This is a photo a few days ago of a gorgeous patch of phlox that appears every year in Brookport, Illinois. They have the most beautiful "hot" pink flowers. Could phlox be the savior of Brookport? See the following blog entry, because I'm going to elaborate.
James Hansen, among other big name people, was arrested today in West Virginia protesting mountaintop removal coal mining. Hansen is a NASA scientist that I actually saw back in the early 1980s in a presentation with Al Gore, Barry Commoner, and Jessica Matthews at the Louisville Arts Center doing a panel discussion on global warming. I still have the handouts from the presentation, and those have the exact date. It was very early in all of this.
Hansen, a climatologist, has been at the forefront of warning of what is coming with global warming if we keep doing nothing. Hansen was one of the scientists whose reports were altered by Bush administration industry hacks whose companies might have to change what they doing if climate change awareness grows. So, in order to stop that from happening, agency reports prepared in a scientific manner were being altered based on politics to make it seem like global warming wasn't really that much of a threat.
But global warming is only part of the fight to stop mountain top removal coal mining. It's just so horrendous to blow off the tops of mountains. Can you believe that our society allows that? Commonly it is associated with parts of the Appalachian mountains, but it also goes on elsewhere. For example, a lot of the coal burned in the eastern U.S. comes from the mountaintops of Wyoming. Believe it or not, they mine the coal in Wyoming and put it on very long trains and ship it continually to the eastern U.S. for less money than it takes to install scrubbers on the old coal fired power plants.
The Wyoming coal is "lower sulfur" and therefore can be burned in the "grandfathered in" old coal powered plants that dot the major rivers in the eastern U.S. It's just so dang ugly when you destroy the mountains, and many folks have visited the Great Smokeys and Rockies and have a nice romantic view of the mountains. There is a strong aesthetic ethic that is also at work here, as well as concern for the local neighborhoods that are being ruthlessly pushed aside for this money making venture. The opposition is multi-faceted.
But while what is happening in Wyoming is bad enough, it's what is happening to section of the Appalachian mountains in the eastern U.S. that is becoming the subject of more and more celebrity action and wider and wider press coverage.
This is what happens to a movement that becomes nationalized and moves closer to some kind of national action on the problem. It's happened numerous times across a number of movements in the last century, so one can try to predict a pattern as to how a campaign will proceed depending on what stage it is in. One would think that the pressure is sufficient to stop the practice in law. Oh, but congress is so bought off by the coal industry, it's pathetic. "Progress" is slow.
But, considering all the data out there about how damaging to the environment burning coal is, combined with the gruesome aerial photos of mountain top removal sites, it is amazing that the practice is as persistent as it is. While on it's face, one might think that because of all the cost and the small amount of coal that is said to be recovered from MTR, the resistance growing from local communities, and the overall national campaign against it, that it would have by now been stopped.
As John Belushi would say..."but nooooooooooooo...." And while the Obama administration made some noises early on about trying to reign in the practice, it now seems to have backed off it's more aggressive stance. This is what lead Hansen and the other celebrities, such as Darryl Hannah, to get arrested today at a MTR site. Obama needs to forget the moderation on some things and cut to the chase. He's too soft.
It's simply really dumb that we are still burning coal. There are plenty of alternatives. And I'm not talking about nuclear. That's a pig in a poke - a trojan horse - a pondoras box. I'm talking about a number of ways that we could produce electricity without coal or nuclear. It's no secret, and if we put a lot of resources into it, we could refine these and find others.
Most people still aren't taking global warming seriously at all. It's amazing to me that they don't, but they don't. That's why James Hansen is well known - with some folks - but with the average American, probably a complete unknown. Right now economic problems are overwhelming environmental problems. It's a false overwhelming, but it's happening. And, in some ways, the economic problems are connected to the environmental problems - and probably a lot more than we as a society want to admit.
So it is hard to be optimistic that the world is going to respond in a timely way to the global climate change crisis. Hansen and his associates are going to extreme measures to try and get the word out. I hope it works, but I'm not confident that the American mass media, which has the actual tools to reach the people, is ready to whip the American people up into action, which is what is needed.
A lot of the initial talk was on Iran and whether or not the U.S. should be taking a more visible role in supporting the anti-Ahmadinajad protesters. Most of the talking heads think Obama is doing the right thing by staying out of it.
I heard and read a number of accounts of what is going on in Iran. I can't figure out what is going on. On the one hand more than one show, including Chris Matthews and To the Contrary suggested that women under Ahmadinajad had more freedom than under Mousavi. Then they say that Iran's nuclear is going to be the same regardless of which of them are in power. Some even say that Ahmadinajad probably did win the election. Who knows what is really going on?
But what I really want to made a special comment on is Maria Bartiromo's interview on Wall Street Journal Review with Bill Frist on healthcare reform. Of course Frist is the very conservative former majority leader of the Senate from Tennessee, once seen as a potential GOP presidential candidate until he made some big political boo boos and got out of politics.
