Adding insult to injury -- literally

[Lindsey]

PITTSBURGH (KDKA) ― The U.S. Military is demanding that thousands of wounded service personnel give back signing bonuses because they are unable to serve out their commitments.

To get people to sign up, the military gives enlistment bonuses up to $30,000 in some cases.

Now men and women who have lost arms, legs, eyesight, hearing and can no longer serve are being ordered to pay some of that money back.

http://kdka.com/kdkainvestigators/military.signing.bonuses.2.571660.html

Contrast that with this:

The Army has decided to reimburse a Halliburton subsidiary for nearly all of its disputed costs on a $2.41 billion no-bid contract to deliver fuel and repair oil equipment in Iraq, even though the Pentagon's own auditors had identified more than $250 million in charges as potentially excessive or unjustified.

New York Times, 27 Feb 2006 (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/27/international/middleeast/27contract.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)

You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- you bet that Tommy sees!

--Lindsey

[Mike]

<sigh>

This is getting to be less shocking. No less despicable, just less shocking.

[Lindsey]

This is getting to be less shocking. No less despicable, just less shocking.
I know what you mean. It would be shocking if they managed to do the right thing by the troops.

What really drives me crazy, though, is that they do this kind of thing and they still manage to make people (including most of the media) believe that they are the ones who "support" the troops and the Democrats will sell them out.

--Lindsey

[ktinkel]

I believe there was a report Tuesday evening that it was all a bureaucratic mistake and that of course the soldiers would get their promised bonuses — even those who had to come home before fulfilling their full stint because of injury. Can you imagine? Giving a bonus to those slackers?

People seem to have become numb. Most hear about these awful practices, just shake their heads, and move on.

[Lindsey]

I believe there was a report Tuesday evening that it was all a bureaucratic mistake
Yeah, I heard something along that line, too. Sure it was. Yeah. I wonder if anyone at the Pentagon would suddenly have "realized" this error if it hadn't become a hot topic in the news? Somehow I doubt it. It's too much in line with things like writing orders one day short of the period at which educational benefits kick in, or writing two back-to-back 15-day orders instead of one 30-day one for the same sort of reason. Or declaring soldiers suffering from PTSD actually entered the service with a personality disorder to avoid having to provide mental health services after discharge.

People seem to have become numb. Most hear about these awful practices, just shake their heads, and move on.
You're right -- and that is exactly what the administration is counting on to let them get away with it all.

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

Yeah, I heard something along that line, too. Sure it was. Yeah. I wonder if anyone at the Pentagon would suddenly have "realized" this error if it hadn't become a hot topic in the news? Somehow I doubt it. It's too much in line with things like writing orders one day short of the period at which educational benefits kick in, or writing two back-to-back 15-day orders instead of one 30-day one for the same sort of reason. Or declaring soldiers suffering from PTSD actually entered the service with a personality disorder to avoid having to provide mental health services after discharge.


You're right -- and that is exactly what the administration is counting on to let them get away with it all.

--Lindsey



Lindsey,

Lots of this kind of thing going on with the Bush Administration. For instance, in the VA health care system, they try to limit you to the number of "consults" that you can receive in any given fiscal year. If you need followup for anything, you try to find a way to get it put down on paper as part of a preceeding exam, not a new one as your primary care physician is limited in what he or she can recommend.

[Lindsey]

For instance, in the VA health care system, they try to limit you to the number of "consults" that you can receive in any given fiscal year.
Well, in defense of the VA system, that's pretty much in line with what most private HMOs do. Not that I like the insurance company telling the doctor what is and is not allowable, but the VA is not out of step with common practice in this.

--Lindsey

[Mike]

...and they still manage to make people (including most of the media) believe that they are the ones who "support" the troops and the Democrats will sell them out.
Indeed. Every time there's any discussion about withdrawing the troops, the first retort is, "it's a slap in the face to our soldiers."

[ndebord]

Well, in defense of the VA system, that's pretty much in line with what most private HMOs do. Not that I like the insurance company telling the doctor what is and is not allowable, but the VA is not out of step with common practice in this.

