good at what he does as are many others. We must set fear, outrage, indignation, hurt, frustration, all of it aside. We are not running for office. We are far less constrained in taking an umpopular position that senators McCain or Obama.
Tucker Carlson: Jon Stewart v Jim Cramer - 20Mar2009
The Push and the PushBack:
Tucker begins his article describing Jon Stewart indictment of Jim Cramer using Cramer's own words: "...grainy clips of Cramer describing how to artificially (and unethically) depress a company's stock price..." Stewart continues: "You can draw a straight line from those shenanigans to the stuff that was being pulled at Bear and at AIG, and all this derivative-market stuff,"
Now Tucker rebuffs Stewart's reasoning: "... you can't draw any such line." Congratulations, Tucker. You came up with a way to misunderstand something very simple: Jim Cramer was a greedy unprincipled professional gambler; so too those at AIG and Bear Sternes.
Are you really that stupid, Tucker? I don't think so. Maybe you have an axe to grind. You do mention your own 2004 "run-in" with Jon Stewart on your own program, Crossfire: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-03-11/7-best-cable-tv-feuds
You reduce the entire conversation to a few irrelevant sentences and then dismiss its significance (and Jon Stewart's) while raising your nose in the air like the patrician you pretend to be by telling us that you went to a dinner and that one of your producers called you later to tell you Jon Stewart hadn't yet left.
Who now has his own successful TV program 4 nights/week, Tucker? And whose show was cancelled 2 months after your 2004 run-in? And how many episodes did your solo TV show run after that?
As part of your argument that Jon Stewart is on the skids, that he is no longer funny, you fantasize: "... there is a virtual ban on critical stories about Jon Stewart in the press ..." Hey Tucker, maybe few people criticize Jon Stewart because he is a comedian, and a good one.
Did you see his recent bit about The President's announcement of our timetable for leaving Iraq? He did one of his video juxtapositions, with The President in one frame making statements, and George W. Bush in the adjacent frame, making exactly the same statements and using the same reasoning. It's difficult to be more intellectually honest than using your target's own words.
Remember Tina Fey's caricatures of Sarah Palin on Saturday Night Live. It was the same. And how much criticism has fallen on her? She's a comedian too. And she's intellectually honest too.
But you're not. Right from the start of this article, you attempt to confuse and deceive your readers with sophistry. I don't trust you and most others don't either. You're too clumsy, you're too arrogant, and you're too wrong.
Tucker begins his article describing Jon Stewart indictment of Jim Cramer using Cramer's own words: "...grainy clips of Cramer describing how to artificially (and unethically) depress a company's stock price..." Stewart continues: "You can draw a straight line from those shenanigans to the stuff that was being pulled at Bear and at AIG, and all this derivative-market stuff,"
Now Tucker rebuffs Stewart's reasoning: "... you can't draw any such line." Congratulations, Tucker. You came up with a way to misunderstand something very simple: Jim Cramer was a greedy unprincipled professional gambler; so too those at AIG and Bear Sternes.
Are you really that stupid, Tucker? I don't think so. Maybe you have an axe to grind. You do mention your own 2004 "run-in" with Jon Stewart on your own program, Crossfire: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-03-11/7-best-cable-tv-feuds
You reduce the entire conversation to a few irrelevant sentences and then dismiss its significance (and Jon Stewart's) while raising your nose in the air like the patrician you pretend to be by telling us that you went to a dinner and that one of your producers called you later to tell you Jon Stewart hadn't yet left.
Who now has his own successful TV program 4 nights/week, Tucker? And whose show was cancelled 2 months after your 2004 run-in? And how many episodes did your solo TV show run after that?
As part of your argument that Jon Stewart is on the skids, that he is no longer funny, you fantasize: "... there is a virtual ban on critical stories about Jon Stewart in the press ..." Hey Tucker, maybe few people criticize Jon Stewart because he is a comedian, and a good one.
Did you see his recent bit about The President's announcement of our timetable for leaving Iraq? He did one of his video juxtapositions, with The President in one frame making statements, and George W. Bush in the adjacent frame, making exactly the same statements and using the same reasoning. It's difficult to be more intellectually honest than using your target's own words.
Remember Tina Fey's caricatures of Sarah Palin on Saturday Night Live. It was the same. And how much criticism has fallen on her? She's a comedian too. And she's intellectually honest too.
But you're not. Right from the start of this article, you attempt to confuse and deceive your readers with sophistry. I don't trust you and most others don't either. You're too clumsy, you're too arrogant, and you're too wrong.
The President's Plan for Iraq
Iran - 27Feb2008:
Leaving troops in Iraq serves the second purpose of maintaining a threatening presence on Iran's flank. This will, I think become the primary purpose of our force in Iraq.