Frist was off the wall, making statements that I am sure are not true, and Bartiromo, true to her clueless republican self, went right along with them, making comments like, "good point" and such as Frist spewed the BS.
For example, Frist said that because Canada's health plan was government run, that they didn't do any research on new health treatments, and that the American public didn't want to be denied the best treatments for their sick children because of a government health plan that wouldn't offer them.
Frist, a doctor himself, is hardly an objective voice on this. Not only is he a republican political hack, but he is protecting doctor's incomes, which are outrageous in many cases.
Bartiromo is out of touch with reality. She continually seems to have no clue about what regular people with average or below incomes deal with in life. Her show, while providing a little insight into how the corporate top dogs think, is devoid of the average realities of life. How someone like Bartiromo gets into a cushy job like that, one can only guess. But she's overpaid and underworked, I can assure you that.
If Pat Buchanan and Monica Crowley think that Obama is falling like water over Niagara Falls, they are delusional and show themselves for the party hacks that they are.
What these so called pundits are saying simply ignores the realities of the situation. Obama's biggest critics are coming from the furthest left and right wings of both major parties. They may grow ever so slightly as things don't respond perfectly, but the center is pretty solid, I think. It isn't going to erode nearly as fast as the bare soil on the edge.
Any pundit that has been in DC for much time knows that Obama is doing quite well. To try and take a couple polls, worded in a way that tilts against Obama, on specific issues, and try to use that to discredit his overall popularity is absurd.
I'm one of those from the left that isn't happy with Obama on a lot of things. He isn't moving fast enough on the most obvious environmental issues, like mountaintop removal coalmining, or requiring the government to seriously consider the impacts of it's actions on global warming. He hasn't shut down broad targeted survelliance at the National Security Agency. He's perpetuating wars in places far away.
But all in all, Obama is a breath of fresh air compared with Bush 2. He can speak in sentences and he doesn't automatically piss you off every time he opens his mouth.
But I think Obama has a problem with running up the debt. I don't like, and that's at a fundamental level. If letting the economy "collapse" means that people that are used to living high on the hog have to make it like most of the rest of us, what's wrong with that? Let's let it collapse!
But Obama is still protecting the system. I guess he thinks it's ok for some people, who do a horrible job and squander billions or trillions of other people's money, to go scott free because of who they are. I don't think that. And most people don't. And Obama should understand that. To the extent that he doesn't act like he understands that, one can safely believe that he is being unduly influenced by money.
I have to say that finally I am happier with (at least some of) the Paducah city council. It seems they finally, after repeated disaster, are questioning city manager Jim Zumwalt. It's about time. The city council blew it when they allowed Zumwalt to fire Herschel Dungey and others.
How can there be a doubt that the current Paducah administration has mishandled city business? I mean, just read the Paducah Sun. And the Paducah Sun is there to protect that kind of stuff, but this is so bad that even the Sun can't cover it up. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been going toward projects that aren't working, or is simply being wasted, while dozens are laid off and the city is running a deficit.
I say fire Zumwalt. Workforce reduction! Budget constraints. Let him see what it's like to be a common person out of work. He's been in too long. That's another bad thing about the city manager type of government - you can't vote them out! But the city council can, even over the mayor's objections.
So take him down, city council. He isn't elected, but he makes more money than most people in Paducah. Does he deserve it? Hardly.
Due to the new digital TV divide and obligations that I had this morning, I only was able to watch Wall Street Week, Chris Matthews, and Meet the Press.
I thought there one segment of one interview on Wall Street was worth mentioning. I believe it was with one of her rich dude friends (of which there seems to be many) named Laurence, who was head of some kind of large money group called, if I remember, Black Rock. They had just merged with some kind of large money group named Barclay something, and he and the head of the Barclay thingy were on.
I believe it was Laurence who said that one of the big problems left with the economy was that housing prices hadn’t yet stabilized. That has all kinds of ramifications for the economy, but I do think he’s right. People just don’t want to admit that their houses and other buildings are worth a lot less than they used to be. So, they are keeping the prices high - but they aren’t selling. You can just drive around any town around here and you will see a myriad of “for sale” signs in front of houses. And, on the routes I drive regularly, they have been there a long time. Oh sure, some people may have reduced their prices a little, but they are still within reach of former market highs.
The odds that these houses are going to sell for former asking prices or even anywhere close is pretty slim. These houses are simply worth less money in today’s market. This Laurence dude said that previous housing downturns took from 7 - 10 years to stabilize. That means 10 or more in TV talk. That’s a long time for people to wait to sell their houses. Many won’t be able to wait.
And not only that, but property tax rates are based on assessments, and if values go down, then assessments will have to go down, and taxes will go down. That means governments at various levels will be doing with less. That means cuts in schools, roads, and other government functions. Don’t look to the feds to pick up the tab. They have their own revenue problems.