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

Not exactly the same thing. What they do is examine you and if that specialist is the wrong specialist and you need another examination you can't get that second specialist because that is a "new" consult and they won't schedule it because you have used up your number of consults (a number which is shrouded in mystery). So you need to schedule a "followup" with the first doctor who then brings in the "second" doctor during that examination. This is a kludge employed by VA employees to get around the imposed limitations. Does it make sense? Nope. I'm not surprised by anything the VA does as I was running veteran programs at CCNY in the mid to late 70s and could not get the VA to help with a wide range of problems Vets were undergoing.

[ktinkel]

… and that is exactly what the administration is counting on to let them get away with it all.And the press rarely covers it, or rarely very loudly.

[Lindsey]

Indeed. Every time there's any discussion about withdrawing the troops, the first retort is, "it's a slap in the face to our soldiers."
And Bush loves the troops so much that he is now trying to set things up so that they will be in Iraq for something like forever.

His "War Czar" is saying this is an agreement with the Malaki government, not a treaty, and doesn't require any ratification from the Senate. 60-70% of the American people want out of Iraq, but The Decider has decided that they not only should be ignored, but that they should have no say in the matter at all. (I guess democracy is just another one of those quaint ideas ...)

The great irony in this is that under the Iraqi constitution that we helped them to write, 2/3 of their legislature does have to ratify the agreement, and the last time they voted on the question of the American presence in Iraq, more than half of them wanted us OUT.

It will be interesting to see what happens if they fail to ratify Malaki's agreement.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

Not exactly the same thing. What they do is examine you and if that specialist is the wrong specialist and you need another examination you can't get that second specialist because that is a "new" consult and they won't schedule it because you have used up your number of consults (a number which is shrouded in mystery).
This isn't a criticism I have heard voiced. Maybe it's only something you'd be aware of if you had been deep into the system, but do you know that this is still the case, or is there a possibility they might have changed the rules? In any event, you're right, that's a real problem.

So you need to schedule a "followup" with the first doctor who then brings in the "second" doctor during that examination. This is a kludge employed by VA employees to get around the imposed limitations. Does it make sense? Nope.
Overall, no, you're right, but the VA employees who figured out a way around over-restrictive rules in order to get vets the medical attention they needed are to be commended, I think.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

And the press rarely covers it, or rarely very loudly.
That, unfortunately, is very true.

<sigh>

I just heard on the "Countdown" that Karl Rove is now claiming that the Bush administration never wanted the AUMF resolution to come up for a vote in 2002 -- oh, no, it was the evil Democrats who insisted on rushing it, in spite of the pleadings of the pure, virtuous, civic-minded Bush administration, who wanted to delay it to put it outside the realm of politics.

To which I say,


BULLSHIT!


My memory is not that short, nor, I would wager, is the memory of most of America, or of the rest of the world. I remember the calls for Bush to handle that vote the same way his father did the one over Desert Storm, to postpone it until after the election, and I remember that he adamantly refused. There is no question but that they sought to politicize that vote. None whatsoever.

You should have heard me screaming at the television. But do I expect much noise over it in the MSM? Sadly, no.

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

This isn't a criticism I have heard voiced. Maybe it's only something you'd be aware of if you had been deep into the system, but do you know that this is still the case, or is there a possibility they might have changed the rules? In any event, you're right, that's a real problem.


Overall, no, you're right, but the VA employees who figured out a way around over-restrictive rules in order to get vets the medical attention they needed are to be commended, I think.

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

I've been deep within in the system off and on since the 70s. This is new with the Bush Administration and new in the sense of being implemented in the last year or so.

Costs have skyrocketed with the return of the Iraqi Vets.

[Lindsey]

This is new with the Bush Administration and new in the sense of being implemented in the last year or so.
Ah! I see. He's all for supporting the troops until somebody shows up with the bill.

Yeah, this war is going to be especially costly in terms of long-term medical care. We're managing to save the lives of larger percentages of desperately wounded men, so there are proportionally a lot more that are going to need extensive and long term care than in previous wars. And that cost doesn't figure into any official estimates.

--Lindsey

[Mike]

...the last time they voted on the question of the American presence in Iraq, more than half of them wanted us OUT.
Gee... I wonder why?

[Lindsey]

Gee... I wonder why?
Yeah, why ever would they not want an occupying foreign army supplemented by a bunch of mercenaries half-crazed on steroids running around their country? I just cannot imagine...