Iran is a real cause of concern and this retains one of our "sticks" in place for almost 3 more years. At the same time, we will be increasing the size of our force on Iran's 2nd flank and hopefully placing that force in a more powerful and secure position than they are now. In other words, our Afghan force will become considerably more threatening.
Many of us are profoundly disappointed by The President's announcement today. As with other things, however, his style is to go for a "twofer" whenever possible and it's difficult to be patient about his approach. I personally believe that he is trustworthy, both regards his intentions and his judgement. Of course he will make errors. I hope he will not make big ones.
28Feb2008:
It's 34 months, not 19: I am very disappointed by The President's announcement yesterday that we will retain a very significant force in Iraq till the end of 2011.
This is contrary to what he repeatedly asserted during his presidential campaign. There he promised a 16 month drawdown at the end of which he would leave a small force to guard our embassy and perform other comparable security tasks. 35,000-50,000 troops is far more than is needed for these tasks.
With regards the deadlines he stated of Aug 31, 2010 and Dec 31, 2011, the latter of these is already in place in the Status of Forces Agreement President Bush signed with Iraq. In addition, the SOFA presents June 30, 2009 as the latest date by which all of our forces must have withdrawn to "agreed facilities and areas outside cities, villages, and localities to be designated ..."(Page 16) The SOFA is online at:
http://publicservice.evendon.com/SOFA-17Nov2008M.htm
The President did not mention the advantage of maintaining a significant force in Iraq as an aid to our diplomatic efforts aimed at Iran. Nor did he mention any changes in plan may have been forced by the recent decision by the Krygystan government to eliminate our base there. I am inclined to trust The President. But he has clearly reneged on his campaign promise of 16 months.
Leaving troops in Iraq serves the second purpose of maintaining a threatening presence on Iran's flank. This will, I think become the primary purpose of our force in Iraq.
Iran is a real cause of concern and this retains one of our "sticks" in place for almost 3 more years. At the same time, we will be increasing the size of our force on Iran's 2nd flank and hopefully placing that force in a more powerful and secure position than they are now. In other words, our Afghan force will become considerably more threatening.
Many of us are profoundly disappointed by The President's announcement today. As with other things, however, his style is to go for a "twofer" whenever possible and it's difficult to be patient about his approach. I personally believe that he is trustworthy, both regards his intentions and his judgement. Of course he will make errors. I hope he will not make big ones.
28Feb2008:
It's 34 months, not 19: I am very disappointed by The President's announcement yesterday that we will retain a very significant force in Iraq till the end of 2011.
This is contrary to what he repeatedly asserted during his presidential campaign. There he promised a 16 month drawdown at the end of which he would leave a small force to guard our embassy and perform other comparable security tasks. 35,000-50,000 troops is far more than is needed for these tasks.
With regards the deadlines he stated of Aug 31, 2010 and Dec 31, 2011, the latter of these is already in place in the Status of Forces Agreement President Bush signed with Iraq. In addition, the SOFA presents June 30, 2009 as the latest date by which all of our forces must have withdrawn to "agreed facilities and areas outside cities, villages, and localities to be designated ..."(Page 16) The SOFA is online at:
http://publicservice.evendon.com/SOFA-17Nov2008M.htm
The President did not mention the advantage of maintaining a significant force in Iraq as an aid to our diplomatic efforts aimed at Iran. Nor did he mention any changes in plan may have been forced by the recent decision by the Krygystan government to eliminate our base there. I am inclined to trust The President. But he has clearly reneged on his campaign promise of 16 months.
Stimulate The Economy Without Government Spending
Reduce the maximum interest chargeable on credit card debt. Reducing this interest rate does not cost our government any money at all.
If it is reduced to 12% or less, many times many home owners and others will be able to carry their debt, both credit card and other. This measure would enable credit card useage with far less fear.
This measure would not effect the current balance sheets of the credit card companies, but it would nominally reduce their income going forward on debts at interest higher than the new reduced maximum. But most of those owing that debt are likely "underwater" already and will default now or in the near future.
Reducing the interest rate may actually moderately increase the income of the credit card companies since more of those "on the edge" will be able to make their payments. For this reason, voluntarily reducing their rates might help the credit card company's incomes.
In any case, this issue must be addressed by experts. But overall, reducing the maximum credit card rate to a maximum of 12% or less would significantly stimulate consumer spending without any government spending.
If it is reduced to 12% or less, many times many home owners and others will be able to carry their debt, both credit card and other. This measure would enable credit card useage with far less fear.
This measure would not effect the current balance sheets of the credit card companies, but it would nominally reduce their income going forward on debts at interest higher than the new reduced maximum. But most of those owing that debt are likely "underwater" already and will default now or in the near future.