In fact, on the Chris Matthew show, which was his all female show, because of a book called “Womenomics,” written by frequent guest Katty Kay, from BBC, and Claire Shipman, from ABC News, who were panelists, along with Helene Cooper and Nora O’Donnell.
Matthews should have let a guest host take this show - a female one - because it seemed a bit awkward to me with Matthews the only male but the “head” of the panel. But, there were a couple interesting moments. Helene Cooper informed us that she was a native of Liberia, the country created once upon a time so that African-American slaves could have a place to go back to in Africa. But there’s been all kinds of political upheaval there, which has somewhat subsided with the election a couple years ago of a woman for president.
Cooper said, which was agreed with by the panelists, and which I agree with, that Obama, while so well liked by the public that the republicans have no answer to it, does have two lingering issues that could, in the long run, depending how events unfurl, hurt his badly. Those are “national security” and the “national debt.”
Of course, the big talk of the day is the elections in Iraq. David Gregory on Meet the Press had VP Biden on for the first half the show. He did not make any of the “gaffs” that he is known for, but he did comment on the Iran situation. The US, he said, was monitoring the situation in Iran and he didn’t have any other comments on that.
But to me, it’s so fascinating that the news coming out of Iraq could be news coming out of the US in both the 2000 and 2004 elections. A belligerant and arrogant leader that appears to have little public support and is driving their country into the ground is reelected in a disputed elections with lots of protests, which are put down violently. It sounds very eerily familiar doesn’t it?
The U.S. can jump up and down, and protest, and not recognize, and all of the above, but it’s not going to be able to change things. More importantly, the U.S. needs to make sure that it’s elections are completely honest and clean. Without that, we have no leg to stand on when criticizing other countries for how they handle their elections.
And by the way, isn’t it a little hypocritical for the U.S. to be so down on Iran for wanting to have nuclear weapons (although they claim they aren’t) when we have more than anyone else, and by all accounts, Israel has them with no accountability?
I didn't really like it. For one thing, "you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig." That's probably an appropriate saying to use considering that Palin got herself in the news with her "feud" with Letterman. If she was smart she'd go on the show. Sure Letterman would eat her alive, but as they say, all publicity is good. It would get a lot of viewers.
To me the cover of the Newsweek, plus the content, all serves to brand Colbert as just another "mainstream" media person. It says to me that the whole head shaving thing, with the Obama cameo was staged. That photo for the cover of Newsweek had to be taken long before he actually had his head shaved in Iraq. Shame Shame for such insincerity.
Personally, I don't care what kind of flowers you try to hang on Iraq, it's still a disaster. Don't try to suggest that it wasn't. Of course, Farheed Zakariah always tries to paint a rainbow where there isn't one, especially when it comes to the middle east. And he is loathe to really get down hard on the government.
I didn't really like the real editor's punting off to Colbert's not really that funny hand edits of the last page letter. Didn't work. Go back to old format, and start taking on the corporate world in an honest way if you want the cream to rise to the top.
Colbert, who I can't get on rabbit ears (hell, I can't get much of anything now), but who I've seen on occasion at other locations, is a good entertainer. But he's a comedian and not a serious political commentator. He certainly shouldn't have been put in charge of something as serious as the Iraq war.
I watched with great interest the McLaughlin Group last night. If you recall, I questioned the show last week because Obama had mentioned Pat Buchanan by name in his interview with Brian Williams on the NBC special on the inside of the Obama White House. Granted, it wasn't a positive mention, but it wasn't that negative either. But the fact that Buchanan was the one name that Obama mentioned made it newsworthy in my opinion, and McLaughlin usually doesn't shy from something newsworthy.
Mysteriously, however, it wasn't even mentioned on last weeks show, although there is no doubt that they were aware of it. Interesting to say the least. But then, on this week's show, guess who was missing? Yep, Mr. Buchanan. And replaced by Newt Gingrich, George Will, or David Brooks, to maintain the "balance" on the panel? (I hardly consider Mort Zuckerman to be a "liberal" let me say).
Now get this! He was replaced by David Corn of the Nation magazine. I've had my problems with Corn and have written about them. But, in mainstream DC political spreadsheets, he is definitely left of a lot of Democrats. (supposedly). And what was interesting was that the "liberals" were still there - reliable Eleanor Clift, and (refer to the above parathetical) Mort Zuckerman. So (I bet not natural) blonde Monica Crowley was the bastion of conservatism.
Frankly, I didn't notice a lot of difference. If McLaughlin had any guts and wanted to get a different voice, he'd have me on. I'd give them a different perspective. And what happened to Clarence Page? Maybe the flights to DC are getting too expensive and since the Tribune is perpetually on the edge, like the Boston Globe and other newspapers (because they are too fluffy) he feels he should stick close to home. I don't know. One can only guess. I like Mr. Page, although I think he was wrong in his criticism of Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney, who I still think is one of the most right on politicians in the country.