--Lindsey

[Mike]

...not want an occupying foreign army...
If you get a chance to catch any of the Halloween episodes of The Simpsons (each is entitled "Treehouse of Horror"), be sure to watch--you'd get a kick. Last year, one vignette was a parody of The War of the Worlds, except after the radio hoax, the next day, aliens really did attack Earth and occupy it. And they stayed.

Kodos: Colonel Kang, report.
Kang: What a day. You said we'd be greeted as liberators.
Kodos: Don't worry. We still have the people's hearts and minds. (Holds up a heart and brain)
Kang: I don't know. I'm starting to think "Operation: Enduring Occupation" was a bad idea.
Kodos: We had to invade! They were working on weapons of mass disintegration!
Kang: Sure, they were!

[ndebord]

Gee... I wonder why?

Originally Posted by Lindsey View Post
...the last time they voted on the question of the American presence in Iraq, more than half of them wanted us OUT.

Mike,

And that's just the Iraqi people. Our troops want out too.


http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Poll_72_percent_of_troops_want_0228.html

[Lindsey]

Last year, one vignette was a parody of The War of the Worlds, except after the radio hoax, the next day, aliens really did attack Earth and occupy it. And they stayed.
Oh, my! Hard to know whether to laugh or cry...

I've never set out to watch the Simpsons (I suspect it airs at a time that is not good for me), but I'll definitely have to pay more attention.

--Lindsey

[Mike]

I've never set out to watch the Simpsons (I suspect it airs at a time that is not good for me)
New episodes air at 8 pm on Fox. Older episodes are syndicated and air at other times. In the Bay Area, at 6:30 pm, 7 pm, and 10 pm on the CW station. In Sacramento, at 5 pm on that area's CW station.

Just be warned... it's NOT a kids' show!

[Lindsey]

New episodes air at 8 pm on Fox.
Eastern time? That would explain it -- 8 pm is "Countdown," if I'm home from work by then. I"ll have to check the local listings for the older episodes.

Just be warned... it's NOT a kids' show!
So I gathered -- that's why I said I'd have to pay more attention. ;-)

--Lindsey

[Mike]

Eastern time? That would explain it -- 8 pm is "Countdown," if I'm home from work by then.
D'oh! I left out one trivial piece of information.

New episodes are shown at 8 pm on Sunday evening! Reruns of the older episodes are through the week, at various times, depending when the local stations wish to air them.

[ktinkel]

That would explain it -- 8 pm is "Countdown,"Surely you will watch the Simpsons the night Olberman is a character! Not sure when, but soon.

[ktinkel]

I holler at the TV a lot.

Do you read Extra! (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4)? It critiques the media. Good, if depressing, reading.

[Mike]

...the night Olberman is a character!
That was last weekend. However, the next three weeks will be reruns, so there's a good chance that episode soon will be repeated.

[ktinkel]

That was last weekend. However, the next three weeks will be reruns, so there's a good chance that episode soon will be repeated.Oh, phooey. :( Was it fun?

I have to pay more attention to the TV schedules. I guess.

[Lindsey]

New episodes are shown at 8 pm on Sunday evening!
Oh, Sunday! Still no good for me for most of the year -- I have a choral rehearsal that runs Sundays from 7-9 pm, and it's usually close to 10:00 before I get home.

That rehearsal schedule knocks me out of seeing the regular broadcast of "Masterpiece Theater," too, but the public television group here re-broadcasts the week's episode on Wednesday at 9 on their Charlottesville station which the cable channel also carries. Of course, for the last year or so, WCVE has taken to launching pledge drives (and they seem to be done one of those every quarter) immediately after the end of a MT series, and while they used to leave the Charlottesville station alone, they now co-opt that schedule, too. So several times now, I have been following a new MT series on Wednesday nights only to have the plug pulled on me just before the last episode is aired. This does not incline me to be overly generous when they come asking for donations.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

Surely you will watch the Simpsons the night Olberman is a character! Not sure when, but soon.
Only if they air it after December 16th and before January 6th, and even then Christmas activities might get in the way. Otherwise, I'll have to catch it on rerun.

(I thought they had already aired that episode, though -- Olbermann showed the clip last week, and I didn't get the impression that it was being shown as a trailer.)