Reducing the interest rate may actually moderately increase the income of the credit card companies since more of those "on the edge" will be able to make their payments. For this reason, voluntarily reducing their rates might help the credit card company's incomes.
In any case, this issue must be addressed by experts. But overall, reducing the maximum credit card rate to a maximum of 12% or less would significantly stimulate consumer spending without any government spending.
Letter to Obama Re: Rick Warren
Dear President-Elect Obama:
We contributed to your campaign. We wish you only the best. We love you, we are proud of you, we are convinced of your good will; we can't wait till you take office.
We believe strongly that your reasoning about inviting Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at your inauguration is wrong and must be amended. His roll in your inauguration is central; he is to speak for the multitude, for all of us.
This he cannot do, regardless of what he says. His public -positions on "cultural" issues preclude this. An invocation by this fatally flawed figure can only mar the magnificence and importance of your inauguration for the entire world. Consider not only how it will be seen by Americans, but also by Europeans and the Islamic world.
Please consider this. Your reasoning is wrong. This is in no way equivalent to his invitation to you to his church. And his voice will not be raised at your inauguration along with others as an expression of diversity and freedom of expression. His will be a lone voice, a central voice; this because of his central role in delivering the invocation.
I sincerely hope this point comes to your attention and that you give it the consideration I believe it deserves. Thank you for all you have done and for all you will do.
We contributed to your campaign. We wish you only the best. We love you, we are proud of you, we are convinced of your good will; we can't wait till you take office.
We believe strongly that your reasoning about inviting Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at your inauguration is wrong and must be amended. His roll in your inauguration is central; he is to speak for the multitude, for all of us.
This he cannot do, regardless of what he says. His public -positions on "cultural" issues preclude this. An invocation by this fatally flawed figure can only mar the magnificence and importance of your inauguration for the entire world. Consider not only how it will be seen by Americans, but also by Europeans and the Islamic world.
Please consider this. Your reasoning is wrong. This is in no way equivalent to his invitation to you to his church. And his voice will not be raised at your inauguration along with others as an expression of diversity and freedom of expression. His will be a lone voice, a central voice; this because of his central role in delivering the invocation.
I sincerely hope this point comes to your attention and that you give it the consideration I believe it deserves. Thank you for all you have done and for all you will do.
Is John McCain a Jonah? - 8Oct2008:
- There was the USS Forrestal.
- And of course, he was shot down, imprisoned, and tortured in Vietnam.
- There was the Keating 5 Savings and Loan failure.
- In this campaign there was the planned campaign event on the Gulf oil rig which was cancelled due to a large oil spill in the Mississippi.
- There was the delay to the opening of the Republican National Convention due to a hurricane.
- And now, there is this financial crisis of truly biblical proportions.
John McCain will survive and thrive, due to his personal position of privilege, due to his personal power and wealth. He sure is unlucky, don't you think?
Voter Turnout - 9Oct2008:
We're all looking at (and talking about) the polls. But it is increasingly becoming about turnout.
In 2004, the turnout push in Ohio during the last 72 hours of the campaign swung the entire election. In this cycle, voting has already begun in a bunch of states including Ohio.
Energizing the base, aka McCain's smear campaign, is about turning out the vote NOW. Everyone who gets scared and votes today is "in the bank."
Now those early voters remain in the pool of voters who are contacted in the polls. They constitute a small but rapidly increasing percentage.
As their numbers grow, so too does the problem in interpreting the meaning of the polls. Early voters can still "change their minds" on polling questions, but their vote is fixed. They also effect the exit polling we will see on election night, since they will be outside the voter pool which is "polled" leaving their polling place.
The important piece of this for now is that the polls we see today are becoming more prone to significant errors because McCain's campaign is likely amplifying the turnout of his base.
Financial Rescue
Stop the Hemorrhage - 18Sep2008:
The genesis of the crisis is the bursting of the real estate bubble. This bubble was driven by very low prime interest rates compounded by unscrupulous pushing of sub-prime mortgages.
The value of real estate became inflated because it was so easy to get cheap financing. And too many unqualified buyers were able to get into homes with ARM's which they became unable to carry or convert. US real estate is worth a tremendous amount of money. But much of it is now "under water" because the mortgages on it are greater than the value.
Those properties are going under at a large and rapidly increasing rate. As they do, their "real value" drops precipitously and takes the neighboring property values with them.
At the same time, the availability of loans to purchase homes has dropped precipitously with the loss in market confidence and so the demand for homes has gone with it. Because of that, the value of far more real estate has dropped; nobody is buying.
Purchasing the bad mortgages will help if the government can somehow turn those mortgages and the corresponding properties into assets and preserve their value. But it won't rehabilitate the depressed value of real estate because it won't increase the amount of real money in circulation. It won't increase anyone's ability to buy. That must wait till an effective plan is put into effect to create jobs and products to drive the economy.