I think the McLaughlin Group is the best news talk show of its kind on mainstream TV. Sure beats Gwen Ifell's show. But covering up the Buchanan mention by Obama makes me scratch my head.
by Berry Craig
Louisville union activist Kay Tillow says a near empty collection jar she saw in a restaurant symbolizes the unfairness of America's private health care system.
"It had a sign that said, 'Eric and Misty need help. Eric has come down with lymphoma and can no longer work and afford health care. Can you help?'
"There were just a few dollars in the jar. No family should be allowed to go under because they can't afford health care."
Tillow favors House Resolution 676, which would create a national single payer health insurance system. She is speaking up for the measure in union halls across the Bluegrass State.
Conservative Kentucky is among the reddest of the Republican Red States. But she says she is finding plenty of support for HR 676, even though the bill's sponsors are a pair of liberal Yankee Democrats -- Reps. John Conyers of Michigan and Dennis Kucinich of Ohio.
"Labor is out front on this," added Tillow, who represents the All Unions Committee for Single Payer Health Care.
A member of the Louisville-based Nurses' Professional organization, Tillow says the Kentucky State AFL-CIO and six of the Bluegrass State's eight central labor councils have endorsed HR 676. Labor councils, also known as area councils, represent regional groups of AFL-CIO afflilated unions.
"The Kentucky State AFL-CIO was the first state federation in the country to go on record in endorsing HR 676," Bill Londrigan, the federation's president, recently told a single payer rally in Louisville, which is Kentucky's largest city.
He said the private health care industry spent $130 million "in the first six months of this year lobbying Congress against single payer." Londrigan added, "This industry will stoop to nothing, they will stop at nothing to spread their propaganda and lies and try to ice us out."
Meanwhile, Tillow said that when she began campaigning for HR 676 she wondered how rank-and-file union members would react to her message. "When I first started going to union meetings, I thought to myself, 'This is controversial - people will oppose it. But they don't. They're ready for it."
Dozens of other labor activists like Tillow are promoting HR 676 in union halls across the country. "They're hearing the same thing I'm hearing," she said. "Working people want single payer health care."
So far, HR 676 has the blessing of 543 union organizations in 49 states, including 39 state AFL-CIO labor federations and 128 central and area labor councils, according to Tillow. Some state legislatures - including Kentucky's - have approved single payer health care resolutions. "Some cities have, too," she said.
Tillow added, "We're winning. But we're up against a lot of corporate power with the big insurance companies."
Tillow said HR 676 would expand and improve Medicare to cover everybody for all necessary health care. Deductibles and co-payments would be eliminated.
"A single payer system would save hundreds of billions of dollars annually by eliminating the high overhead and profits of the private health insurance industry and HMOs."
Additionally, Tillow said single payer health care is hardly a radical idea. Every other industrial democracy provides some form of comprehensive, government-funded health care for all its citizens. They get more for their money, too, according to Tillow.
"We spend over $7,000 a year per capita on health care. Other countries spend half that much and do a better job. A lot of them have lower infant mortality rates and higher life expectancies."
She said taxpayer-funded single payer health care for all is based on the same principle as police and fire protection for everybody. "When we call the police or the fire department, they don't ask if we can pay, they just come. That's what we pay taxes for."
Tillow says the U.S., the richest and most powerful country on earth, has "the ability to have the best health care system in the world. We've got good doctors and good hospitals. But health care is a right, not a privilege."
Tillow is glad to visit with union members or anybody else about HR 676. Her phone number is (502) 636-1551. Her email address is NurseNPO@aol.com . The All Unions Committee for Single Payer Health Care website is http://unionsforsinglepayerhr676.org .
I can't believe that McLaughlin didn't bring up that his long time right wing commentator Pat Buchanan was the one name of a DC talking news head that popped out of Obama's mouth on the NBC "inside the White House" specials this last week when Brian Williams asked him if, when he was zapping around the TV late at night, he stumbles on some talking heads talking about him, whether he stops and listens.
Obama said, no, and basically said that he knew a lot of the folks, knew their roles, and didn't think that they had anything really new to contribute to him. He mentioned by name one name - Pat Buchanan. And, it really wasn't that derogatory. I mean, it did tend to put Buchanan in a box, but hey, he may belong there if he can't find a way out. But, as they say, all publicity is good, and Buchanan is a voice for this country (for better or worse) if he can transcend the deterioration of the republican party and remain in the mainstream, even from a more traditional "conservative" point of view. Actually, I like some of the traditional "conservative" values, such as paying your bills, and being modest.
So, why didn't McLaughlin allow that to be mentioned on his show? This happened well before Friday, and they had to know about it. Curious. I would consider it a compliment and a hype to the show to be the one mentioned, good or bad, by Obama, and all in all it wasn't that bad. So why wouldn't McLaughlin push this on his show. Afterall, he isn't afraid to insult or criticize his panelists - he does it all the time. I suspect they discussed it and made a conscious decision not to mention it. Bad decision.
