February 13, 2006 by lonbud
Mama Tried?
Vice President Dick Cheney shot a man in Texas over the weekend, giving fresh and all-too-real meaning to the term loose cannon, when he sprayed a quail hunting companion with bird shot in a hunting accident on Saturday afternoon.
Seventy-eight-year-old Texas attorney Harry Wittington was in stable condition Monday afternoon after suffering wounds to his face, neck, and chest from a shotgun fired by Mr. Cheney during a hunt on private property.
Mr. Whittington was the beneficiary of the Vice President’s own frail health, as the medical team that travels with Mr. Cheney responded immediately to treat Mr. Wittington until emergency crews could reach the scene. After being rushed to a hospital in Corpus Christi, the long-time Republican stalwart was flown by helicopter to a larger facility nearby, where he was admitted to the intensive care unit.
Aspects of this unfolding story strike tones of resonance with the Bush administration’s broader way of being.
To begin, White House officials said nothing about the incident until Sunday, and were only forthcoming at that time on the heels of a report in a local paper on Sunday morning, despite the President’s having been briefed in the matter on Saturday.
In an odd twist, the President didn’t learn whether Mr. Cheney had been the victim, or the shooter, or a bystander, until overnight after first being told of the mishap on Saturday evening.
Or so White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan tried to spin the story today.
Can one imagine what it must have been like for the President of the United States to go to sleep on Saturday night, knowing his Vice President had been involved in a hunting accident that day but wondering what role he’d played in the unfortunate event?
One might reasonably surmise this president found little to question or reason to worry himself on Saturday.
One wonders why, with eyewwitnesses, a gaggle of secret service agents, and medical personnel on hand — not to mention the wonders of 21st Century communication technology — the President couldn’t have been told the entire story from the outset, and if he had been, why the White House had to play footsie with the media throughout Sunday and most of Monday before officially acknowledging the course of events.
In perhaps the most fitting codicil to the story, the Vice President and his hunting party were brandishing firearms in violation of the law on Saturday, hunting without permits — for which they are apparently to be fined by Texas wildlife officials.
Hoping, no doubt, to head off a broader inquiry, Mr. Cheney sent in his $7 check for the hunting fee this afternoon.
Michael Herdegen - February 14, 2006 @ 1:11 am
Given that the victim wasn’t badly injured, this falls under the heading of “black humor”, and it further intensifies Cheney’s “Darth Vader” image.
Maybe Bush didn’t care if Cheney had been the shooter or the victim.
Meredith - February 14, 2006 @ 1:45 am
Round these parts,rural SW France, like in Texas I presume, on weekends a large portion of the male population wears camouflage. But they don’t forget to layer bright orange over their khaki. And like in, Texas, there is the occassional hunting accident. Non hunters snicker, ” Let’em kill eachother.” But there is always a shroud of mystery regarding the accidental nature of the shooting. They’re are so many age old rivalries and accounts to be balanced…that this little story makes me feel almost at home again.
I am also a triffle curious if their isn’t a little infraction, or regulation, or legal consideration that a prominent republican has not been in conflict with recently. Do they draw lots as to who gets to drive under the influence while loading a concealed, unregistered weapon, without a liscence this week just to put their lawers up to the challenge, or to refresh the invasive aura of snub that is so inherent to the image of the good ol’ boy GOP. or what?
Butler Crittenden - February 14, 2006 @ 2:44 am
The pResident was never elected by the people. Even impeachment is a bad idea, as it validates the idea that W is the pResident. By definition, the vpResident wasn’t elected either. Both should be removed from the government for jointly participating in the plot to steal the elections of 2000, 2002, and 2004. There is a small and weak movement underway to have the elections declared null and void, and all the actions that they have done be rescinded, so we start again with duly elected government officials. What these two fools do in their spare time is of no consequence. One plays video games and screams at everyone on his bad days. The other plays with guns and old pals, including SC justices, at least two of whom will have to be rescinded when the others are.
Kathleen - February 14, 2006 @ 7:50 am
On Meredith’s comments: The Republicans clearly want to ensure that attorneys are fully employed – but perhaps Cheney didn’t want to pay his bill.
Tam O’Tellico - February 14, 2006 @ 9:37 am
While this story may be best left as fodder for late-night talk-show hosts and other comedians, I can’t resist.
First off, it coulda been worse. Surely, there must have been one or two black Secret Service agents in the entourage — what if Cheney had shot one of them? Would they have shot back? We can always hope.
Instead, we now have Cheney the Great White-Hunter in every possible meaning of that phrase.
Msybe Cheney’s paranoia finally got the best of him, and he thought he was being attacked. At least Jimmy Carter only went after a rabbit.
Hey, wouldn’t it have been wonderful if Cheney’s love of weapons had evidenced itself in Viet Nam?
Isn’t a permitless hunt what he dragged us into in Iraq?
Are Cheney’s powers of observation so poor that he can’t see a man standing thirty yards in front of him in a bright orange vest?
Was Bush hoping Cheney had been shot? Was at least half of America?
OK — I know, this isn’t funny to the other half of America.
Tam O’Tellico - February 14, 2006 @ 3:25 pm
But wait, there’s more!
Overheard on the Net:
“This gives new meaning to the phrase “the gang that couldn’t shoot straight.”
The new NRA slogan courtesy of Cheney and Aaron Burr:
“Guns don’t kill people; Vice Presidents do.”