19Sep2008:
Other loans against the value of a home place it at additional risk. And there are additional but perhaps secondary causes. But it was the infusion of paper into the economy via the Federal Reserve which led to inflated housing prices and out of control debt to buy them.
And that infusion of "money" has been "trickle down" for sure. It's come through the banks who are the ones in a position to borrow from the Federal Reserve.
Saving the banks does not remedy the cause of the problem; it just buys time at the cost of moving us closer to the "point of no return" at which our debt is too great to be overcome by future economic growth. We must focus on real growth schemes while temporizing (or not) with bail-outs.
Key Question: In this proposed buy up of bad mortgage based securities from distressed banks, how much of that money will be leaving the country? The assumption is that these are American companies and American properties. But the holders of the securities could be the Bin Laden family, Russian billionaires, anyone.
The genesis of the crisis is the bursting of the real estate bubble. This bubble was driven by very low prime interest rates compounded by unscrupulous pushing of sub-prime mortgages.
The value of real estate became inflated because it was so easy to get cheap financing. And too many unqualified buyers were able to get into homes with ARM's which they became unable to carry or convert. US real estate is worth a tremendous amount of money. But much of it is now "under water" because the mortgages on it are greater than the value.
Those properties are going under at a large and rapidly increasing rate. As they do, their "real value" drops precipitously and takes the neighboring property values with them.
At the same time, the availability of loans to purchase homes has dropped precipitously with the loss in market confidence and so the demand for homes has gone with it. Because of that, the value of far more real estate has dropped; nobody is buying.
Purchasing the bad mortgages will help if the government can somehow turn those mortgages and the corresponding properties into assets and preserve their value. But it won't rehabilitate the depressed value of real estate because it won't increase the amount of real money in circulation. It won't increase anyone's ability to buy. That must wait till an effective plan is put into effect to create jobs and products to drive the economy.
19Sep2008:
Other loans against the value of a home place it at additional risk. And there are additional but perhaps secondary causes. But it was the infusion of paper into the economy via the Federal Reserve which led to inflated housing prices and out of control debt to buy them.
And that infusion of "money" has been "trickle down" for sure. It's come through the banks who are the ones in a position to borrow from the Federal Reserve.
Saving the banks does not remedy the cause of the problem; it just buys time at the cost of moving us closer to the "point of no return" at which our debt is too great to be overcome by future economic growth. We must focus on real growth schemes while temporizing (or not) with bail-outs.
Key Question: In this proposed buy up of bad mortgage based securities from distressed banks, how much of that money will be leaving the country? The assumption is that these are American companies and American properties. But the holders of the securities could be the Bin Laden family, Russian billionaires, anyone.
The Cross in the Dirt
18Aug2008 #1:
McCain's story about the Steelers seemed to be a cynical effort to manipulate our feelings here in Pittsburgh. I certainly was moved when he told the story.
And I was and am deeply offended when I learned that he altered the true story to more directly affect us here. Now I wonder if even the original story about the Greenbay Packers is true.
But why did he do it. Certainly his story is compelling enough. It was so unnecessary. And so too is the cross in the sand story as he told it. Why not attribute it to its source in a book? Why not tell it as a story which moved him when he read it, which had it been true of his own captivity would have made a world of difference to him?
18Aug2008 #2:
Here is a link to MSNBC's coverage of McCain "Steelers" gaffe in Pittsburgh: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vib6Ei-5UE0
It's very disturbing that he would cheapen his extraordinary story in so transparent a manner. And it's more disturbing that it is unlikely that the media will deal with it in a substantive fashion.
His willingness to articulate big lies calls into question the role he may have played in triggering the attack on South Ossettia by Georgia. The line of communication was certainly there, through his advisor Scheunnemann, a long time lobbyist under contract with Georgia.
McCain's story about the Steelers seemed to be a cynical effort to manipulate our feelings here in Pittsburgh. I certainly was moved when he told the story.
And I was and am deeply offended when I learned that he altered the true story to more directly affect us here. Now I wonder if even the original story about the Greenbay Packers is true.
But why did he do it. Certainly his story is compelling enough. It was so unnecessary. And so too is the cross in the sand story as he told it. Why not attribute it to its source in a book? Why not tell it as a story which moved him when he read it, which had it been true of his own captivity would have made a world of difference to him?
18Aug2008 #2:
Here is a link to MSNBC's coverage of McCain "Steelers" gaffe in Pittsburgh: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vib6Ei-5UE0
It's very disturbing that he would cheapen his extraordinary story in so transparent a manner. And it's more disturbing that it is unlikely that the media will deal with it in a substantive fashion.