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

I holler at the TV a lot.

Do you read Extra! (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4)? It critiques the media. Good, if depressing, reading.
I'm glad I'm not alone! I do catch things on the FAIR site occasionally, but I don't know that I have ever read "Extra!" -- I'll have to add it to my frequently visited sites -- thanks for the tip!

--Lindsey

[Mike]

Still no good...
A simple four-letter word reply.

TiVo.

:-)

[Mike]

Oh, phooey. :( Was it fun?

It was!

I have to pay more attention to the TV schedules. I guess.
I use MyWay to get the schedules. Since I usually have a computer on somewhere in the house, it's easy to look up. Plus, I've configured "My Favorites," so I have a separate panel that shows me the next few airings of the shows I particularly want to see (and they're highlighted in the grid, too)!

http://my.myway.com

[Lindsey]

A simple four-letter word reply.

TiVo.

:-)
Well -- I would anticipate the same problem with TiVo that I had with the VCR: more stuff than I will ever have time to watch. Yeah, in theory that would avoid missing the final episode of a series, but in practice, I don't know, somehow it just never worked out that way.

--Lindsey

[Mike]

more stuff than I will ever have time to watch.
OTOH, the TiVo makes it easier to manage that stuff--kind of like the difference between using a cassette and a CD.

[ktinkel]

I use MyWay to get the schedules. Thanks. Never heard of that. Maybe I’ll give it a try.

Then, of course, I will have to remember to look at it!

[Mike]

Then, of course, I will have to remember to look at it!
Since we don't get a paper and don't get TV Guide, we need something to tell us about what to expect for our favorite shows. <g>

[ktinkel]

(I thought they had already aired that episode, though -- Olbermann showed the clip last week, and I didn't get the impression that it was being shown as a trailer.)Could be. He is becoming quite the promoter, with his other TV appearances, his new book and all. Still, we do tend to watch Olbermann if nothing else.

I enjoy the Simpsons when I happen on it, but I never make it a point to watch the show. It must be on some odd time when we tend to have something else to do.

[Lindsey]

OTOH, the TiVo makes it easier to manage that stuff--kind of like the difference between using a cassette and a CD.
Well, OK, I'll keep that in mind but to be perfectly honest -- I have yet to find the management tool that really worked for me. The only thing that comes close is the reminder flag facility in Outlook...

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

Could be. He is becoming quite the promoter, with his other TV appearances, his new book and all. Still, we do tend to watch Olbermann if nothing else.
Yeah, that's true; what makes it bearable is that he is obviously a bit sheepish about it -- he knows when not to take himself overly seriously.

I do get a little tired of the constant Fox-bashing, as much as I think Fox "News" deserves it. But it's not just Olbermann's show -- the Dan Abrams program that follows it does the same. Maybe Chris Matthews does, too, but I rarely see any of that show. I don't particularly like being spectator to a continuing MSNBC-Fox News feud, but better one against Fox than anyone else. ;)

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

Yeah, that's true; what makes it bearable is that he is obviously a bit sheepish about it -- he knows when not to take himself overly seriously.

I do get a little tired of the constant Fox-bashing, as much as I think Fox "News" deserves it. But it's not just Olbermann's show -- the Dan Abrams program that follows it does the same. Maybe Chris Matthews does, too, but I rarely see any of that show. I don't particularly like being spectator to a continuing MSNBC-Fox News feud, but better one against Fox than anyone else. ;)

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

Fox News is not a news outlet, it is a propaganda arm of Murdoch's radical right political agenda or philosophy. As such it should be attacked often and well.

[earler]

Tv guide is dying. The company that published it was controlled by murdoch (41%) and was just sold. The internet offers better displays. One I like and use when I visit my son is myway.com. It is customizable for the satellite or cable system you use.

[ndebord]

Tv guide is dying. The company that published it was controlled by murdoch (41%) and was just sold. The internet offers better displays. One I like and use when I visit my son is myway.com. It is customizable for the satellite or cable system you use.

Earle,

Thanks. I had forgotten about myway. Just added it into one of my KM hot keys.


Very nice.