Then there’s these purported quotes, the first from Jim Brady and the second from his wife Sarah, who became gun control advocates after Jim was shot in the head during an assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan:
“Now I understand why Dick Cheney keeps asking me to go hunting with him. I had a friend once who accidentally shot pellets into his dog – and I thought he was an idiot.”
“I’ve thought Cheney was scary for a long time. Now I know I was right to be nervous.”
Finally, having had a little more time to ponder this, maybe this shooting wasn’t an accident after all. Maybe Cheney is like Ted Bundy who claimed that his addiction to pornography led him to become a mass-murderer. Maybe Cheney’s addiction to character assassination led him to shoot for the real thing.
Tam O’Tellico - February 14, 2006 @ 3:28 pm
All kidding aside, I am told Cheney violated the most fundamental rule of a bird hunt: Never aim your gun below the ten o’clock position.
Lore Cailor - February 14, 2006 @ 4:14 pm
It’s amazing what this administration has done to America and its people. And when do we say “Enough”!?
half-mooned - February 14, 2006 @ 7:50 pm
see guys, this was all a set-up to distract you from the whole libby thing.. don’t fall for it.
lonbud - February 14, 2006 @ 11:22 pm
Interestingly enough, this ties in quite well with Mr. Libby and Ms. Plame. It’s clear that Mr. Cheney believes himself above the law.
He lavished luxury private air travel and the excitement of playing with guns on Tony Scalia when the Supreme Court had before it a case in which Mr. Cheney and his political fortunes were very much the subject. According to the Veep, not a problem. What happens in a duck blind stays in the duck blind.
Someone publishes credible information disproving some of the administration’s major rationale for starting a war of choice against Iraq, this Vice President feels unbound by any law that might prohibit disclosure of the identity of a covert U.S. official. And we’ll have to wait for the particulars of testimony at Mr. Libby’s trial to be sure, but it would appear Mr. Cheney enjoys such a fond embrace of his own power as to have ordered such a disclosure.
Clear statutory prohibitions against spying on American citizens? Of no matter to this Vice President and this administration. We are in a state of perpetual war against an enemy that will not rest until our culture and our society are destroyed. And Dick Cheney will be dammned if he can’t exercise the perogative to do it himself first in an effort to defeat them.
And finally, hunting without a permit. I can hear him now, “Permits? We don’t need no stinking permits!”
Tam O: GREAT line about wishing his fascination with guns had surfaced in Vietnam.
Tam O’Tellico - February 15, 2006 @ 8:09 am
Cheney has given new meaning to the phrase “lame duck” and has landed himself in that nether world that will make him the butt of jokes for decades to come. Perhaps the Greeks would remind him that hubris leads to the final ignomy of humiliation. For my money, it couldn’t happen to an un-nicer guy.
Cheny and his cohorts haven’t done anything to lessen the damage, either. His behavior immediately after the event reminds me of Ted Kennedy and Chappaquidick — let’s hideout until we can concoct a good cover story. The cover story seems to be falling apart at the seams, however.
To excuse his horrendous faux pas (or pot-shot if you hate the French), Cheney’s people claimed the victim was 90 yards away. Now I’m not an NRA kind of guy, but even I know it is virtually impossible to inflict that kind of damage at that distance with a 20 guage shotgun and buckshot. If it was, bird-hunters would routinely be blowing birds into a useless cloud of feathers.
Unless there really is something more sinister going on here — and who would be surprised at that with Cheney — this is most likely a case of “buck fever”, a hunting accident brought on by a thoughtless hunter who was more interested in the kill than in using caution. Again, does this surprise anyone who has watched Cheney’s greedy behavior with Halliburton and his countless, thoughtless character assassinations?
Michael Herdegen - February 15, 2006 @ 9:41 am
Clear statutory prohibitions against spying on American citizens?
That’s the point, Congress may not have the authority to place statutory limitations on the Office of the President’s power to collect info on overseas communications, even if an American citizen was involved.
If that turns out to be the case, then those “clear prohibitions” will be entirely irrelevant.
lonbud - February 15, 2006 @ 3:24 pm
Oh, so you are a constitutional scholar now, are you, Michael?
To use one of your pet phrases, no serious person can question the Congress’ authority to place statutory limitations on the Office of the President, especially with respect to domestic spying. And don’t try to call it “overseas” communications when one leg of the conversation is taking place in the U.S.
This country was founded under and has prospered by a government composed of three branches, each with unique and clearly defined areas of power and responsibility. Congress’ responsibility is to legislate; the President’s responsibility is to execute policy within the boundaries defined by legislation.
And when it comes time for the Judiciary to determine the realtive balance of power on the question of spying on Americans, the only thing that will be entirely irrelevant will be George Bush’s claim to be fighting a war on terror.
Michael Herdegen - February 15, 2006 @ 5:48 pm
[D]on’t try to call it “overseas” communications when one leg of the conversation is taking place in the U.S.
Funny, in WW II the courts held that mail and wire traffic with one foreign leg was fair game for the Executive Branch.
Maybe you’ll get a different outcome this time.
Don’t hold your breath.
Michael Herdegen - February 15, 2006 @ 5:52 pm
Congress’ responsibility is to legislate; the President’s responsibility is to execute policy within the boundaries defined by legislation.
You’d do well to consult a Constitutional scholar, (other than myself, of course), to explain to you more fully what the powers and responsibilities of the Office of the President really are.