WPSD (Paducah affiliate NBC, Paxton Media Group) usually has Wall St. Week in review @ 6:00am Sunday morning, Chris Matthews 6:30, Today 7, and Meet the Press 8. (central am time) Today they cut Wall St., Matthews and Meet the Press and had Today show on 2 hours. This was to accomodate the Men's Finals of the French Open.
That was bad scheduling. I know that Home Depot probably pays pretty good for "Hometime" but come on, this is Sunday morning, and we deserve at least one news show. Weekend Today, bless its heart, doesn't qualify for that.
But I did manage to watch Stephanopolous and McLaughlin Group. Of course, the first topic was Obama's Cairo speech to the Muslim community. The question discussed was not whether or not he had been "successful" in communicating with the "Muslim world," everyone agreed to that. A question was raised as to whether or not he "went too far" in capitulating the Muslims at the cost of Israel.
One of the shows, I think it was Stephanopolous, where one of the participants said that the Obama team had, by the end of the week, themselves thought that they had "gone too far." I don't know if I believe that. Doesn't seem like the kind of info that comes out of that group.
Stephanopolous had Cynthia Tucker, from the Atlanta Journal, on his show, apparently for the first time. I still think she was wrong for being so against Cynthia McKinney. It taints my view of her. But I thought that she did a good job on the show today. She needs to have a video taped debate with Cynthia McKinney to air some of the allegations she has made about McKinney over the years. Instead, we have Larry Johnson in her seat. Sure, he's an African-American Democrat, but come on, do you really the Democratic platform is better off with one more party hack rubber stamp, or someone who is going to really challenge the platform from the left?
The answer to that one is easy. But, McKinney has moved on to become the presidential candidate for the Green Party. That's a long term investment, but one that I am glad she is making. The cream rises to the top, and if McKinney stays around in the public scene long enough, she will grow in support, because she is trying to address problems that Obama won't be addressing.
The Paducah Sun editorial staff continues to downplay and deny global warming and the impact of man's activities on the earth. Their attitude isn't just one of denial however, it's one of scorn. They attack and try to belittle those that say that it poses a real problem.
It's amazing to me that considering in chronological order in our region we have had one of the latest freezes that I remember that defoliated pretty much fully leafed out trees, a very serious ice storm, a hurricane that strengthened over land and hit us with very powerful sustained winds, an ice storm that made the previous one look like child's play, an inland hurricane, and all kinds of serious and unusual weather events along the way, and the Paducah Sun acts like it isn't a big deal.
The Sun's editorial department, the Sun being the flagship company of Paxton media, which has been able to accumulate a substantial economic media network using some kind of weird exception to the prohibition of one company owning too much media in one market, is an embarassment to our community. They write the most outrageous things that one can imagine. Maybe it's because Ann Coulter has roots in Paducah, I don't know. But, along with the bad labor relations, the horrible race relations, and the environmental problems at the gaseous diffusion plant, Calvert City, Westvaco and the coal fired power plants, it's no wonder that we aren't on the cutting edge of the economy.
Yesterday evening as I was watching the Jim Lehrer News Hour, the phone rang. I didn't recognize the number. It wasn't the usual junk phone call numbers that we regularly get telling us that our car warranty (which we don't have) is about to run out, or telling us we can get out of debt (which we aren't in) easily.
So I picked up the phone. It was a robo-call, but it caught my attention, because it said that U.S. Rep. John Shimkus, my rep, was having a "town hall conference call" and that if I wanted to participate, all I had to do was stay on the line and I'd be joined. My political voyeurism kicked in, and I put the phone down and turned on the speaker so I could listen and not be tied to the phone.
Low and behold, in a couple seconds, there I was on a call with Shimkus, some of his aides, and who knows how many others. Shimkus introduced the moderator, and she said if you have a question for Shimkus, press "*3." I couldn't resist. I pressed.
In the meantime, Shimkus called on these folks, and for about the first part of the call, he identified where they were from and a first name. After calling on 100% of folks from the Olney/Flora/Effingham/Fairfield area, he finally quit saying where they were from. He didn't identify one call from deep southern Illinois.
In a couple of minutes, a guy came on who identified himself as a Shimkus aide and asked me my name and zip code. I told him. Then he asked me what the question was. I had decided to play it straight, and I said that my question was "why is the Forest Service spending a lot of its money burning the national forest when campgrounds are being closed and not maintained, trails are in disrepair, and there's inadequate law enforcement." The guy said "we'll get to your question in a few minutes."
About 50 minutes later the call ended, and of course, my question wasn't taken. But a whole bunch were. It was the typical republican pablum. The highlight of the night was when Shimkus was talking about stem cell research and said, "I wish I could be honest." Kristi and I about fell off our chairs. I quickly scribbled the quote down and said to Kristi, "I'm going to post this on Rural Thoughts.
