Lobotero’s Info Ink

Susan Estrich wrote an interesting article on patriotism:

My monthly feature of scoring how our dynamite US Congress is doing continues. They spent more time in hearings than on anything of substance, but I found a few issues that they weighed in on.

So far in 2008, here is how I see the Congress.

Jan–1 step backwards
Feb–No step–a stand still
Mar–2 steps backwards

Apr–1 step forward

May–3 steps forward

Some far after a slow start in the first of the year, the Congress seems to be moving in the right direction, but will it last?

Here is how I graded the month of June 2008.

1–Paper on the misleading on Iraq–Backward

2–Failure of Global Warming init.–Backward

3–Failure of windfall profit tax–backward

4–Bill to give more visas for fashion models–backward

5–Bill for unemployment extension–Forward

6–Pass of war funds–no step–only because there were provisions in there for the benefits of the vets.

7–Pass the FISA Bill–Backward

The score for the month for our Congress is a total of 4 steps backwards.

May was a good month for the Congress, but they did what they do best–neutralized any good by going in reverse.

Please remind me, why we voted these guys into office in 2006.

This was a article on the latest decision by the Supreme Court on the 2nd amendment, written on straightrecord.com

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia rests much of the 5-4 majority opinion of the court in D.C. v Heller on the alleged right to have the right to one’s defense of one’s self defense. Supposedly, if one has a gun, one can protect oneself against attackers, intruders and all sorts of evil-doers.

We were struck by two factors–how borderline illiterate so many of the gun-nut bloggers are (not just on this issue, but others as well) and how many expressed macho boasts, such as “you’ll have to pry my gun from my dead, cold hands,” aping the John Wayne-type post of the late National Rifle Association figurehead, Charlton Heston.
If anyone were ever in favor of gun control, knowing such people are out there with guns in their hands is justification enough.
But since our mantra is to be informed, we checked out to the best we could what is known about the success of gun possession in fending off various criminals.
The evidence is sparse, and what there is of that is old, but it puts the lie to the claim that personal possession of a gun is an effective defense.

But since our mantra is to be informed, we checked out to the best we could what is known about the success of gun possession in fending off various criminals.
The evidence is sparse, and what there is of that is old, but it puts the lie to the claim that personal possession of a gun is an effective defense.
Although one would presume that a person who uses a gun successfully to repel an intruder or an attacker would then report the incident to the police, if for no other reason than to seek to put the perpetrator in jail.
A cursory search turned up no research, not even U.S. Justice Department tracts based on voluminous federal, state and local crime reports, that compares the claims of self-defense with police reports of such claims.

Another chant of gun nuts is that if guns are taken away from them, only criminals will have guns. Federal statistics show that 340,000 crimes each year involve the theft of firearms, two-thirds of them during household burglaries. It appears it is legitimate gun owners who are supplying the criminals with guns.

Every year there is an election the Parties come up with a way to fight the deficit and one of those techniques is an Industrial policy for long term growth. Can you guess what it is in this election cycle? Sure you can, just think about it. Want another clue? It is the policy that the government will use as a direct role in the influencing the development of a specific industry that they see as needed for long term growth.

Time is up—Green Industries. Each candidate has had some form of grand plan to stimulate the economy and provide long term growth package built around green industries. Regardless of which of the two parties we are talking about the techniques employed will be the same. These are tax incentives, direct assistance, research support or other forms of subsidies. Any of this sound familiar?

Obama has promised to throw his weight behind green technology to stimulate the economy and bring back those jobs that have left the country for overseas. McCain has also thumped his chest with promises of green jobs and technology. Both candidates are linking the institution of green jobs with other forms of long term growth.

Both of the major candidates are putting all their apples in the green technology cart. Personally, on one hand I think it is about time that the government got involved with the seriousness it deserves on the protection of the environment and if jobs come along with it, so much the better. On the other hand, I see this falling by the way side once the election is over and we have our new president. Makes me think of the idea Clinton had back in 1993, when the government entering into a joint effort with the major American automakers, to develop a low energy car…..that attempt was pretty much a bust and wasted time and money.

Another problem that I foresee is the industry itself, the government does not have a crystal ball on which sector of green technology will be the most successful. There is another problem, industries chase profit and if there is no profit then the program will shut down. Then it brings the problem of what ifs. This push for green technology can also waste much needed resources that could be spent on the crumbling infrastructure.

Green is good….but at what cost?

The potential landmark thaw - the first time in human history the pole would be ice-free - is a stark sign of global warming, according to an article Friday on the web site of the The Independent, a London newspaper.