Hint: There’s a reason that Cheney never had to turn over the Energy Task Force notes.
lonbud - February 15, 2006 @ 8:24 pm
Your cryptic commentary works well as bravado, Michael, but, as an attorney myself, I feel I’m in fine company vis a vis the legality of BushCo’s un-warranted surveillance of American citizens and the applicability of FISA to same.
I’m not interested in making comparisons to WWII or to re-visiting previously adjudicated points of irrelevant law. In the present case, and under the narrow facts of the situation at hand, your boys are on the wrong side of the law.
Fortunately for you and those on your side of the freedom question, the ruling junta has a near-lock on 4 of the 5 neccessary votes at SCOTUS. Fortunately, for the nation as a whole, should the Supremes end up siding with w (i’ve decided to only ever use the lowercase to refer to him henceforth due to his diminutive stature as a leader and as a man), it only portends the onset of anarchy that may be necessary to re-boot our democracy.
Tam O’Tellico - February 15, 2006 @ 10:26 pm
Omigod! I didn’t know we had a lawyer present! As close as I got was taking the LSAT and acting as pseudo-psychiatrist to some of Orlando’s finest legal minds when I managed a Nautilus Fitness Center.
With such qualifications, I’m obviously no John Roberts. But in spite of that, I feel no compunction about offering a legal opinion that any fair-minded person should deem at least as sound and well-thought out as the half-assertions coughed-up by party hack Seedy Gonzales.
First of all, regardless of electronic communications George Washington may have intercepted (as seedy alleged), and mail or telegrams that may have been intercepted during WW II, those precedents are of marginal value in this case.
That’s because the law which governs these matters did not exist during those times. As I said before, the applicable law was the direct result of the criminal behavior of Richard Nixon, who wire-tapped political opponents — something this President may well have done. We can’t know that, because no one outside of the Executive branch knows who was tapped or for what reason.
That is the very situation which the FISA law sought to prevent, and the President’s flaunting of the law leaves him wide open to suspicions about why, suspicions which could easily be alleviated by following the law. By law, it is the right of the FISA courts to determine if such wiretaps are — well — warranted, if you’ll forgive the pun.
Now w is free to challenge the constitutionality of that law in the courts if he thinks it impinges on his imperial powers, but he is not free to ignore it. If he does, he is indeed guilty of criminality under any system of jurisprudence not based on the presumption that “the king can do no wrong”.
I’d say that even with a Supreme Court stacked mostly with appointees of Bush I and II, it’s better than even money that w will be handed his hat in this matter. The only probable votes he has are Scalia and Thomas, and I’m not too sure about Scalia. It would be a helluva way to find out in a hurry who the real Alito is.
But I seriously doubt w or speedy wants to run this risk in court. Can you imagine if the SC ruled 9-0 against the Imperial President? Maybe that would be enough to slow down this mudslide into dictatorship.
Michael Herdegen - February 15, 2006 @ 10:29 pm
As an attorney, you must be aware that precedent matters, which makes your desire to toss out earlier rulings simple naked self-interest.
Given that you oppose Bush, it must mean that you are aware that Bush has an excellent real-world case for the NSA programme, and that your assertion that the case against is cut-and-dried, is wishful thinking.
Tam O’Tellico - February 15, 2006 @ 10:31 pm
This just in:
The credibility of this source is yet to be established. The govt says he’s paranoid — geez, isn’t that how they used to get rid of political opponents in the USSR? But his assertions are chilling, and they’re not gonna help w unless Rove can get the smear machine in full gear.
Washington, UPI – A former NSA employee said Tuesday there is another ongoing top-secret surveillance program that might have violated millions of Americans’ Constitutional rights.
Russell D. Tice told the House Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations he has concerns about a “special access” electronic surveillance program that he characterized as far more wide-ranging than the warrantless wiretapping recently exposed by the New York Times but he is forbidden from discussing the program with Congress.
Tam O’Tellico - February 15, 2006 @ 10:34 pm
Michael, it would appear the vote in this court is already 2 to 1 in this matter. I don’t know, but we might have to allow special points to Lonbud ’cause he’s a real lawyer.
Michael Herdegen - February 15, 2006 @ 10:53 pm
lonbud is a lawyer, but there are many different kinds of lawyers, with different skills, and lonbud has shown in this thread and others last year that his interpretation of the Constitution leans heavily towards what he would LIKE to be true.
Having said that, yes, in this forum my position is a minority one, a loser, if you will.
lonbud - February 15, 2006 @ 11:19 pm
let’s just say this forum, to my mild chagrin, is a closed universe yet, and Michael’s positions needen’t be diminsihed for their minority status. i’m just pleased to have a discussion going at all, to be honest.
i don’t know that my interpretation of the constitution here has been at odds with legal precedent, though i admit to espousing a view of our laws and our history informed by a certain idealism.
as a matter of law, precedent applies to factual circumstances that can be replicated. the fact is, we are not faced with a situation anything like WWII. there is no need to deny the validity of previous rulings on surveillance to conclude that BushCo have stepped out of bounds on this possession.
here in america, when that happens, the whistle blows, the flag is thrown, the board is re-set, and play resumes.
the problem with w is, and has always been, that he’s never known rules apply to him.
Tam O’Tellico - February 16, 2006 @ 6:21 am
Well, I hope we all enjoy a little good-natured banter now and then. I also hope we all acknowledge the phrase of the formerly funny comedian Dennis Miller “– but I could be wrong.”