His willingness to articulate big lies calls into question the role he may have played in triggering the attack on South Ossettia by Georgia. The line of communication was certainly there, through his advisor Scheunnemann, a long time lobbyist under contract with Georgia.
The Forged Iraq Letter, A Whole Different Level - 10Aug2008
If your witnesses will make statements under oath, this is more important than Clinton's lie to the grand jury or Nixon's destruction of evidence. This is part of the package which has cost over 4,000 coalition troop lives and at least 100,000 Iraqi lives.
This is not just some smear or just another scandal. It's a war crime which has cost at least 25 times as many lives as the attacks of 9/11.
I urge you to arrange for sworn statements. And then find a way to present the evidence to a court which can act.
This is not just some smear or just another scandal. It's a war crime which has cost at least 25 times as many lives as the attacks of 9/11.
I urge you to arrange for sworn statements. And then find a way to present the evidence to a court which can act.
Barack Obama and The Smackdown - 1Aug2008
When McCain called Barack "craven" and said that Barack was willing to lose the war in order to win the political campaign, the dialogue was no longer about issues or race or politics. It became a primordial interchange in which only might could make right. McCain was strong and Barack was not.
And that has continued. Barack has to smack McCain down. We all know that he doesn't want to, and we all know he can. He did it with Jeremiah Wright and he can do it with McCain.
He must, else he will continue to look and be weak. American demands a president who can handle a street fight. McCain has started it. Barack must respond, not necessarily in kind, but respond he must, and it must be rough.
Barack didn't have to do that with Hillary, because by the time it was called for, his lead was unassailable and so he laid back. And he looked bad too, but he won. But he must act here. John Kerry never did, and he lost. We can't afford for that to happen again. The county can't afford it; the world can't afford it.
And that has continued. Barack has to smack McCain down. We all know that he doesn't want to, and we all know he can. He did it with Jeremiah Wright and he can do it with McCain.
He must, else he will continue to look and be weak. American demands a president who can handle a street fight. McCain has started it. Barack must respond, not necessarily in kind, but respond he must, and it must be rough.
Barack didn't have to do that with Hillary, because by the time it was called for, his lead was unassailable and so he laid back. And he looked bad too, but he won. But he must act here. John Kerry never did, and he lost. We can't afford for that to happen again. The county can't afford it; the world can't afford it.
Congress to The President: Do What You Want in Iran
No Balls: This is and has been the Democrats' problem. - 30Jun2008
But laying low to avoid rocking the boat in advance of the 2008 election will not work well. Our president can easily manipulate the media and the national mood for a week or two whenever he chooses.
He can announce a capture of a high Al Quaeda operative, someone who as been in our hands for 8 months (sound familiar?). He can precipitate a crisis in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, or Pakistan with a simple troop movement. All the "It's the economy, stupid," will go right out the window for a week or more. And if it's the first week in November, it matters.
Has anybody but he Iranians noticed that we have them flanked, that we have the nations on both sides of them occupied? Our troops and the bulk of our military might are right on their borders.
If we go to war with Iran, the middle east will look like the Third World War. The three nations side by side, Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan, comprise an area near the size of Western Europe.
And John McCain has stated, as discussed here and elsewhere in the past few days, that it would take a third world war to bring back the draft. Remember the political backdrop to 1984? It was poverty at home and constant war abroad. Sound familiar?
Tom Delay on Israel and Iran - 9Jul2008:
UnAmerican: When asked this morning what he would do if told by Olmert that he was going to bomb Iran's Nuclear facilities, Tom Delay quickly said: "Go ahead. Or maybe we would do it instead. Maybe that would be better." He explained that we cannot trust Obama to do the right thing so Iran's Nuclear capabilities, if proven real, must be destroyed before President Bush leaves office.
I have heard speculation about this issue from many commentators. This is the first time I have heard it from a prominent and powerful person in politics.
As it stands now, Senator Obama is likely to be our next president. Those who oppose him now will become "The Loyal Opposition." The key word is "Loyal."
If the sentiment Tom Delay articulates carries the day with those who hold the real power, if our President forces action against Iran now because he believes that President Obama would fail to do so, then he is disloyal to the President, he is unAmerican, unpatriotic. That's a simple fact.
But laying low to avoid rocking the boat in advance of the 2008 election will not work well. Our president can easily manipulate the media and the national mood for a week or two whenever he chooses.
He can announce a capture of a high Al Quaeda operative, someone who as been in our hands for 8 months (sound familiar?). He can precipitate a crisis in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, or Pakistan with a simple troop movement. All the "It's the economy, stupid," will go right out the window for a week or more. And if it's the first week in November, it matters.
Has anybody but he Iranians noticed that we have them flanked, that we have the nations on both sides of them occupied? Our troops and the bulk of our military might are right on their borders.