There is no land at the North Pole, but as long as anyone has looked, it has remained a giant block of ice year-round. Scientists have been watching Arctic sea ice melt more and more each year. But each summer in recent years, the amount of ice has gotten thinner and thinner. Each winter’s freeze, therefore, results in a thinner pack that, this summer, could melt altogether.

Several studies in recent years have predicted that the North Pole could be ice-free within a few decades. Alarm has ratcheted up every summer as the ice gets thinner and thinner. In a study released June 10, scientist said the rapid meltoff in the Arctic could threaten permafrost in continental soil elsewhere above the Arctic circle in a warm version of the snowball effect.

Last summer saw a record melt of Arctic sea ice, which shrank to more than 30 percent below its average. Around the peak of the melt, in September, air temperatures over land in the western Arctic from August to October were more than 4 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) above the 1978-2006 average.

That is right, just keep giving lip service to the problem and then your decision will be made for you. Politicians are such lousy, stinking cowards! That is right! I SAID IT! I MEANT IT!

The federal government is subjecting veterans to long delays in obtaining mental health care and medical benefits, but the power to change the system rests with officials and Congress, not the courts, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled Wednesday in dismissing a lawsuit by veterans’ advocates.

U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti said veterans’ groups had failed to show a “systemwide crisis” in mental health care that would justify the courts intervening in the workings of the Department of Veterans Affairs. And he said courts lack authority to order the sweeping changes the plaintiffs seek, such as forcing the VA to make quick decisions on whether veterans are eligible for care and ordering the agency to promptly improve suicide prevention programs and mental health care.

You may fly your flag and you may thump your chest proudly, but until we give the veterans the attention they deserve–NO one is patriotic.  This country sent these people into harms way and then turn our backs on them–IT IS PATHETIC AND SICKENING!

No I am not talking about the gun one, that has everyone jerking off in the corner and also I am not talking about the child rape death penalty thingy.  I am talking about the one that was basically swept under the closest rug.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday slashed the $2.5 billion punitive damages award in the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster to $500 million.

The court ruled that victims of the worst oil spill in U.S. history may collect punitive damages from Exxon Mobil Corp., but not as much as a federal appeals court determined.

Justice David Souter wrote for the court that punitive damages may not exceed what the company already paid to compensate victims for economic losses, about $500 million compensation.

The Supreme Court divided on its decision, 5-3, with Justice Samuel Alito taking no part in the case because he owns Exxon stock.

Exxon has fought vigorously to reduce or erase the punitive damages verdict by a jury in Alaska four years ago for the accident that dumped 11 million gallons of oil into Prince William Sound. The environmental disaster led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of seabirds and marine animals.

Nearly 33,000 Alaskans are in line to share in the award, about $15,000 a person. They would have collected $75,000 each under the $2.5 billion judgment.

The commercial fishermen, Native Alaskans, landowners, businesses and local governments involved in the lawsuit have each received about $15,000 so far “for having their lives and livelihood destroyed and haven’t received a dime of emotional-distress damages,” their Supreme Court lawyer, Jeffrey Fisher, said when the court heard arguments in February.

Yes, would not want the company that destroyed an eco-systems and has made more money than God can imagine to be held responsible for their actions.  For all they are is a corporation and we know that they are never responsible for their actions.  (BTW, sarcasm is intended).

Presidential candidate Barak Obama recently met with the boss of GM and they talked about ways to save the auto industry from total collapse.  Here are the ways to save the industry according to a report.

• Provide more support for basic research into new technologies, along with tax credits or other incentives for consumers to buy them once they are available.

• Assist manufacturers in converting factories.

Building new technologies “takes a lot of capital,” Wagoner said. “One of the biggest issues the U.S. industry faces is we have relatively weak balance sheets due to a lot of things … so support in improving the manufacturing base is important.”

Let me see if I have this about right–the government will basically be bailing the industry out for their bad decisions in the pursuit of profit?  Sorry, but they should be held responsible for their bad decisions, as I am held responsible for mine.

I would say that help from the government should be there, but only after they have illustrated that they are truly concerned with the way the industry is going.  That means they come up with a plan and start down the road and then , only then shopuld the government be involved.

But unfortunately, that is not gonna happen, the industry will get massive amounts of cash shoved up their butts by Washington and will go back to making the decisions that have put them in the dire straights they are in now.

Millions of people in the US, and not merely those with the lowest incomes, are being hammered by a combination of job losses, rising prices for basic items such as food and gasoline, and the drop in the value of their homes.

Home prices continued to fall last month, according to the S&P/Case-Shiller home-price indexes, a widely followed measurement. In 20 US metropolitan areas home prices declined in April by the most on record, 15.3 percent from a year earlier, following a 14.3 percent decline in March. The drop in prices has erased gains made since 2004.