One of w’s big problems seems to be a genetic inability to say, let alone believe, any such thing. Mix this with his disregard for legal strictures and the alley-cat instincts and tactics of Rove and Cheney, and I believe the consequences could be worse than the disasters we’ve already witnessed — I believe we could see the reversal of seventy years of social progress and suffer irreparable damage to our way of life.
Yes, I could be wrong, but tactics like those found in Bush’s latest budget say I’m not. By now most people who bother to inform themselves understand that billions are being cut from education and medicare programs in an attempt to make permanent tax cuts for the wealthy.
What is less well-known is Bush’s stealth attack on Social Security that is buried in the budget. Did you wonder why Bush’s lead dog in his previous SOTU speech was not even mentioned in this one? Could it be that he is attempting to avoid the publicity that doomed his Social Security reform “mandate”?
That’s the opinion in an editorial by Allan Sloan in this week’s Newsweek.
“However you cut it, one of the biggest new budget iniatives is private Social Security accounts. The cost would total $712 billion through 2016 and would be covered by Social Security tax.”
Given previous experience with this administration and numbers, that $712 trillion would likely exceed the $2 trillion dollars others have predicted for the privatization of SS. Sloan continues:
“What do the numbers tell us? That Bush may be serious about his competitiveness issue — but he’s really serious about privatizing Social
Security. That’s not an applause line. But it sure is a bottom line.”
Of course, Sloan could be wrong. But don’t bet your Social Security check on it.
Tam O’Tellico - February 16, 2006 @ 6:36 am
Also in this week’s Newsweek:
“Israel is more crowded with ancient artifacts than any other country in the world. If we didn’t build on formers cemeteries, we would never build.” Osnat Goaz, a spokeswoman for the Israel Artifacts Authority, on building a Museum of Tolerance, dedicated to human rights and mutual respect, on the iste of a Muslim graveyard.
With that kind of sensitivity, maybe she can get a job drawing cartoons.
Tam O’Tellico - February 16, 2006 @ 10:24 pm
Michael, apparently there are other legal minds who aren’t buying your position, w and the veeps about the unlimited powers of the President.
Thursday 16 February 2006
Washington, AP – A federal judge dealt a setback to the Bush administration on its warrantless surveillance program, ordering the Justice Department on Thursday to release documents about the highly classified effort within 20 days or compile a list of what it is withholding.
It will be interesting indeed if the bully boys decide to take this question all the way to the Supremes. Maybe we need to have this argument decided. But God help us if w and vp carry the day with their dictatorial notion that “the President can do no wrong”.
Michael Herdegen - February 17, 2006 @ 12:11 am
Tam O’Tellico:
With that kind of sensitivity, maybe she can get a job drawing cartoons.
You are aware, of course, that every major city in America, excepting those in Alaska, is built on the ancient remains of Amerindians ?
Michael, apparently there are other legal minds who aren’t buying your position…
Of course not.
My point isn’t that I’m right and you’re wrong, it’s that there are two sides to this issue, and your side isn’t necessarily going to prove out, in the end.
You and lonbud have seemed to forget that.
…w and the veeps about the unlimited powers of the President.
But God help us if w and vp carry the day with their dictatorial notion that “the President can do no wrong”.
The Office of the President does not have unlimited powers, nor does it confer infallibility on the occupant (boy, does it ever not).
However, the President DOES have far more authority to deal with foreign affairs than with domestic.
Perhaps that’s at the root of our disagreement, perhaps you believe that if the President is found to have acted within his authority to order the NSA programme, then it’s a straight shot to 1984.
That is not the case.
Tam O’Tellico - February 17, 2006 @ 6:39 am
Am I aware that much of America is built on the graves of Amerinds? Should the names of so many of our rivers, cities and states give us all a clue? I think its safe to assume your question and mine are rhetorical.
I think you can also safely assume I’m aware, given my “liberal” bent and my Cherokee heritage. Ironically, I live in the mountains of East Tennessee in the very place the Cherokee gathered the clans together each summer. You can well imagine the historical and archeological significance of such a place.
When the govt decided to dam most of the rivers around here, one of the TVAs major difficulties was what to do with the mountains of bones and artifacts that would be destroyed in the process. Thank God humans have evolved to the point where at least a few people are concerned about destroying the past in our mad and mostly oblivious rush to the future.
My point with the cartoon crack is that this woman was apparently not that evolved — particularly given that she was involved with the building of a Museum of Tolerance, dedicated to human rights and mutual respect.
Tam O’Tellico - February 17, 2006 @ 7:09 am
Michael, you can also safely assume I know there are at least two sides to the issue of Presidential powers. I have previously expressed my own vacillation on this question, given that our continued existence as a species may well rest on the decisions made by the occupant of that office.
But that fact can also be used to argue for either unlimited or severely limited powers. In any case, those who favor unlimited powers should find a better advocate than Gonzales. His mumbling, stumbling performance before the Senate was a long, long way from convincing.
In addition to this philosophical and legal argument, there is also a practical one. The practical question is whether the present occupant of the White House has the ability to govern wisely even with limited powers, let alone be granted status above the law.
My bottom line? I might be more inclined to grant a President more power if he was less inclined to take it. In that, this President would be more like our first President. Were that so, W might be “first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen” instead of the opposite.
Michael Herdegen - February 17, 2006 @ 12:40 pm
Wow, everyone’s in a conciliatory mood today.
Regarding privatizing SS, remember that when we speak of it “costing” money, we’re really talking about shifting spending.