[Lindsey]

Fox News is not a news outlet, it is a propaganda arm of Murdoch's radical right political agenda or philosophy. As such it should be attacked often and well.
I certainly don't disagree with that, I just wish it weren't such an obvious theme on MSNBC.

--Lindsey

[Dan in Saint Louis]

I just wish it weren't such an obvious theme on MSNBC.
Speaking of "obvious," is anyone else getting tired of Lou Dobbs on CNN? What a one-trick p(h)ony!

[ktinkel]

I do get a little tired of the constant Fox-bashing, as much as I think Fox "News" deserves it. But it's not just Olbermann's show -- the Dan Abrams program that follows it does the same. Maybe Chris Matthews does, too, but I rarely see any of that show. I don't particularly like being spectator to a continuing MSNBC-Fox News feud, but better one against Fox than anyone else. ;) Oh yeah! And I expect the rivalry to grow more intense as Wall Street Journal joins the Fox stable.

But I think Olbermann’s constant ranting against Bill O’Reilly is unbecoming. I know they compete for that time slot, but O’Reilly is a moron, not in Olbermann’s league.

[ktinkel]

I'm glad I'm not alone! I am all too often hollering stuff like “Ask the f**king question!” So often the serious information is an eyeblink away and then the TV head moves to another topic. It is so consistent I think it must be choreographed.

ABC Evening News is especially bad. The only one I like there (often though not always) is Martha Raditz. I only recently noticed that she always sits next to Helen Thomas at presidential press conferences.

And NPR is pretty bad too. The Morning Edition hosts are not knowledgeable or particularly assertive; I holler at them a lot over missed opportunities.

I do catch things on the FAIR site occasionally, but I don't know that I have ever read "Extra!" -- I'll have to add it to my frequently visited sites -- thanks for the tip!Not sure, but I think it is mainly a print publication. It would make more sense if it were on the web — faster, anyway.

[Lindsey]

Speaking of "obvious," is anyone else getting tired of Lou Dobbs on CNN? What a one-trick p(h)ony!
Ah, geez. I don't ever see Dobbs's show, but I heard him interviewed on "On the Media" (http://www.onthemedia.org/episodes/2006/11/17/segments/69226) some months ago (hmmmm, more than a year ago, it turns out), and very recently on "Democracy Now! (http://www.democracynow.org/2007/12/4/fact_checking_dobbs_cnn_anchor_lou)" (did somebody here point me to that recently, or was that some other story?), and those -- the latter especially -- confirmed my general impression that he's one of those obnoxious right wingers who argues by interruption, projection, and denial of the obvious.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

But I think Olbermann’s constant ranting against Bill O’Reilly is unbecoming. I know they compete for that time slot, but O’Reilly is a moron, not in Olbermann’s league.
Agreed. 100%.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

I am all too often hollering stuff like “Ask the f**king question!” So often the serious information is an eyeblink away and then the TV head moves to another topic. It is so consistent I think it must be choreographed.
With me, it's usually "Answer the effing question!" or "That is such a lie!" But I know what you mean about moving away to another topic just as it looks like they're about to make the discussion worthwhile. That's why I don't watch shows like those of Chris Matthews or Dan Abrams unless it's a topic that I'm really, really interested in, or I'm just desperate for something to watch. (OK, Mike, I agree, that's when the TiVo would come in handy...)

ABC Evening News is especially bad. The only one I like there (often though not always) is Martha Raditz. I only recently noticed that she always sits next to Helen Thomas at presidential press conferences.
Martha Raditz is an NPR alumna, you know. I hadn't realized that she sits next to Helen Thomas, but that's interesting. It's funny, once in a while TalkingPointsMemo.com will post part of the transcript of a press gaggle, and even though the questioner is not identified in the transcript, I can always tell when it is Helen Thomas, because she when she asks a question, she just does not let go until she gets an answer or is cut off. And sure enough, after several go-arounds, whoever is conducting the gaggle will eventually say something like, "No, Helen, I have already said I'm not going to discuss that." Yes! I knew it!