We all wish you would be honest, Mr. Shimkus. If you were honest with the people and with yourself, you would resign and let someone who has a modern view of the world take over representing us.
One interesting tidbit that came out was about the FutureGen facility. He said that with Obama and Durbin being so powerful, that it still was alive. He did say, though, which I can't remember hearing before, that the facility will be an "experimental" facility that will try burning all kinds of different coal under different conditions to see what might provide the best results.
Too much time was spent talking about coal. While it's easy for politicians to rally the troops in a former coal mining community by saying that we are going to bring back the good ol' days, the easy answers aren't going to work in the long run. Of course, Shimkus, with his ZERO rating by the League of Conservation Voters, is one of the most brain dead politicians on the environment in Congress.
The news of the last few days regarding the so-called "purchase" of the Executive Inn in Paducah has gotten more bizarre in the last few days. In a number of local news reports, it's come out that Parsons is being sued elsewhere for similar promises he has made to complete hotel purchases and renovations which he never completed. http://www.hotel-online.com/Neo/News/2009_May_30/k.PAM.1243876345.html
This is just one more example of how mismanaged the Paducah city government is. Just the fact that the incompetent city manager keeps his 6 figure salary while good, minority city leaders were laid off as the city continues to spend money on non-necessary things, like cleaning up for Parson's promises, says plenty to me.
It's time for the Paducah city council to do the right thing. Have some courage and stand up to this incompetence. Make the changes that have to be done. If not, this city hasn't come anywhere near seeing it's economic bottom. That will be yet to come.
I watched several of the news shows yesterday and Friday. I guess it was a slow news week. As usual, they all basically talked about the same things. I will give Chris Matthews a thumbs up for having some different folks on with some needed diversity. After a while, I get tired of hearing from Andrea Mitchell, David Brooks, Bob Woodward, and the rest of the mainstream big shot journalists. They all this Washington DC attitude which to me is wearisome. I mean, you need to hear from them once in a while, but let's get some fresh views.
The first discussion point was the Sotomayor nomination for the Supreme Court. Talk about a tempest in a teapot. She's in - lock, stock and barrell. (Unless something comes out about back taxes, an undocumented worker as a housekeeper, or something like that.) Rush Limbaugh can stew in his prunes, but he's not going to change things.
What I worry about is Sotomayor being a Souter in reverse. Souter was nominated by Bush I, and was supposed to be a conservative. However, he has ended up solidly on the "liberal" side of the court. That, however, says more about how far right the center of the court is than how liberal Souter is. Nevertheless, he's been a big disappointment to some conservatives. Could Sotomayor end up being a lot more conservative than anyone thinks? I hope not.
Then they talked about North Korea. Again, a lot of words over nothing. What are we going to do, attack them? They would destroy South Korea and a bunch of Americans quickly if we were to do that. What makes no sense to me is the way the US press tries to describe North Korea as some kind of evil hell hole, where everyone is hungry and no one is doing anything worthwhile. Yet, they are one of the few countries on earth that we have never defeated militarily (join the Seminoles!), and their land mass is but a tiny piece of our continent. Pretty amazing people if you ask me, knowing little about them.
Then GM was talked about. Of course, George Will loves to bemoan the end of free markets. Paul Krugman basically says that the government probably isn't going far enough. Everyone says that the government, now the majority stakeholder, doesn't want to keep GM very long, but it could be a tar baby. We'll see. The big problem is that cars are too expensive - who the hell can afford a new car? Let's deal with that problem.
I would give this week's shows a B for boring.
The right wing likes to throw the term, "activist" judges around to try and discredit judges who write opinions siding with public interest organizations, workers, or other parties in challenges to corporate power and government authority. They claim that when judges do that, they are "legislating from the bench" instead of "interpreting the law. "
On the other hand, they call their judges - the ones that find all kinds of ways to throw out public interest groups, workers, and other parties and to almost always uphold corporate power and governmental authority - "strict constructionists." This term is supposed to mean judges that adhere closely to the intent of the framers of the constitution.
This whole notion of "judicial activists" vs. "strict constructionists" is a phoney, politically driven division that has no meaning in reality. All judges are judicial activists, and some of the ones that are touted as being the most "strict constructionist" are actually the most activist. Supreme court justice Scalia is one of the best examples.
Scalia makes a cottage industry out of throwing public interest groups out of court, using the judge created concept of "standing" as the reason. According to legal precedent, you can't sue in U.S. federal court unless you have standing. You have standing if you have an "injury in fact." Basically, it means that you have to have some kind of problem with another party that causes you some kind of harm that is unique to you or a few others, and that a court order can remedy. The problem is the way that some judges, like Mr. Scalia, interpret "harm."