Monies used today to establish private accounts is money that we won’t have to shell out tomorrow for retirement benefits – we’re “pre-paying”.
lonbud - February 17, 2006 @ 2:14 pm
True to form, when w fails to gain public and/or congressional approval for his ideas, he has no problem with sneaking them in the back door, or just simply ignoring public and congressional disapproval entirely and asserting unitary executive privilege to do whatever he damn well pleases.
It’s clear he and his administration are about one thing only: making the federal government into a welfare program for corporations and the wealthiest citizens among us.
The message to average citizens is: you’re on your own, folks.
Tam O’Tellico - February 17, 2006 @ 3:00 pm
WMDeed
If anyone wants the real story about Yellowcake/Plame, here it is warts and all. This is long, but well-worth the reading. It is a cautionary tale filled with lessons about looking before you leap. All that’s missing is the secret discussions inside the WH. After reading this, there are only two possible conclusions about those discussions — either these men were easily-duped or they had another agenda.
Niger Uranium Rumors Wouldn’t Die
By Bob Drogin and Tom Hamburger
The Los Angeles Times
Friday 17 February 2006
Washington – In the spring of 2001, long before Sept. 11 and the American focus on Iraq, the CIA asked its Paris station about rumors that 200 tons of nuclear material had vanished from two French-owned mines in the West African nation of Niger.
“We heard stories this stuff had gone to Iraq, or to Syria, or Libya, or China or North Korea. We heard all kinds of stories,” said a now-retired CIA officer.
But the CIA soon concluded that a French-run consortium maintained strict control over stockpiles of uranium ore in Niger, a former French colony, and that none had been illegally diverted.
“Everything was accounted for,” the former spy said. “Case closed.”
Hardly.
Read the rest of the article here.
lonbud - February 18, 2006 @ 8:28 am
Information like that contained in the LA Times story on BushCo’s yellowcake lie will continue to find the light of day in years to come.
Eventually w and his junta-mates will be exposed for the paranoid, small-minded, criminal hacks they are. It may be too late to empower a complacent, drug-addled, and star-struck public to demand justice, but the true history will be written.
Whether George Bush is actually responsible for the downfall of a once-great nation or not, he will be forever remembered, like his immediate predecessor, as a liar.
Tam O’Tellico - February 18, 2006 @ 4:48 pm
And on the domestic front:
I’ve stated here many times my distrust of lies, damned lies and statistics, but anyone who wants to see the other side of the argument about Bush’s Billionaire Welfare Plan for economic recovery should go here:
http://www.mojones.com/commentary/columns/2006/03/tax_policy.html
Here’s a sample:
The Bush tax cuts have been a waste precisely because they were targeted at business owners and the wealthiest Americans, rather than the average consumer whose increased demand and consumption would have made it sensible for businesses to invest.
Business investment didn’t take off, and neither did job creation. Even now, after five years of huge tax cuts, one million more people are officially unemployed than when George Bush took office, and millions more have left the labor force.
When the third round of tax cuts passed in 2003, one of the Bush administration’s major selling points was the claim that the economy would create 5.5 million jobs from July 2003 through the end of 2004 – almost one and a half million more jobs than would be expected in a normal recovery. Instead, only 2.4 million jobs were created, 1.7 million less than the number we were told to expect with no tax cut.
Job growth remains abnormally slow. Last year’s 2 million new jobs represented a gain of only 1.5%. With normal growth, we would have created 4.6 million jobs last year.
Michael Herdegen - February 19, 2006 @ 1:05 am
I like Mother Jones, but in this case they’re just providing employment for the mathmatically challenged & research adverse – which is the best case scenario.
Another possible explanation is that the author is deliberately providing only half of the story, in an effort to create the impression that the situation is the opposite of what it actually is; lying, we might say.
[O]ne million more people are [now] officially unemployed than when George Bush took office, and millions more have left the labor force.
Also, seven million more people have joined the labor force during the past five years, and the percentage of the population that participates in the labor force hasn’t changed since the Clinton years, so we can see that the economy has provided at least six million new jobs.
“Millions” in the quoted passege is bolded because it’s not correct – whether simple ignorant overstatement or sinister untruth, I dunno.
Job growth remains abnormally slow. Last year’s 2 million new jobs represented a gain of only 1.5%. With normal growth, we would have created 4.6 million jobs last year.
There are only eight million unemployed Americans, including the “discouraged” workers who aren’t counted as officially unemployed, but who still would be willing to work, under certain circumstances.
Therefore, Mother Jones is arguing, because 2.6 million more people “ought” to be employed, that we really ought to have an unemployment rate of 3.2%.
When was the last time THAT happened ?!?
C’mon, this isn’t rocket science, just basic math. Their inability to understand what they’re writing about is embarrassing.
Michael Herdegen - February 19, 2006 @ 3:47 am
Report on Impact of Federal Benefits on Curbing Poverty
NYTimes
Only one out of twelve, many of them students.
My my, who could have predicted that.
lonbud - February 20, 2006 @ 2:46 am
It’s not unlike Whack-A-Mole the way this topic keeps popping up in all kinds of threads here. The fact is, in some respects, Michael is absolutely right, though not for the reasons he believes he is, and certainly not because any of the Labor Department or Census Bureau statistics he keeps citing bear any resemblance to reality.
The fact is, however, it’s not that bad for not nearly enough people to create any kind of impetus for real change.