If we go to war with Iran, the middle east will look like the Third World War. The three nations side by side, Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan, comprise an area near the size of Western Europe.
And John McCain has stated, as discussed here and elsewhere in the past few days, that it would take a third world war to bring back the draft. Remember the political backdrop to 1984? It was poverty at home and constant war abroad. Sound familiar?
Tom Delay on Israel and Iran - 9Jul2008:
UnAmerican: When asked this morning what he would do if told by Olmert that he was going to bomb Iran's Nuclear facilities, Tom Delay quickly said: "Go ahead. Or maybe we would do it instead. Maybe that would be better." He explained that we cannot trust Obama to do the right thing so Iran's Nuclear capabilities, if proven real, must be destroyed before President Bush leaves office.
I have heard speculation about this issue from many commentators. This is the first time I have heard it from a prominent and powerful person in politics.
As it stands now, Senator Obama is likely to be our next president. Those who oppose him now will become "The Loyal Opposition." The key word is "Loyal."
If the sentiment Tom Delay articulates carries the day with those who hold the real power, if our President forces action against Iran now because he believes that President Obama would fail to do so, then he is disloyal to the President, he is unAmerican, unpatriotic. That's a simple fact.
A New Oil Leasing Scheme: Oil For America - 18Jun2008
We must begin to produce more oil. But let's use the desirability of these leases to move the market and sane policies forward. “Oil For America” Leases:
- Any oil and oil products produced under the new leases must be sold and used in America. Other countries cannot compete to buy products of “Oil for America”.
- Set the selling price of the oil and oil products at cost plus a fixed gross profit. Insulate the price from commodities markets. As the quantity of oil produced under “Oil for America” increases, the volatility of the oil market will go down.
- Give the right of first refusal for purchase of the leases to transportation and energy companies which commit to lead in achieving our energy and environmental goals.
- Place railroads, interstate truckers, local truckers, and vehicles with the highest gas mileage first in line to buy oil products from “Oil for America.” This will reduce the inflationary effects of high fuel prices on the rest of the economy.
- Accelerate the immediacy of the effect of “Oil for America.” a. Accept as a portion of lease payment commitment of extant crude oil and oil products for sale at the going “Oil for America” price. b. Move prospective lease purchasers toward the front of the line who agree to convert previously acquired leases to “Oil for America” leases.
Bill Richardson - VP? - 23Mar2008
It's the Negatives, Not the Positives: We've seen the polls move dramatically every time a succesful attack is launched.
The positives are the backdrop, but they don't matter that much in a negative campaign, particularly the positives of the VP candidate. And this general election campaign is bound to be negative?
Hillary Clinton does complement Obama in many way, but she brings not only her own formidable negatives, but also the astronomical ones of her husband. Forget about the difficulties of governing which many have mentioned. What about the fact that he was impeached, that he generated a huge sex scandal which is waiting to be reignited, ... I question whether an Obama/Clinton ticket would win.
First, Do No Harm. Obama would be better off with a running mate who contributed nothing. I do think that Bill Richardson is likely to have a substantive role in Obama's administration, and I think VP is reasonable. I personally think that the real "sure thing" VP, were he willing, is Colin Powell.
The positives are the backdrop, but they don't matter that much in a negative campaign, particularly the positives of the VP candidate. And this general election campaign is bound to be negative?
Hillary Clinton does complement Obama in many way, but she brings not only her own formidable negatives, but also the astronomical ones of her husband. Forget about the difficulties of governing which many have mentioned. What about the fact that he was impeached, that he generated a huge sex scandal which is waiting to be reignited, ... I question whether an Obama/Clinton ticket would win.
First, Do No Harm. Obama would be better off with a running mate who contributed nothing. I do think that Bill Richardson is likely to have a substantive role in Obama's administration, and I think VP is reasonable. I personally think that the real "sure thing" VP, were he willing, is Colin Powell.
John McCain "Releases" Medical Records - 23May2008
This morning, I attempted (without success) to get a copy of the material "released" by Senator McCain's campaign. His office told me:
- The material was released by his doctors directly to select news sources.
- It was released from Arizona; we can't provide a phone number.
- It is public.
- It will be placed on the Federal Elections Commission website, i.e. "It's up to them."
I called the FEC and they informed me that they have nothing to do with it, that they post financial reports. They told me that his campaign would be the best source of information.
As an aside, Senator McCain's office seems busy and a bit overwhelmed. I was repeatedly placed on hold and then transferred to full mailboxes. As you can see, they do not have a consistent or helpful story to tell about the medical information release.
