Rightwingnut "Gov't Motors" red herring has ulterior motive

by MrDoggity » Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:21 am

The brewing rightwingnut boycott of GM, or as "Rusty the Arse Zit" calls them "Government Motors," is a red herring with a nefarious ulterior motive.

I have tried in vain to talk rationally to the right-wingers at work about the government's bailout of GM, but they are hard-core brainwashed about this subject. They are absolutely CONVINCED that this is "phase one" of a broader scheme to socialize American industry. No use of facts will dissuade them. It doesn't matter that there are a number of examples one could point to, as a model for what is happening here. Bush's former Treasury Secretary, John Snow should know. He was once CEO of one of the greatest examples in American history, of how the government can be used to stabilize, save and then re-privatize corporations -- ConRail. When the GERALD FORD administration took over the failing Penn Central and Erie Lackawanna Railroads, after their bankruptcy filings, the government combined the lines and ran them as "Consolidated Railways" or ConRail, throughout the RONALD REAGAN administration, until 1987, when the government-run railroad began to turn a profit, and was sold to CSX Transportation and the Norfolk Southern Railway. The combined assets are now part of one of America's strongest railroad and logistics companies, CSX.

It is further useless to point out that the Obama administration DID NOT do a hostile takeover of GM. GM came to the GEORGE W. BUSH administration, cap-in-hand, BEGGING for help. Obama inherited the mess, and used the successful ConRail model as a template for turning GM around.

So, with all the facts -- as usual -- disproving everything the wingnuts believe about this subject, and the fact that 75% of Americans know better, and aren't buying that the GM bailout is a step closer to Stalin, why do the rightwing spewers on hate radio and Faux News continue to beat this drum?

One reason -- Public-payer-option universal healthcare.

Rush doesn't give a damn about GM. Rush's puppetmasters in big insurance and big pharma have a much more significant fish to fry, here. While they may not ever convince the Dale, Jr rednecks to start seeing Chevrolet as a Commie plot, they may very well use that as a platform to say, "see, we told you the total destruction of our culture was brewing! First the banks & AIG, then GM, and now healthcare!" Naturally, conveniently omitting the fact that the banks and AIG, and most of the GM takeover, were orchestrated by George W. Bush and Henry Paulson.

But see, they can sell the far more important and necessary move by Obama -- healthcare reform -- as the next domino to fall on the road to becoming a nouveux-USSR. Will they ever convince more than 30% of America? Unlikely, but as Malcolm Gladwell illustrates in his book, "The Tipping Point" - you don't have to convince a majority. You only have to convince a strategic minority. Just as you implode a building by knocking out a few key support members, you implode a badly needed and widely supported initiative by scaring the bejeezus out of a handful of teetering Democrats and moderate Republicans in Congress, who are in vulnerable districts, that have disproportionate numbers of Fox News viewers.

The greatest irony of this whole thing is that a very strong case could be made that GM would be solvent today, if Clinton had succeeded at achieving universal healthcare in the early 1990's.

Prop 8 - the Plessy of Our Generation

Looking over the arguments by the Southerners against the Brown v Board decision, outlawing the idea of "separate but equal", as confirmed under the Plessy v Fergusson case, it struck me just how similar the proponents of California's Proposition 8 sound in their twisted attempt to prove this is about anything and everything other than the obvious -- simple bigotry.

"The Southern Cali-homophobe Manifesto"

[adapted "liberally" From Congressional Record, 84th Congress Second Session. Vol. 102, part 4 (March 12, 1956). Washington, D.C.: Governmental Printing Office, 1956. 4459-4460.]

THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE SCHOOL CASES -- DECLARATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES

Mr. [Walter F.] GEORGE.

Mr. President, the increasing gravity of the situation following the decision of the Supreme Court in the so-called segregation cases, and the peculiar stress in sections of the country where this decision has created many difficulties, unknown and unappreciated, perhaps, by many people residing in other parts of the country, have led some Senators and some Members of the House of Representatives to prepare a statement of the position which they have felt and now feel to be imperative.

I now wish to present to the Senate a statement on behalf of 19 Senators, representing 11 States, and 77 House Members, representing a considerable number of States likewise. . . .

DECLARATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES

The unwarranted decision of the Supreme Court in the public school cases is now bearing the fruit always produced when men substitute naked power for established law.

The Founding Fathers gave us a Constitution of checks and balances because they realized the inescapable lesson of history that no man or group of men can be safely entrusted with unlimited power. They framed this Constitution with its provisions for change by amendment in order to secure the fundamentals of government against the dangers of temporary popular passion or the personal predilections of public officeholders.