Those who are truly bad-off, whether it’s 8.3% or some higher number that might be supported by other interpretations of the same statistics, the people at the very bottom of this society are largely invisible and won’t soon be the grassroots from which any revolution catches fire.
The great unwashed, however, the masses of god-fearing, drug-addled, celebrity-stricken, debt-laden, fast-food, gun, and porno junkies with whom Michael likes to paint me and Tam O’ as elitists, those folks representing the pent-up demand for FOX network broadcasting that Michael tabs to validate all of the Bush administration’s hubris and ineptitude, they — and all of us — have plenty enough compared to the vast majority of people on this planet.
Those of us who want change will have to settle for whatever we can manage to make in our own lives; anything larger would seem unlikely given the tenor of the times and the warp and waft of history.
Tam O’Tellico - February 20, 2006 @ 11:23 am
I would remind the contributors here that our own country came into being not as a revolt of the poverty-stricken — they’re generally too concerned with eating to care much about politics. Our revolt inspired and led by folks who were pretty well off — that may well be one reason it succeeded.
Nor were these folks really persecuted; they just got damned sick and tired of not having a say in the political decisions that affected their freedoms and their prosperity. Historians tell us at best they represented no more than a third of the colonial population.
Is there a lesson here? I suspect there is.
Sorry if this makes me sound like an elitist, but I don’t think our govt will be reformed by an uprising of the poor or even by the religion-opiated moral minority, who seem more and more bent on turning our democracy into a theocracy despite the teachings of Jesus and the lessons of the last two thousand years (if they win, get ready for govt by fiat of Ayatollah Robertsons).
No, the worm will turn as more and more intellectuals, especially those on the Old Right, come to see that Conservatism is being stood on its head. Pundits from Bill Buckley to Pat Buchanan to George Will are finally coming to the conclusion that those of us on the other end of the political spectrum have long held: The Emporer is not only naked, he’s punch-drunk and addled, a tool of ideologues whose agenda and methods no true Conservative, let alone a liberal, can embrace.
In church Sunday, I mentioned to a conservative friend that I had read and agreed with Will’s latest piece. I observed that if my friend’s politics couldn’t fit in the broad spectrum between George Will and me, than it was pretty certain they were nowhere near the middle.
Michael Herdegen - February 20, 2006 @ 6:52 pm
lonbud:
The fact is, in some respects, Michael is absolutely right, though not for the reasons he believes he is…
Why do you believe that I believe that I’m right ?
Is it because I rely on gov’t statistics, and you believe that the figures are manipulated ?
I agree that one cannot claim that the figures are precise, but that’s not the same as wildly inaccurate.
…and certainly not because any of the Labor Department or Census Bureau statistics he keeps citing bear any resemblance to reality.
I’m not the only one who uses those figures; Tam O’Tellico, for instance, quotes a Mother Jones article which is based on those same statistics, so he is using the same references that I do, just once removed.
Further, as I’ve asked before, if you don’t trust nonpolitical governmental bureaucracies to collect data, whom DO you trust ?
Advocacy groups, as I’m sure that you know, are notorious for spinning reality, and further they don’t do much independent research, relying for the most part on data gathered by the same gov’t agencies that you distrust.
Let us once again take the Mother Jones article that Tam points to – first, they used gov’t data, then secondly, they attempted to use that data to buttress a position that was CLEARLY unsupported by that data.
Therefore, if you were to rely on Mother Jones, instead of the Dept. of Labor, you’d be led much further astray then you would have been by just looking at the raw data, even if you don’t trust the source material.
The great unwashed, however, the masses of god-fearing, drug-addled, celebrity-stricken, debt-laden, fast-food, gun, and porno junkies…
While all of the rest is indisputably true, I don’t think that it’s fair to call the masses “drug addled”.
…with whom Michael likes to paint me and Tam O’ as elitists…
Elitists I can handle, even if I often disagree with their prescriptions; after all, I am of the elite myself, although a poor relative.
It’s elitists who pose as populists that offend me most, and that’s what Tam likes to do.
Having said that, I don’t necessarily think that Tam is “posing”; perhaps he simply doesn’t recognize that his philosophical positions and practical recommendations are in conflict.
…those folks representing the pent-up demand for FOX network broadcasting that Michael tabs to validate all of the Bush administration’s hubris and ineptitude…
I’ve never done that, and I’d be interested in seeing what it is that I’ve written that would lead you to think that I have.
The Bush admin’s hubris and ineptitude is supported by far more of the population than those who watch FOX.
Tam O’Tellico:
I don’t think our govt will be reformed by […] the religion-opiated moral minority, who seem more and more bent on turning our democracy into a theocracy despite the teachings of Jesus […] (if they win, get ready for govt by fiat of Ayatollah Robertsons).
That will never happen, for the simple reason that although the vast majority of Americans are somewhat religious, the number that want their civil leaders to be their religious leaders is an extremely small minority.
Even in Utah, there’s only a minor overlap between civil and church leadership, and that’s only because effective church leaders are also often effective politicians and successful professionals.
Further, even in a theocracy Robertson and his ilk wouldn’t be especially powerful, more like Iraq’s “Mookie” al-Sadr – their hard-line preachings just aren’t popular enough.
As for “the lessons of the last two thousand years”, we should note that although they have some chronic and serious social problems, the Amish tradition of theocracy has been very successful, within their self-contained sphere.
No, the worm will turn as more and more intellectuals, especially those on the Old Right, come to see that Conservatism is being stood on its head.