]And NPR is pretty bad too. The Morning Edition hosts are not knowledgeable or particularly assertive; I holler at them a lot over missed opportunities.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels that way. I used to be such a fan of the NPR news shows, but Morning Edition has not been the same since they cut Bob Edwards loose in favor of a more Today-Show-like pair of co-hosts to appeal to the younger set. I don't know if that worked for them, but it has definitely made me largely indifferent to it. Same with "All Things Considered" in the afternoon. I like Robert Siegel, but I miss Noah Adams and Susan Stamberg. The newer ones I just cannot warm up to. I never thought I'd be such an old fogey! I do greatly enjoy "Weekend Edition" -- both days, especially Saturdays. I'm a long-time fan of Scott Simon.

You're absolutely right about missed opportunities when they are doing an intereview. Juan Williams is especially bad about that. It's no wonder that Bush insisted on Williams as an interviewer as a condition of agreeing to an NPR interview. (I think Williams interviewed him the first and only time NPR has been able to interview the president; when Bush insisted on Williams for a subsequent interview, NPR turned him down, saying it was not their policy to allow the subject to select the interviewer. Good for them, for once!)

--Lindsey

[rlohmann]

[QUOTE=Lindsey;39649]Contrast that with this:

You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- you bet that Tommy sees!/[QUOTE]

Alas, we live in a government of laws; not a government of men--Sorry ... a government of persons.

The contract with Halliburton, incompetently structured though it may--or may not--have been (I haven't seen it), has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the treatment of war veterans.

As even Hillary Clinton must have learned in fifth-grade civics, the government in its sovereign capacity acts in ways different from those in its proprietary capacity. Its sovereign and its contractual acts have nothing whatsoever to do with one another.

Smoke and mirrors, anyone?

<sneering wearily>

[Mike]

the reminder flag facility in Outlook...
Which annoys me to no end.

<g>

Seriously, I think we need to get a TiVo, too. I like the idea that you can tell it to record all episodes of any show, and it will find them. That would come in handy to record the season of HGTV's Hidden Potential, which will be showing a episode that shot in the community where Brent and I bought our house. (The camera crew was outside this^H^H^H^Hyesterday morning, recording for an episode to be shown "sometime in the spring.")

[Mike]

myway.com
As I noted three messages prior to the one to which I'm replying.

[rlohmann]

You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- you bet that Tommy sees!

Interesting. I responded to this yesterday, but I just finished my comment on your praise of government regulation by suggesting that government employees can be dangerous, and that adequate controls are sometimes lacking.

Thank you for helping to prove my point.

A message of congratulation from the editors of the National Review will follow shortly.

<sneering blandly>

[ndebord]

Ralph,

Ah, I beg to differ with "Alas, we live in a government of laws; not a government of men--Sorry ... a government of persons."

That is the OLD reality, pre Shrub. Bush the Lesser rules by executive fiat aka signing papers, executive orders and sub rosa actions undertaken by his retainers. Bush II truly is the "Unitarian" President and he does not adhere to the rule of law, he IS the law (along with his Father in Heaven).

[ktinkel]

I used to be such a fan of the NPR news shows, but Morning Edition has not been the same since they cut Bob Edwards loose
[ . . . ]
I do greatly enjoy "Weekend Edition" -- both days, especially Saturdays. I'm a long-time fan of Scott Simon.Me, too. I worry about him, though — expect him to be replaced by a robot sometime soon.

He [Juan Williams] is pathetic! What a waste of air time. It's no wonder that Bush insisted on Williams as an interviewer as a condition of agreeing to an NPR interview. (I think Williams interviewed him the first and only time NPR has been able to interview the president; when Bush insisted on Williams for a subsequent interview, NPR turned him down, saying it was not their policy to allow the subject to select the interviewer. Good for them, for once!)Yes, for once!

[Lindsey]

Well, my goodness, first Fernando, and now Ralph -- it's old home week around here, I guess! Good to have you back again.

The contract with Halliburton, incompetently structured though it may--or may not--have been (I haven't seen it), has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the treatment of war veterans.
If you're saying that different rules apply to Halliburton than apply to the rank and file, that's exactly my point.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

Which annoys me to no end.
Well, I certainly won't disagree with that! It annoys me, too, especially the way the snooze time for everything defaults back to 5 minutes whenever you re-start Outlook. Still, it is one of the few tickler types of things that comes anywhere close to working for me.

I like the idea that you can tell it to record all episodes of any show, and it will find them.
Well, I will have to admit, that is a very desirable feature!