We regard the decisions of the Supreme Court in the school cases as a clear abuse of judicial power. It climaxes a trend in the Federal Judiciary undertaking to legislate, in derogation of the authority of Congress, and to encroach upon the reserved rights of the States and the people. (sound familiar? dd)

The original Constitution does not mention education. Neither does the 14th Amendment nor any other amendment. The debates preceding the submission of the 14th Amendment clearly show that there was no intent that it should affect the system of education maintained by the States.The very Congress which proposed the amendment subsequently provided for segregated schools in the District of Columbia.

When the amendment was adopted in 1868, there were 37 States of the Union. . . .Every one of the 26 States that had any substantial racial differences among its people, either approved the operation of segregated schools already in existence or subsequently established such schools by action of the same law-making body which considered the 14th Amendment.As admitted by the Supreme Court in the public school case (Brown v. Board of Education), the doctrine of separate but equal schools "apparently originated in Roberts v. City of Boston (1849), upholding school segregation against attack as being violative of a State constitutional guarantee of equality." This constitutional doctrine began in the North, not in the South, and it was followed not only in Massachusetts, but in Connecticut, New York, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania and other northern states until they, exercising their rights as states through the constitutional processes of local self-government, changed their school systems. (in other words, stop calling us out -- look at all those hypocrites from all those OTHER states who, as recently as 100 years ago, believed just as we do!)

In the case of Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 the Supreme Court expressly declared that under the 14th Amendment no person was denied any of his rights if the States provided separate but equal facilities. This decision has been followed in many other cases. It is notable that the Supreme Court, speaking through Chief Justice Taft, a former President of the United States, unanimously declared in 1927 in Lum v. Rice that the "separate but equal" principle is "within the discretion of the State in regulating its public schools and does not conflict with the 14th Amendment." (see, it's not bigotry -- "the courts have declared "those people" have PLENTY of rights already!")

This interpretation, restated time and again, became a part of the life of the people of many of the States and confirmed their habits, traditions, and way of life. It is founded on elemental humanity and commonsense, for parents should not be deprived by Government of the right to direct the lives and education of their own children. (see, it's not bigotry -- we really only care about usurping our culture.)

Though there has been no constitutional amendment or act of Congress changing this established legal principle almost a century old, the Supreme Court of the United States, with no legal basis for such action, undertook to exercise their naked judicial power and substituted their personal political and social ideas for the established law of the land. (and, again, not bigotry -- we're just worried about judicial activism!)

This unwarranted exercise of power by the Court, contrary to the Constitution, is creating chaos and confusion in the States principally affected. It is destroying the amicable relations between the white "normal" and Negro "homosexual" races that have been created through 90 years of patient effort by the good people of both races. It has planted hatred and suspicion where there has been heretofore friendship and understanding. (and, and clearly not bigotry -- it's about forced acceptance, not tolerance.)

Without regard to the consent of the governed, outside mediators are threatening immediate and revolutionary changes in our public schools systems. If done, this is certain to destroy the system of public education in some of the States. (and, I forgot to mention, it can't be bigotry...It's about the indoctrination of the "Negro" "homosexual" culture in our public schools for political gain.)

With the gravest concern for the explosive and dangerous condition created by this decision and inflamed by outside meddlers:We reaffirm our reliance on the Constitution as the fundamental law of the land.We decry the Supreme Court's encroachment on the rights reserved to the States and to the people, contrary to established law, and to the Constitution.

We commend the motives of those States which have declared the intention to resist forced integration by any lawful means.We appeal to the States and people who are not directly affected by these decisions to consider the constitutional principles involved against the time when they too, on issues vital to them may be the victims of judicial encroachment.

Even though we constitute a minority in the present Congress, we have full faith that a majority of the American people believe in the dual system of government which has enabled us to achieve our greatness and will in time demand that the reserved rights of the States and of the people be made secure against judicial usurpation.

We pledge ourselves to use all lawful means to bring about a reversal of this decision which is contrary to the Constitution and to prevent the use of force in its implementation.

In this trying period, as we all seek to right this wrong, we appeal to our people not to be provoked by the agitators and troublemakers invading our States and to scrupulously refrain from disorder and lawless acts. (again, no bigotry, just protecting ourselves from out-of-state troublemakers who only want "payback".)

MY MONEY... Just say no to corporate fat cat bailouts.

President Obama will announce today that he's cutting off GM & Chrysler's credit line.

The bottom line -- They promised in exchange for billions in bailout money in December, that they would come up with a viable plan for the future. They both failed. Their "plan" was to simply keep asking the government for money until the market improved. Obama rightly said, "NO!"

The administration will ask Congress to approve 30 days operating capital for Chrysler to give it time to cement a deal with another, more viable company (presumably Fiat). GM will get 60 days' cash flow to restructure. The outcome of failure will be bankruptcy. (Sort of like the system is supposed to work.)