My long-standing prediction is that if the Democratic Party continues to implode, the Republican Party will fracture along social conservative/fiscal conservative lines, as the social wing overreaches.
Tam O’Tellico - February 20, 2006 @ 8:33 pm
Anyone looking for something else to worry about should read this:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3503
Michael Herdegen - February 20, 2006 @ 11:47 pm
1978 surveillance act hinders 2006 security
San Antonio Express-News
Michael Herdegen - February 21, 2006 @ 12:00 am
Tam O’Tellico:
From your linked article:
In other words, if Iran picks a fight, it’ll be their last.
Michael Herdegen - February 21, 2006 @ 12:49 am
lonbud:
You are of course aware that your linked page, Ratio of Family Income to Poverty Threshold…, not only isn’t an “another interpretation”, the figures are drawn from the exact same gov’t agencies that Tam and I like to reference, and that you claim are biased.
It says exactly what the Census Bureau report that I mentioned says, that if we only measure wage, pension, and investment income, we vastly overstate poverty.
It does bring up an excellent point, however, which is that over 4.3 million people aged 18 – 24 have incomes that are equal to or less than the official poverty line, making up well over 12% of all Americans counted as poverty-stricken. To this we can reply “Well, of course !!”
Most people aged 18 – 24 are either in college or just starting their careers; naturally, they’re broke. To the extent that we count them among the poverty-stricken, we overstate the problem of poverty among the American people.
We note that for every age bracket above the 18 – 24 group, the rate of poverty within that group (even among seniors) is at least 40% lower than within the 18 – 24 year-olds.
Tam O’Tellico - February 21, 2006 @ 2:11 pm
The level of political literacy on this blog is unfortunately not representative of the vast ill-read majority of American voters — yeah, I know, I’m an elitist simply by virtue of stating the all-too obvious.
A caller to C-SPAN this morning blamed Jimmy Carter for all our problems in Iran. Is this partisan blindness or is this man typical of a majority of Americans?
Now Jimmy had his faults, but as I’ve said here before, Jimmy was what we claim to be; Bush is what we are — God help us.
I’m kinda surprised that someone from the Wright would hold Carter responsible, since it suggests he was at least in control of something. In any case, it’s hard to see how Carter should get blamed for Iran, given our long and sordid history there.
Can it be that most Americans are unaware of that sordid history or that we have been on and off but mostly on the Iranian shit-list since Eisenhower? Have they never heard of Mohammed Mossadeq of Iran (overthrown, not assassinated in 1953) or our cozying up to the death squads of the Shah? The answer sadly is the affirmative of the negative.
Nor, apparently, do most Americans want to know — more likely be reminded — that we promoted Saddam Hussein since at least 1959, when he was part of a CIA-authorized six-man hit squad assigned to assassinate then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim.
How conveniently we forget that Saddam was more or less our bully boy in the Mideast for most of the next three decades until he got too big for his britches. George senior made a CIA career out of cozying up to this madman. But amnesia seems to be a genetic disorder in the Bush family and in a large portion of the American public.
Pat Robertson now wants us to assassinate Chavez in Venezuela and add to a list that includes these known hits (only God and the CIA know how many others): Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic (1961); Patrice Lumumba of the Congo/Zaire (1961); Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam (1963); and Salvadore Allende of Chile (1973) — all successes. Our most glaring failure was the countless failed attempts on Fidel Castro of Cuba.
While we can all deplore the evils of these men, what about our evils? There can be no doubt that resentment of America has a basis in a cold, hard reality most Americans have no desire to know, let alone admit.
Michael Herdegen - February 21, 2006 @ 4:29 pm
There can be no doubt that resentment of America has a basis in a cold, hard reality most Americans have no desire to know, let alone admit.
True that.
The level of political literacy on this blog is unfortunately not representative of the vast ill-read majority of American voters…
Yeah, that’s why I’m in favor of more job training and less wasting time in classrooms for a significant number of American youth.
The American public overwhelmingly self-selects ignorance of intellectual subjects anyhow, they might as well have a skill to go with it.
Tam O’Tellico - February 21, 2006 @ 10:34 pm
You heard it hear first: Dubya is the Texas spelling of Dubai. Michael, I’m curious, what’s your take on the UAE port control controversy? Most of my conservatives friends are flabbergasted.
lonbud - February 21, 2006 @ 10:57 pm
Michael:
The figures are drawn from the same gov’t statistics (which I do believe understate poverty and unemployment by a significant degree), but can be interpreted to make the case that nearly 20% of all Americans live in conditions that you and I and Tam and just about every single person reading this blog would consider pretty f*cking nasty.
And let me clue you in to something about the reality of life in America: most 18 – 24 year olds are not either in college or just starting their careers. A very small percentage of those people (especially of the 4.3 million who are at the poverty line) will ever get near a college, and the only career they may be starting involves street corners and tiny little zip-lock baggies.
In any event, we can argue about what the numbers mean ad nauseum. In the end, you don’t think things ought to change to any real degree because as a relative matter life is beter here than anywhere else on earth. I don’t think things will change to any real degree because life isn’t bad enough for enough people to create the will to change them. To-may-to, to-mah-to.
As to your post of the San Antionio Express-News piece, rather than couch it as 1978 surveillance act hinders 2006 security, I’d put it more like, NSA’s refusal to comply with law prevents defusing of 9/11 plot. All they had to do was ask for the rubber stamp and they could have nailed the bastards before the deal went down, but they just didn’t have the will to do it. There were larger plans into which a plot like 9/11 dovetailed rather nicely and they also had an opening to try and discredit the law to boot.