Actually, if you want to be technical about it, making up the concept of "standing" is judicial activism from the beginning. It is supposedly based on the constitution of the U.S., Article III, which reads,
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."
As you can see, the word "standing" isn't even mentioned. It just says "cases in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, (and) the Laws of the US...." It isn't out of the question that this could have been interpreted as meaning that anytime there is a question of law and equity, that the courts should hear it. But no, first, you have to have "standing," and Mr. Scalia has, in a very activist manner, twisted this to give him the power to throw out anyone he doesn't want to give justice.
But all judges create words in consideration of cases involving already written laws or the constitution. You have to use words other than the ones already written to consider the cases. There is no such thing as a "strict constructionist" judge, and all judges are "activist." It's the nature of the job. But the media loves their labels, regardless of how inaccurate the characterization is. But it would be nice to have the mainstream media expose this falsely created division and actually serve the public interest. But most mainstream media pundits don't know diddly about the law or how it works, and so, it's the blind leading the blind, which is how people like Scalia get away with their deception.
Newsweek has a new format. It still has a lot of the same ol'same ol' regular stuff. When I sit down to look at the Newsweek, I look at the Conventional Wisdom first, and then the Dignity Index. Once I found the Conventional Wisdom, I did notice that Obama got a thumbs down. Wow! That's the first one isn't it, or have I failed to notice? And the Dignity index...Wanda Sykes made it mildly for her comments about Rush Limbaugh being the 20th hijacker on 911. They said that if Limbaugh had said that about Sykes, there would be a big uproar. Maybe so, but isn't justice sweet when it finally arrives! As we used to say as kids, "turnabout is fair play!"
The newest Newsweek is one called "Obama on Obama." While keeping my favorite parts of the mag, it has reformatted them into some kind of weirdness. Everything looks the same.
I don't think you can accuse me of being stuck in my thinking. I like to think outside the box. But, I can't understand how an institution like Newsweek decides on changing a long standing format, and changing it to what? All is does is confuse the readers.
The old format had a different layouts for the different sections. Now I don't know where I am. To me it was hard to find your way around. First impressions aren't always right, but my first impression wasn't that great.
If Newsweek really wanted to change, it could start by talking about how if we don't change the way we are doing things in this world, we are SOL. Nature is so much more powerful than us humans, and we are finding that out. I have no doubt this will continue. Shades of "Revelation?"
But Newsweek, for all the good that it provides, is just a big corporate entity that above all knows how not to go too far in challenging the corporate world. We've subscribed for years, but I'm not sure we are going to continue. Depends on the deal they cut with us - like giving us a year for a couple bucks or something like that.
by Berry Craig
I thought Republican charges that Barack Obama is a "socialist" couldn't get any goofier.
Sean Hannity proved me wrong. He used a cartoon tree.
Hannity recently co-starred with the "The Tree of Liberty" on his Fox News show. The tree sprouted on a big screen.
The graphic was so crude it was comical. I half expected to see Keebler elves in tiny "Nobama" t-shirts running around the tree.
Anyway, three apples -- labeled "industry," "commerce," and "security" - dangled from a limb. The fruit fell into a box Hannity called "the collective crate of socialism." The box was marked with a tiny star and hammer-and-sickle.
"It is those apples, the fruits of our liberty, that this administration is now picking clean," Hannity said.
I don't know if the president saw the Liberty Tree on his TV. Steven Colbert did, though Hannity probably wishes the host of The Colbert Report had been watching something else.
Colbert skewered Fox's new flora and fauna on his show. He deadpanned that the Liberty Tree trumped his "own visual allegory for America - the Freedom Fungus."
Colbert flashed the "fungus" on his screen. It was a greenish growth flecked with brown that had infected a cartoon foot.
The "Freedom Fungus" was imperiled by chemical warfare, which Colbert called "The Tinactin of Tyranny." It was - you guessed it - a spray can.
The Fox News Liberty Tree, as silly as it was, is another example of conservatives twisting history to suit their own ends. (The real hammer-and-sickle crowd does the same thing for their side.)
Patriots rallied 'round real Liberty Trees to protest British injustice before and during the American Revolution. Given Hannity's right-wing politics, he might have been a Tory.
At the same time, I'm wondering when - or if - Republicans like Hannity will discover that tagging Obama a "socialist" isn't getting them anywhere. (Obama probably hopes the GOP never figures it out.)
The Republicans started knocking Obama as a "socialist" on the campaign trail last year, hoping to scare voters to their man, McCain. Obama clobbered McCain.
Since he was inaugurated, the president's approval ratings have been way up, according to polls. The same surveys show the GOP is popularity-challenged.
The polls don't rate Brian P. Moore, last year's Socialist Party U.S.A. presidential candidate. Moore got only 6,528 votes, according to the Federal Election Commission.
But the GOP's "socialist" slam on Obama is grabbing Moore some press. He has been on the Colbert Report and C-Span insisting Obama isn't a socialist. He's been saying the same thing on the radio and in other media, too.