Now, the real question is why didn't anyone in this administration (or the previous one), take that kind of hard line with AIG, Citigroup or Bank of America? I would say it's because white collar jobs are on the line rather than blue collar, working folks, but that would sound cynical. 

And Now We Know the REST of the Story...

Paul Harvey dead at 90

Paul Harvey Aurandt - aka Paul Harvey..."Hello Americans! This is Paul Harvey...Stand by -- FOR NEWS!

OK, he was a right winger who devolved into kooky conspiracy theories in his final months. So what? He was PAUL HARVEY! He was the voice of American radio when Limbaugh and Stern were in diapers (OK Howard still is, and Rush still likes boys who are).

He was a font of useless (and every so often useful) trivia. In that regard, he was my mentor -- my hero. He was a newsman in the mold of Murrow. Just the facts - just the way he wanted you to hear them. That "voice of God" only made him all the more compelling as a source of news and opinion. When he read a commercial, it was hard to tell that he was not reading the news, giving an over-arching credibility to Bankers Life and Casualty, or Gold Bond Medicated Powder, or Bose Wave Radios.

And what can be said of the "rest of the story" pieces? I learned there was another Three Stooges. And Jack Benny was invited to join the Marx Brothers. Did you know one of our Founding Fathers kept his wife chained in the basement because she was nuts? How would any of us know these things without Paul Harvey?

I spent 14 years on the road. Driving endless hours through mind-numbing vast expanses of all fifty parcels of this great plot of real estate called the USA. Even when I could find no other company on the rental car radio, Paul Harvey would be there.

 

The silencing of his typewriter-staccato baritone creates a vacuum in the American radio landscape. 

h/t to my buddy Migor, who is at work, in the newsroom of KWMU, the St. Louis NPR affiliate.

About the pilot of US AIRWAYS 1549 -- Captain Chelsey B. “Sully” Sullenberger, III

I am a safety professional. I have dedicated my life and career to this important field  -- I like to think. And then I read about someone who defines what that really means. 

I have been reading the details of "Sully's" bio/resume. From what I can surmise from my reading, he has spent his 40+ year career as a pilot, trainer and safety expert for the USAF, US Airways, NTSB, NASA, FAA and the pilot's union, dedicated to the critical importance of training, understanding advanced computer technology, systems approach and documentation to minimization of errors, and preparedness for emergencies. 

Long before he was dubbed a hero for saving 155 lives, and being the first pilot in aviation history to ditch a commercial airliner in the water with no fatalities, he was first a respected advocate for technology, systems, training, drilling and documentation in emergency preparedness and safety. 

In addition to his job as a pilot for US Airways, Captain Sullenberger is President & CEO of Safety Reliability Methods, Inc., a company that stresses the use of repeatability, training, technology and documentation to assure safety and mitigate risks. He is also an adjunct professor at the University of California - Berkeley, teaching the importance of training and documentation to catastrophic risk management. He was safety chairman of the Airline Pilot's Association, and he was formerly one of the flight safety training protocol officers for the US Air Force. He helped develop and test the simulators and protocols for computer instrument landings in bad weather. He helped develop the "Flight Management System" used to document inflight performance for study and continuous improvement. He spearheaded the use of computerized charting to minimize errors and improve customer service. He was recognized by the pilot's union as one of America's best pilot charting instructors. 

He's not just the hero of that day in the Hudson River. He's been a hero for many years -- a man who's efforts to improve safety systems, charting, documentation, training, technology and continuous improvement have been responsible for saving countless more lives, and playing a significant roll in making the tenuous physics of commercial aviation the safest transportation mode the world has ever known.

Doggity-Style BBQ sauce

After years, traveling this great country, setting foot in all 50 (or is it 57?) states, as a connoisseur of fine barbeque, I think I have tasted the best and worst that America has to offer. 

Of course, I have a natural bias for Kansas City-style, for it's diversity and complexity. But I must confess that I have a fondness for the vinegar-y Carolina-style and the dry-rubbed Memphis-style, too. In fact, maybe the best ribs I've ever eaten were at a little joint in Alabama called "Dreamland", where they didn't offer anything but ribs -- and their "sides" were all in bags hanging by the cash register.  One style I have never warmed up to is Texas-style. I've never eaten at a good BBQ place in Texas, despite myriad attempts to find one.  I know there must be some great Texas barbeque, because it gets plenty of accolades. But I've been across the state looking. Every "world's greatest" BBQ I've tried has been about mid-pack compared to the best of KC, Memphis or Charlotte. I mean no disrespect to my Texan friends, so if you know of a place I missed, please enlighten me.

I feel like I can do a pretty good job of smoking meat. I have gotten rave reviews for my smoked pulled pork, ribs, brisket, chicken, turkey and salmon. I have even been offered to be set up in business for my smoked meat. I have long used my own dry rub mix, and I feel I do that pretty well. 