Evil incarnate, yes.
Michael Herdegen - February 21, 2006 @ 11:58 pm
Tam O’Tellico:
Sorry to disappoint, but I have no opinion.
As with Chinese companies controlling the Panama Canal, I just don’t care.
Perhaps I ought.
lonbud:
The figures […] can be interpreted to make the case that nearly 20% of all Americans live in [wretched] conditions…
Uh-huh.
150% of the poverty line is “nasty” ?
That’s, like, middle class.
I’ve lived in poverty, and in near-poverty, and I’m glad that I no longer do.
However, it was far from nasty, and I could do it again if I had to.
Perhaps your concept of poor people is televised images of people in the projects, or inner-city ghettoes.
Those are the lowest of the low; most “impoverished” people live normal and mildly comfortable lives, just with smaller apartments and very used cars.
Tam O’Tellico - February 22, 2006 @ 5:49 pm
Unstraight Shooters
While the papers and TV keep us distracted with inanities and grouse (sorry) about the misunderelevated aim of Deadly Dick Cheney, the center continues to fall apart in Washington. It is the other aims of the Veep and DubaiU that should be of far more concern.
For instance, this administration is causing a wholesale exodus of civil servants we haven’t seen since the days of Andy Jackson. Civil Service laws prevent this from being done overtly, but the in-fighters of this administration have never shown much respect for the law and have demonstrated great skill at getting around it. Here’s one way:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/20/AR2006022001198.html
Now partisans may argue that the President has a right to have folks in places like the FDA and State Dept who are loyal to him and promote only his views, but that’s not what the law says. The law says civil servants not only have a right to remain in those positions, but that the effective functioning of government depends on their expertise.
Besides those who have been dis-organized and otherwise displaced, there is an inordinate number of émigrés leaving or transferring more or less of their own accord. That begs the question why so many of these lifers would leave comfortable, well-paid careers in these departments.
It also raises the question whether these agencies can be run competently if a majority of the career professionals are suddenly replaced with inexperienced, malleable loyalists. Does FEMA offer a possible insight into this dilemma? Are we really safer replacing independent Colin Powell with obsequious Condi Rice, and are laws safer by replacing independent Sandra Day O’Connor with obsequious Harriet Miers?
These are questions this President doesn’t even ask, let alone answer. He is perfectly content to have the government filled with people who smile and say yes to whatever hasty impulse enters his head — whether it be an ill-advised and ill-planned war in Iraq, an ill-advised and ill-planned prohibition against stem cell research, or an ill-advised and ill-planned surrender of a half-dozen of America’s ports to a country that is a sometime supporter of Islamic terrorists.
They say Bush is fond of nicknames, right Brownie? I wonder how fond he is of this one: The Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight.
lonbud - February 23, 2006 @ 10:50 pm
I don’t need TV to show me what poverty looks like, Michael. And I don’t need TV to show me about life in projects or inner-city ghettoes. I live in what many people consider one of the most beautiful cities on earth, in what is most assuredly one of the most expensive places to live on earth, and where there are a higher concentration of the top 1% of wealthiest Americans outside Beverly Hills or New York.
I worked for 13 years in one of the poorest neighborhoods in San Francisco, where crime, and drugs, and sudden, senseless death were part of the day to day experience of everyone with whom I came in contact, every day. Many of the people in that neighborhood probably fall somewhere between the poverty line and 150% of it, and there are plenty of decidedly middle class residents living there, too. But I can vouch for this: it’s nasty. And you wouldn’t want to live there.
You are wrong, too, about the lowest of the low. Tam O’ can probably tell you a little bit about what life is like for the truly lowest of the low here in the greatest country in the history of mankind. He lives close to some of the poorest people on the planet, whose lives are filled with not much more hope or comfort than the flea-bitten lost souls of famine-plagued countries in Africa.
Yet we have hundreds of billions of dollars to spend bringing democracy to Islam.
Michael Herdegen - February 24, 2006 @ 2:44 pm
We could spend trillions and not end poverty in America; in fact, we HAVE.
There are many external factors which can, singly or in combination, keep people poor: Bad gov’t, exploitive businesses, lack of access to education, lack of socialization, prejudice…
But in today’s America, and for at least the next four decades, businesses CAN’T be exploitive – there is a labor shortage that will only worsten.
You may not like who’s LEADING the nat’l gov’t, but the bureaucracy is capable, and in any case the state and local gov’ts have much to do with whether people prosper, and there are many fine state and local leaders.
No literate adult American can seriously claim to lack access to education, and the overwhelming majority of children have access to at least mediocre schools.
Prejudice still exists, but its effects are now very limited. Asians, Blacks, Catholics, Jews, Latinos, and others are represented in the highest ranks of academia, business, government, and the military.
In the present, almost ALL poverty is caused by internal factors – alcoholism or drug abuse, lack of interest in education, sloth, poor financial choices, such as smoking or not moving to where there are jobs…
We can throw money at broken people forever, and they’ll NEVER get any better-off, they’ll just enjoy their lives more.
As long as there are stupid, lazy, and/or foolish people, there will be poor people. Barring universal genetic engineering, (which might possibly happen), that means forever.
There is absolutely nothing preventing any modestly capable person from eventually becoming rich in America, except for themselves.
With that said, I agree that there are better uses for the Iraqi billions.