The figures for selected major metropolitan areas are staggering. Las Vegas and Miami saw annual price declines of 26.8 percent and 26.7 percent, respectively.

Meanwhile, now that the warmer weather is upon us, combined with the growing economic distress, private utility companies are cutting off electricity and natural gas at rates 15 percent higher than last year. There are restrictions on the ability of the utilities to halt service to homes during the winter months.

USA Today reported Tuesday that “utilities are disconnecting many more customers who fall behind on their bills, and even moderate-income households are getting zapped…Totals for some utilities have more than doubled.”

Utility disconnects are up 56 percent for Detroit Edison; more than one in five of its customers were behind in their electric bills in May.

All in all, it’s no wonder then, as the Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday, that “consumer confidence dropped like a stone in June, and expectations hit an all-time low, according to the latest survey from the Conference Board.” Lynn Franco of the Conference Board told the paper, “Perhaps the silver lining to this otherwise dismal report is that consumer confidence may be nearing a bottom.”

June’s confidence figure, based on a survey of 5,000 households, was the fifth lowest reading ever. Only 11.5 percent of those surveyed said business conditions were good.

One of the most telling social realities, and one with considerable implications, is detailed in the section somewhat blandly entitled, “Heightened Housing Challenges.” The Joint Center study notes that in 2006 nearly 40 million households in the US were at least “moderately cost burdened”—paying more than 30 percent of income on housing—and nearly 18 million “were severely cost burdened (paying more 50 percent)”. The number of severely burdened households “surged by almost four million” from 2001 to 2006, or some 20 to 25 percent.

“The weight of high housing costs falls especially heavily on households in the bottom income quartile. Fully 47 percent of low-income households were severely cost burdened in 2006, compared with 11 percent of lower middle-income households and just 4 percent of upper middle-income households. On average, households with children in the bottom quartile of spenders with severe housing cost burdens have just $257 a month left over for food, $29 for clothing, and $9 for healthcare. With food and energy costs climbing, these households will have less to spend on bare necessities.”

While low-income and minority households have been hard hit, “Affordability problems are edging up the income scale,” the study observes. “A rising number of middle-income homeowners also face cost pressures….For homeowners earning more than the median income, the likelihood of being housing cost burdened nearly doubled between 2001 and 2006.”

The conditions for millions of children are a national disgrace. More than one in six children in the US lives in households paying more than half their incomes for housing. The poorest quarter of American households “spent 32 percent less on food, 56 percent less on clothes, and 79 percent less on healthcare than families with low housing outlays.”

Americans are in dire straits–with the high cost of gas, housing and food–these are essentials not luxuries and there seems to be no relief in sight.  Will the candidates eventually get around to offering real solutions to these problems or will we continue to hear the stuff that does not make sense, it is said to gain votes not solve problems.

When will the American people learn?

Both the presumptive party candidates were busy telling the voters that they were all about change in Washington and how has that worked out so far?  Is it just me or does this campaign season look like any other campaign season?

Dan Balz of the Washington Post has made an excellent observation:

A campaign between Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain once offered enormous possibilities for something new. Instead, the two presumptive nominees have opened their campaigns for the White House with what looks and sounds like a repeat of the kind of politics both have promised to leave behind.

Don’t blame the media for this. The campaigns have deliberately adopted postures of hyperaggressiveness to set the early tone. The testosterone levels appear extremely high. No charge, however small or incidental, can go unanswered. No proposal, no matter how innocuous or provocative, can be discussed calmly or intelligently.

That led a McCain surrogate to respond to Obama’s comments on the rights of terrorist detainees, a topic on which reasonable people can differ, as “delusional.” It led to an Obama surrogate to describe as “stupid” the positions McCain has taken on the Iraq war, though it is clearly possible to argue that the “surge” strategy has helped to reduce violence and U.S. casualties.

Both candidates have contributed to this. Obama tarnished his reputation as a new-style politician by deciding not to take public funds for the fall campaign, despite a pledge to do so if his Republican opponent would do the same. He had promised to sit down with McCain to discuss the whole issue of money before making any decision.

McCain has hurt himself and his reputation as an independent thinker by reversing course on past positions, whether Bush tax cuts — which he did long ago — or opening up coastal areas to offshore oil drilling. His campaign, in the view of some of his own supporters, has allowed itself to show an angry and resentful face that they believe is contrary to McCain at his best.

On a host of issues, the differences between the candidates are profound and should provoke a vigorous debate. Both candidates once promised that such a debate would be civil and respectful. But right now the presidential campaign appears to be more a rerun of the kind of polarized battles of the recent past than something that heralds something new.

From the beginning I was skeptical of the change thing.  In my many years of observations into the political mindset, I have found very little change.