GI Bill Passes in a Landslide - 22May2008
From the floor of the Senate, Senator Obama credited Senator McCain's service and then questioned his motives for opposing this bill. Senator McCain quickly released an angry response, challenging Senator Obama's Bona Fide's to speak to those who opposed the bill, since he had not chosen to serve in the military.
The tone and substance of Senator McCain's were vitriolic and to my reading and to many others', it was over the top. I don't understand why Senator McCain opposes this bill and I am alarmed by his irrational assertion that Senator Obama is not qualified to do the job to which he was elected because he didn't serve in the military.
If President McCain were to respond in this way to a challenge from a belligerent international antagonist, I am fearful what the consequences might be, just as I am fearful regarding the back and forth provocations which are now escalating between our government and that of Iran.
The tone and substance of Senator McCain's were vitriolic and to my reading and to many others', it was over the top. I don't understand why Senator McCain opposes this bill and I am alarmed by his irrational assertion that Senator Obama is not qualified to do the job to which he was elected because he didn't serve in the military.
If President McCain were to respond in this way to a challenge from a belligerent international antagonist, I am fearful what the consequences might be, just as I am fearful regarding the back and forth provocations which are now escalating between our government and that of Iran.
Clinton's "Popular Vote" Argument, Super-Delegates, The Democratic Convention
22May2008:
Hillary has been making an argument about the popular vote to draw a connection to the 2000 presidential election, particularly with regards Florida. But why is she so close in the popular vote, even with Michigan and Florida included?
Hillary has been making an argument about the popular vote to draw a connection to the 2000 presidential election, particularly with regards Florida. But why is she so close in the popular vote, even with Michigan and Florida included?
- First, the caucus states, almost all of which were won by Barack, did not have elections and therefore had very few votes.
- Second, regardless of how many superdelegates switch to Barack or declare for him from among the uncommitted, their votes are not actually cast until the convention.
Regardless of what happens now, because the superdelegates will put him over the top at the convention, the outcome of the primary will be in doubt until the convention. She will be lurking and as the convention approaches, will be continuing, I believe, to undermine the validity of his candidacy as will the Republicans.
- Third, I believe that Barack and his campaign must show their toughness in some way, once the primary elections are over.
If he does so and with grace, he will do a great deal to move himself toward the eventual nomination and the presidency. Everyone is watching and if he is to be our president, he must show he can. And I think in doing so, he will allay most of the fears about his readiness for the office.
30May2008:
The number of delegates from these 12 caucus states is over 1100, i.e. about 25% of the total: Iowa, Nevada, Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Maine, Hawaii, Wyoming. These state between them represents approximately 1/4 of the democrats, but there was no popular vote.
The split in delegates was 770 (Obama) / 383 (Clinton) . If there had been a popular vote instead, Obama would easily have netted several million votes compared with Clinton.
In the primaries, the states are allowed to set their own rules. Most of these are "red" states. It makes sense that they would have caucuses in order to save money. But now look at the polls. Several of them show Obama as very competitive.
He has energized the voters with his local organizations, his message. Some of these states will almost certainly be in play in November.
The popular vote is not what determines the choice of nominee because there is inhomogeneity in the state by state selection process. It is profoundly disloyal to the party of the Clinton campaign to continue to undermine the credibility of the selection process with their fallacious, deceptive, and self-serving arguments.
8Jun2008:
Senator Clinton reasserted her claim to a strong voice at the convention on behalf of the voters who supported her. She then cast her support to Mr. Obama's side in unequivocal terms. Finally she portrayed a genuine historical perspective on her candidacy for presidency.
What remains for the next speech in which she shares the platform with Senator Obama is to counter the harmful statements she made during the campaign, particularly those questioning his judgment and asserting his unreadiness for office. These are already being used in anti-Obama ads.
She made it clear that he stands strongly on policy. She left for next time that he is competent, that his judgement is mature and sound, that his measured, humble, understated style will move a sane and compassionate domestic and international policy forward.
9Jun2009: "Angry White Women"
This issue is off the mark and marches in step with the sexism which it discusses. "Angry White Women" is surely an exaggeration, a mischaracterization, and a negative comment to use in reference to disappointed supporters of Senator Clinton.
Certainly there was and is anger, but the over-the-top comments such as the ones articulated immediately following the DNC Rules Committee ruling are not what carries the day. It's not reasonable to assume that that anger, e.g. "Obama is an inadequate black man," is anything but the extreme.
We must allow time for the polls to settle down before drawing conclusions about the long term from them. We must take into account the contribution to those polls of Republicans who voted for Senator Clinton but would never do so in the general election.
"Angry white women" is a tempest in a teacup; it's hype; and it demeans the extraordinary accomplishment of the Democratic voters in choosing who we did.