But I have yet to attempt to blend all my favorite flavors into my own sauce. Until today. 

Today, I made the very first batch of "Doggity-Style" BBQ sauce. It's thin and vinegar-y like Carolina, tomato-based with molasses like KC, adorned with oregano and celery seed, like Memphis, and gets it's heat from horseradish, rather than peppers, like my favorite sauce - "Rub Me Tender". 

So we'll send it to a few select folks for feedback, and see how it is received. 

THE NEW DOGGITY BLOG

OK, here's the scoop. Starting today, the Dogg changes his focus. Why? Well -- because there are more important things to talk about than politics. 

Bush was an abject failure. Something I picked up on early, but now even the most hard-core conservatives are back-peddling at 100 mph to distance themselves from the Bush disaster. Fine. We all get it. Now we all wait and see if the current president is constitutional defender or pretender. Just as I did with Bush in 2001, I plan to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, and given the circumstances he inherited, at least a six-month length of rope before I start the criticism. Some things I see, I'm good with. Some bother me, but the same was true of Bush, and I cut him slack. A patriotic American owes every new president that. Micro-analyzing every move of his first month is counter-productive, and dumb. 

So the Doggity diatribes go into hiatus. For now. 

What then? 

It may be hard for some of you to believe, but I was once very indifferent about politics. I have myriad other interests. (I said that because I know how much Cath loves people using the word 'myriad' correctly.) Among them, music, food, wine, drink, gardening, sports, cars, architecture, nature, fishing, boating, and travel. I will be shifting to expressing my similar passion to writing on these things. 

There are plenty of moonbat and wingnut blogs out there. It's time for change. 

sports:Ahem

I might point out...

I wasn't that far off. 

economy:IRS data proves the GOP luvs the rich, to hell with everyone else

Does anyone need any more proof that the GOP Congress is screwed up beyond words, and their ideas are at the root of the economic crisis in this country? 

Bloomberg reports that, according to recently released IRS data, “the average tax rate paid by the richest 400 Americans fell by a third to 17.2 percent through the first six years of the Bush administration and their average income doubled to $263.3 million.” Much of their income came from capital gains resulting from the Bush tax cuts: 

The drop from 2001’s tax rate of 22.9 percent was due largely to ex-President George W. Bush’s push to cut tax rates on most capital gains to 15 percent in 2003. 

Capital gains made up 63 percent of the richest 400 Americans’ adjusted gross income in 2006, or a combined $66.1 billion, according to the data. In all, the 400 wealthiest Americans reported a combined $105.3 billion of adjusted gross income in 2006, the most recent year for which the IRS has data. 

All of this, while Bush oversaw the worst job creation since the Great Depression, and the first overall net LOSS in average wages for workers since the Great Depression. Keeping in mind that the largest expansion of the middle class in US history included the top 400 paying a nominal 91% tax rate. 

I'd just love to see what I never will -- the wingnuttia attempt to justify the Republicans in Congress claiming that more of this same is the way out, and that Obama is foolish listening to Nobel Laureate economists instead of the same wankers who caused this mess in the first place. That would be a really neat discussion that will never happen. Because no one on the right is well enough informed, and none have the courage.

economy:The Huge Bullet America Dodged by Not Electing John McCain

The web post linked here, does one of the better jobs I've seen at simplifying and undressing the economic meltdown of last fall. It's on what seems to be a "get rich quick" website called "Wealth Daily". The article is entitled "The Criminals of the Financial Crisis". It appears to be the sequel to this similar post. And while it's mostly a sales pitch for their investing club, it should be mandatory reading for everyone who still has their head so far up their rightwing arse that they still believe Fannie and Freddie and the Democrats were primarily responsible. Did they play a part? Sure -- but remember the Pareto!

What it also tells us is what a huge bullet the US and the world economy dodged by not electing John McCain.

Two of John McCain's primary financial advisers, and the co-authors of his economic policy were John Thain and Phil Gramm. Gramm's myriad crimes are well documented. He was the twisted mind behind legalizing Credit Default Swaps and the notorious "Enron Loophole", from which Gramm's wife (a former Enron board member) made a personal killing. He also led Swiss bank, UBS deep into the mortgage crisis -- again, engorging his personal bank account in the process.

Thain and Gramm were the two main rivals to be McCain's Treasury Secretary, and both would have remained very close economic advisers.

And their actions would have been vociferously supported our wingnut friends, while the "lib dims" would have been blamed for their catastrophic failures. Because their talk-radio and Faux Noise spoonfeeders would have told them so.

One more reason to be so thankful that Barack Hussein Obama is the 44th President of the United States.