Moore claims Obama isn't even a liberal. He says the president is a "centrist."
Obama and the Democrats probably don't mind being called "centrist." But, so far, they haven't used Moore to prove they aren't socialists.
Maybe they feel they don't need do. After all, many - if not most - Americans have never heard of the Socialist Party U.S.A.
But Socialists weren't always far out on the American political fringe. A century ago, a lot of Americans didn't think "socialism" was a dirty word either.
Socialist Eugene V. Debs polled more than 901,000 votes when he sought the presidency in 1912. In 1920, he collected almost 913,700 ballots.
Though Debs didn't come close to capturing the White House - he ran five times -- many other Socialists were elected to office in his day. The winners included a pair of Socialist congressmen and scores of state legislators, mayors and other local officials.
Several reformers were in the party at one time or another. Catholic social activist Dorothy Day was a Socialist. So was W.E.B. DuBois, who helped start the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
Bayard Rustin, another early NAACP leader, was a Socialist, too. Other party members included union leaders David Dubinsky, Morris Hillquit, Mary Harris "Mother" Jones, A. Philip Randolph and Walter Reuther, theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, humanitarian Helen Keller and writers Jack London, Carl Sandburg and Upton Sinclair. In addition, the Rev. Francis Bellamy, a Baptist pastor and author of the Pledge of Allegiance, was a Socialist.
So what happened to the Socialists? They were suppressed as "traitors" during World War I and afterwards, says Moore, a 65-year-old Floridian.
Several Socialists, including Debs, were jailed for opposing American involvement in the war. They said the conflict was gotten up by rich imperialist powers but was being fought by poor farmers and poor workers who had no stake in victory by either side.
After the war, more Socialists were arrested during the 1919 "Great Red Scare," in which federal agents rounded up dozens of suspected "Reds," who purportedly were plotting to turn America communist like Soviet Russia.
In the end, Atty. Gen. A. Mitchell Palmer, who orchestrated the Red Scare, was discredited as a fraud and a fear-monger. Most of the "Reds" were released.
But the Socialists were all but finished. (Milwaukee and Bridgeport, Conn., were notable exceptions. Both cities elected Socialist mayors for years, Milwaukee until 1960.)
Gradually, the Socialist Party dwindled into virtual extinction. Some Socialists became Democrats because of FDR's New Deal. Other Socialists protested that the New Deal was only small-potatoes reform, not socialism, and that the president's real aim was to save capitalism from its greedy excesses.
In the 1970s, the Socialist Party split into factions, including the Socialist Party U.S.A.
Anyway, bad publicity is supposed to be better than no publicity. If nothing else, Republican charges that Obama is a socialist might prompt many Americans to investigate socialism for themselves. If they do, they will discover the socialism Moore preaches isn't totalitarian communism, not by a long shot. They will also find out that many people in other democratic nations - including our North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies - routinely vote socialists into office. "Socialist" isn't a slam to millions of Europeans.
NATO was formed during the cold war as an anti-communist alliance. Hannity's Liberty Tree reminded me of the hokey and ham-fisted propaganda we got from the Soviets and their communist Chinese comrades.
I remember a photo of an anti-American skit performed in Communist China. It showed a People's Liberation Army soldier knocking a guy in an Uncle Sam suit on his duff. Subtlety is not a strong suit of propagandists, of the Fox News or Peking People's Daily and Pravda persuasion.
The weekly news shows had a lot of time dedicated to discussing Dick Cheney's recent mainstream press interviews criticizing Obama for making the country "less safe." One shouldn't forget that the worst attack on US soil took place under Cheney, as Lawrence O'Donnell noted on McLaughlin.
But McLaughlin himself gets the most interesting tidbit by saying that Obama's timetable for getting out of Iraq wasn't quick enough. His opinion was that the US troops need to get out Iraq sooner rather than later.
Cheney is busting electorale protocal by speaking out soon. He doesn't seem to care. When most Americans are asked, they give Obama a lot higher marks than Cheney. One can't help but believe that Obama hopes that Cheney will keep speaking out.
This is the cockpit of a C-47. Small, not much of a windshield, and a lot of primitive instruments. The pilot seat is on the left and the co-pilot on the right. My only question is...where is the CD player?
This is a full shot of a C-47 aircraft which flew into Barkley Midwest Aviation terminal outside of Paducah, KY this weekend. The crew said that it was the last original C 47 flying in the US. They call it a "flying museum." The C-47 was the workhorse of WW II - one of the great planes of aviation history.
My father, Sam Donham, was a C-47 pilot in WWII, doing a lot of his time in the south Pacific. I went to see the plane to honor him and take some photos for my nephews and niece so they can see what their grandfather did. It's easier to visualize it when you've actually seen it. I'm going to post a second photo also - of the cockpit. Wow! Can you imagine?