We must use non-deceptive dialogue. In an interview this morning, Gloria Steinem stated that the average time between dropping out of a race and endorsing one's opponent is 4 months. This deceptive statement was disappointing coming from this source. The problem with Senator Clinton's timing was not the delay prior to her endorsement. It was the delay prior to her concession. And it was her defiance at the critical moment on prime time TV Tuesday.
Clinton Calls for "Catharsis" - 7Aug2008:
I predicted this months ago. The whispers will grow louder and louder to hijack the convention and steal the nomination for Hillary. And if Obama has a significant and sustained dip in the polls, there will be a real danger.
I would like to see him smack down both Hillary and Bill so that the electorate sees that he is strong. We will not tolerate a weakling president, which Obama is not. But he must show it as he is beginning to do with his thoughtful counter-punching approach to McCain's attacks.
What bothers me the most is the drama. It seems like an extraordinary insult to women that they require a "catharsis" at the convention. And it's a disgrace to the Democratic party, which is the party of the outsiders. Someone from an outsider group gets the nomination, so the members of the others each must have their moment in the sun? It's just too much.
President Bush's comments on appeasement - 16May2008
Let's talk about those who've appeased America:
- What about the "Old Europe," nations like Belgium, Germany, and France, nations which allowed themselves to be intimidated into sending a token force to Iraq to join "the coalition?"
- What about Spain and Italy pulling their token forces out of Iraq after the one, Spain, was the target of a terrorist attack and the other, Italy, after their force sustained fatalities?
Did they "appease" both America and the terrorists? More importantly, who wrote President Bush's remarks? Does anyone question that he had the knowledge, etc. to write it?
Why would Condoleeza Rice, or whoever was advising him go along with his speech, allowing him to disgrace himself and our government? Did he simply insist on it?
I personally see a child when I hear President Bush speak, and a very fearful one. I see a cowardly child, who has used the might of America to bully our allies and enemies alike.
California Gay Marriage Ban Overturned - 15May2008
This is wonderful wonderful news. It's just a right thing.
We have placed a complete copy of the Court's Opinion on our website.
We have placed a complete copy of the Court's Opinion on our website.
- It's very convenient and fast.
- You need only your web browser; no pdf files are used or any other add-on requirements.
- There are no ads and no popups.
- Everything on our site is free and permanent.
Here is the link for the Opinion. http://www.evendon.net/PGHLookups/Lockyer-v-SFM.htm
"Let's Bomb Myanmar" - 9May2008
We offered 3 million dollars in aid. At the same time, our president's wife gave a press conference during which she made very negative statements about the Myanmar government.
Our president gave our country's highest civilian honor to an anti-government dissident who has been held under house arrest for decades. And also at the same time, we moved 3 warships into close proximity to their border.
You have to meet people where they are We sabotaged our own efforts to provide aid. How could we expect the Myanmar government to trust us, to allow us to come into their country when they are most vulnerable.
If we truly wanted to help their people, this was not the time to be aggressive. I do not claim that their government is OK, only that our approach to helping their people was fundamentally flawed and doomed to fail.
And why would they trust us to be so competent after our handling of hurricane Katrina. And how can they trust UN sponsored help when they see the UN as the puppet of our government. I don't say that all of this is true. But I do think that that is how they see it.
Iraq, Afghanistan, India flank Iran, Pakistan
Many of are frightened by the similarities we see between our Afghanistan War and the Vietnam War. And many of us were totally disappointed by The President's plan for "withdrawal" from Iraq, which is no different from that required by the Status of Forces Agreement negotiated by President Bush.
President Obama addressed the threat of Al Qaeda as the primary focus of his Afghanistan strategy. He downplays the fear card. But I see his strategies for Iraq and Afghanistan being directly related to his efforts to deal with the potential for nuclear weapons in Iran and the real nukes in Pakistan. The presence of large US military contingents in Iran and Afghanistan flanks Iran East and West and, with India, flanks Pakistan.
Our civilian agenda for Pakistan will give us freer access to the Pakistani countryside and people and will increase our ability to collect intelligence and act on it there. By the way, it's Pakistan where Al Qaeda now resides, not Afghanistan.
Don
http://publicservice.evendon.com
President Obama addressed the threat of Al Qaeda as the primary focus of his Afghanistan strategy. He downplays the fear card. But I see his strategies for Iraq and Afghanistan being directly related to his efforts to deal with the potential for nuclear weapons in Iran and the real nukes in Pakistan. The presence of large US military contingents in Iran and Afghanistan flanks Iran East and West and, with India, flanks Pakistan.
Our civilian agenda for Pakistan will give us freer access to the Pakistani countryside and people and will increase our ability to collect intelligence and act on it there. By the way, it's Pakistan where Al Qaeda now resides, not Afghanistan.
Don
http://publicservice.evendon.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