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

Interesting. I responded to this yesterday, but I just finished my comment on your praise of government regulation by suggesting that government employees can be dangerous, and that adequate controls are sometimes lacking.
And the solution to that is to have no controls whatsoever? Nope, I don't buy that. Airline pilots can be dangerous, and adequate controls are sometimes lacking. But when the system fails, what we do is to try to learn why and figure out how to make it work better, not give up on it altogether.

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

That is the OLD reality, pre Shrub.
Good point. The "Unitary executive" theory of government is a very big step toward a government of men. (One man in particular.)

--Lindsey

[Lindsey]

Me, too. I worry about him, though — expect him to be replaced by a robot sometime soon.
Well, if you remember, he almost jumped ship -- he was on the weekend Today Show for a while, but he must have decided that the extra money, considerable though I imagine it must have been, was just not worth having to lobotomize himself. I was overjoyed when he came back, even if it was to report from Bosnia, where I was terrified that something would happen to him.

--Lindsey

[ndebord]

Good point. The "Unitary executive" theory of government is a very big step toward a government of men. (One man in particular.)

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

Perhaps one man and his doppelganger (your choice as to which one is Bush and which one is Cheney).

;-)

[Judy G. Russell]

And the solution to that is to have no controls whatsoever? Nope, I don't buy that.But that's what we seem to have done in so many ways. Remember thalidomide? Remember that it was our FDA that prevented the drug from being used in the US the way it was in the UK? I shudder to think about that drug today...

[Lindsey]

But that's what we seem to have done in so many ways. Remember thalidomide? Remember that it was our FDA that prevented the drug from being used in the US the way it was in the UK? I shudder to think about that drug today...
Yeah, I was thinking about the thalidomide case just the other night.

In every agency of government, regulations that consumer, labor, environmental, and civil righrs activists fought for decades to implement are being systematically dismantled in the blink of an eye. I do not understand how it is that it can take so long to get them implemented and it is such short work to cut them out. Why is it the other side doesn't have to fight just as hard to get the rules changed?

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

Why is it the other side doesn't have to fight just as hard to get the rules changed?Because it's always harder to get people to do the Right Thing, I guess.

[Lindsey]

Because it's always harder to get people to do the Right Thing, I guess.
No, it's something more than that. The rules don't seem to apply to them the same way they apply to would-be reformers. It took years of lobbying and legislation and rulemaking and public hearings to get rules about water and air pollution in place at the EPA. That was the way the law worked. But somehow, after Bush came to office, all he had to do to dismantle them was to wave his hand.

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

But somehow, after Bush came to office, all he had to do to dismantle them was to wave his hand.When the rulemakers (or in this case, the rule dismantlers) are people he put into the rulemaking position, then yes, all he had to do was wave his hand.

[Lindsey]

When the rulemakers (or in this case, the rule dismantlers) are people he put into the rulemaking position, then yes, all he had to do was wave his hand.
But why don't those rulemakers have to go through the same deliberate process that, say, Clinton's rulemakers did?

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

But why don't those rulemakers have to go through the same deliberate process that, say, Clinton's rulemakers did?They do. They have to announce the rule change, vote on it, etc. But when you stack the agency with your henchmen, it all goes very fast. (Clinton, by contrast, and even many of his Republican predecessors, never stacked the agencies with his own people. He and many of the earlier GOP presidents respected the concept of checks and balances and usually appointed some people from the opposite party who actually believed what the opposite party believed...)

[Jeff]

They do. They have to announce the rule change, vote on it, etc. But when you stack the agency with your henchmen, it all goes very fast. (Clinton, by contrast, and even many of his Republican predecessors, never stacked the agencies with his own people. He and many of the earlier GOP presidents respected the concept of checks and balances and usually appointed some people from the opposite party who actually believed what the opposite party believed...)

I respectfully commend a few minutes of your attention to this. It has some to say about Texas Shru^h^h Sagebrush's appointments too.

http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.Issue?issue_id=360

High Country News December 10, 2007
Feature Story

Rebels with a Lost Cause
The fiercely conservative lawyers of the Sagebrush Rebellion continue to fight against environmental regulations, but despite all their sound and fury, very little has changed on the public lands.

[Judy G. Russell]

I respectfully commend a few minutes of your attention to this. Many of the court cases described are the types described in this excerpt:
In the other case, the New Mexico Supreme Court said this year that the ranchers are "attempting to wage a battle lost at the turn of the (19th) century ..."

[Lindsey]

(Clinton, by contrast, and even many of his Republican predecessors, never stacked the agencies with his own people. He and many of the earlier GOP presidents respected the concept of checks and balances and usually appointed some people from the opposite party who actually believed what the opposite party believed...)
Ah, yes -- Bill Clinton, the president the Republicans love to demonize.

(It's no accident that Alan Greenspan refers to him as "my favorite Republican president.")

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

Ah, yes -- Bill Clinton, the president the Republicans love to demonize.The GOP is never going to forgive him for winning elections.

[Lindsey]

The GOP is never going to forgive him for winning elections.
I think what they primarily can't forgive him for is beating them at their own game!!

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

I think what they primarily can't forgive him for is beating them at their own game!!Whatever it is, it's a clear bet they'll never forgive him. Their predecessors ran against Roosevelt for 50 years. These guys will run against Clinton for at least that long.

[earler]

To be fair, most republicans did not share nor condone the opinions of westbrook pegler, the main voice that accused fdr of every ill that mankind has ever suffered.

[Lindsey]

Their predecessors ran against Roosevelt for 50 years. These guys will run against Clinton for at least that long.
Hmmmm, that must be what it is -- the anti-Roosevelt line had gotten stale and lost its effectiveness, so they needed someone new to demonize.

Oh, and speaking of demons: when I first heard this story (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2007/12/fire_at_white_house_compound.php), my first thought was, "Ooooh, fire and brimstone -- maybe Dick Cheney really is the anti-Christ."

(TPM cheekily wondered if maybe the cause was overheating shredders or Addington burning files.)

--Lindsey

[Judy G. Russell]

Oh, and speaking of demons: when I first heard this story (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2007/12/fire_at_white_house_compound.php), my first thought was, "Ooooh, fire and brimstone -- maybe Dick Cheney really is the anti-Christ."ROFL!!!!!!!

[ndebord]

Hmmmm, that must be what it is -- the anti-Roosevelt line had gotten stale and lost its effectiveness, so they needed someone new to demonize.

Oh, and speaking of demons: when I first heard this story (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2007/12/fire_at_white_house_compound.php), my first thought was, "Ooooh, fire and brimstone -- maybe Dick Cheney really is the anti-Christ."

(TPM cheekily wondered if maybe the cause was overheating shredders or Addington burning files.)

--Lindsey

The legacy of the Robber Barons... The 30s taught them nothing.

[MollyM/CA]

Yes, and remember that the FDA head who blew the whistle on thalidomide and took it off the market immediately got fired for it?

Head? A high official with that power, anyway: a lady who, having forgotten she worked for the government, did her job and plowed through the trials data--

Interesting article in the New Yorker about how googling has changed the way people shop (most still buy in brick & mortar stores, but research the more expensive stuff like HD TVs and video cameras extensively, and are therefore less vulnerable to the old sales strategies). I believe that the same thing is happening with drugs, and search-savvy patients are going to be less and less likely to naively swallow whatever the drug rep has sold their doctor on.

We've of course had opportunity: those maligned drug ads in magazines have the data beyond the hype on the back of the page, but I wonder who besides me reads it. It's more than I've ever had a doctor tell me, except for the Davis Coumadin clinic staff, a fabulous bunch.

m

[Lindsey]

Yes, and remember that the FDA head who blew the whistle on thalidomide and took it off the market immediately got fired for it?
I had never heard that (I'm not quite old enough to have remembered it), but sadly, it doesn't surprise me. "Shoot the messenger" is the general rule in government bureaucracies. :(

--Lindsey

[earler]

In fact it was an fda researcher who refused to approve thalidomide before seeing further information of its safety. The drug company kept resubmitting its request for approval, to no avail. Happily, news of the infants born without limbs due to the drug in west germany, where the drug was developed, and in the u.k. reached the fda, so thalidomide was never approved. The researcher wasn't fired by praised by senator estes kefauver, a leading politician in those days. Laws strengthening the power of the fda were subsequently passed.