Date posted: May 2, 2008 - Friday
Title: TW3 05/02/08
Current mood: Flattered
A Self-fulfilling Prophesy
I have watched the unfolding controversy surrounding the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. and the Barack Obama presidential campaign. At first impression I was disturbed by Wright's comments and bothered by the attempt to derail Obama's campaign by linking him to what were labeled extreme views on the subject of race.
Things quieted down for a while and I had hoped the "swift boating" episode was over. Now Wright seems to be on his own campaign trail and on the verge of accomplishing the mission Obama's opponents have long promulgated.
Yes, there is still racism in this country. And it is racism on both sides of the color line. The definition does not end with simply saying Black people have been oppressed by White people.
But you don't generate an intelligent discussion of an issue by framing your opponent in negative terms from the start. Or, as my grandmother might say, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
Wright's "I-call-them-as-I-see-them" approach using inflammatory rhetoric is not going to bring anyone to the table to work towards a solution to the problem. There are more reasonable voices in the land which could better work toward easing tensions and forming a better country for us all.
So I wonder what Wright is trying to accomplish besides boosting his own profile and ego. Does he really want an end to racism in this country? Is he really trying to influence people toward a different attitude?
One person who wrote a letter to the editor of the New York Times suggested Wright doesn't really want a solution or progress because then he would have nothing to rant about. I don't think I would go that far, but I don't see how he is helping when he suggests Obama "threw him under the bus".
If he really wants to see Obama win the Democratic nomination and perhaps go on to be the next President of this country his actions seem to be destroying that possibility the longer he keeps it up. It appears to be a self-fulfilling prophesy; you scream so long and so loud about the bad outcome, and use such offensive terms, that you bring about the events you claim you fear.
And there was evidence of this late in the week when a new national poll suggests Obama is losing ground. Where in mid-March Obama held a 53 to 45 percent lead over Hilary Clinton, the latest poll completed on April 30, 2008 puts Obama at 46 percent and Clinton at 45. With the 4.5% margin of error this puts the two candidates in a virtual statistical tie for the Democratic nomination. And while the issue of Wright is not the total reason for the losses, it can't be helping Obama's numbers.
Big Surprise -- NOT!
George W. Bush is the big winner! Or is that big loser?
According to a new opinion poll released this week Bush is now the president with the highest disapproval rating in U.S. history. The latest CNN poll showed 71% of those surveyed disapprove of the job Bush is doing as president and it's the first time in history a president has cracked the 70% mark. Keating Holland, CNN's polling director, said, "The previous all-time record in CNN or Gallup polling was set by Truman, 67 percent disapproval rating in January 1952."
CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider added, "He is more unpopular than Richard Nixon was just before he resigned from the presidency in August 1974." Nixon's disapproval rating at that time stood at 66 percent.
Viewed from the other side, Bush has an approval rating of 28% and is only ahead of Harry Truman (22%) and Richard Nixon (24%) as the president with the lowest approval rating.
The poll also indicated support for the war in Iraq has never been lower. Just 30 percent of those questioned favored the war. This figure is down from January where nearly half the people surveyed thought the war was going well. The opinion on the war comes five years after Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln.
Schneider summed up the poll results as, "Support for the war, the assessment of the economy and approval of Mr. Bush are all about the same -- bad."
So, are any of us really surprised?
Hand Me Another Beer And Some Chips, Martha
The economy is going to hell and few people other than the common folk seem to be learning anything from this. There were reports a couple of weeks ago that major credit card companies were looking for any excuse to boost interest rates to the maximum to make up for the money they were losing in bad investments. There is speculation that gasoline could reach $7 a gallon before the end of the year. And there are many more examples of the pinch we all seem to find ourselves in these days.
And if that isn't enough irritation, it seems some businesses can't take a hint things are bad. If the time between Christmas and New Years wasn't crowded enough already the NCAA in conjunction with ESPN just agreed to add two more college football bowl games to the 'holiday' season.
In 1966-67 there were eight major bowl games. By 1996-97 it had swollen to 18 bowl games. In 2001-02 the number had grown to 25. Now, with the addition of these new bowl games there will be 34 college football games in the 2008-09 bowl season.
Not to get into the argument about picking a real national champion college football team (I really don't give a damn), but at one time the entry into one of the bowl games meant you had a pretty good team with a solid record. With the addition of these new, lower-level bowl games a team only has to have a 6-6 record to be invited to play in one of these contests. That's right, the bowl-eligible requirement is not even a winning record.
And why, you might ask, have they added more games? Was there a public outcry for more football during the Holiday season?
Nope. The answer is pure and simple greed.
Everyone but the fan seems to benefit from one of these pretentious contests. Cities can expect to draw an average of 50,000 fans to a bowl game. Schools received $222 million in payouts for participation in bowl games this year. Bowl game executives (the people who plan and stage the games) receive staggering salaries. (Jim McVey, the executive of the Outback Bowl got $490,000 last year.) The Walt Disney company owns ESPN and ABC and between those two networks it broadcast 23 of the 32 bowl games last year. And since ESPN actually owns six of the bowl games outright it didn't have to pay anyone for broadcast rights. ESPN will also be the outright owner of one of the two games being added this year.
Richard Giannini, the athletic director at Southern Mississippi (and the chairman of the NCAA's postseason football licensing subcommittee) was quoted as saying, "As long as conferences want to participate and there are schools that are bowl-eligible that don't have the opportunity, and there are markets that desire to put those opportunities together, I don't see (bowl expansion) as a problem."
Really, Richard? You don't see a problem with taking the seventh place finisher in a 10-team conference and matching it against the second place finisher in a lesser conference and calling that an interesting game? (This was the actual match up in a bowl game played in San Diego last year.)
I will admit to watching college bowl games years ago. You could actually sit down on New Year's day and watch them all. But that was a long time ago and it was just one day. Now bowl season stretches from somewhere in late November until the middle of January. Anyone who watches all those games has to have some serious issues with addiction -- and he can't possibly stay married if he does.
And we can put it all down to greed.
The Results Of Pain At The Pump
British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell, Europe's two largest oil producers this week announced profits far in excess of predictions for the first quarter of the year. The companies reported profits of $17 billion. BP posted a 63 percent increase in net profits. Shell reported a 25 percent increase. A week earlier ConocoPhillips, the third largest oil producer, announced a 16 percent increase in net profits.
Public reaction was to call for a windfall tax on oil profits.
Later this week Exxon Mobil Corporation announced first-quarter profits of 17 percent over last year; again far exceeding market expectations. The company earned $10.89 billion for the quarter.
So if you're wondering what is causing you pain at the pump I suggest you have to look no farther than the balance sheets of these companies.
We Can Rebuild It Better
In Iraq the U.S. military's reconstruction watchdog reported the country is expected to make a $70 billion windfall profit from rising oil prices. Even with production below the peak from pre-war levels, the fact oil prices have more than doubled since the 2003 start of the war has led to a river of money flowing into the country.
The amount of money available to the Iraqi government has become an issue in Congress where there are calls for Iraq to spend more of its' own money on infrastructure reconstruction.
Congress has approved some $47 billion in U.S. funds for reconstruction in Iraq. About $30 billion of that has already been spent.
By the end of last year Iraq was providing about half the funds for reconstruction projects, but in light of the rising profits from oil have Congress calling for Iraq to take a bigger role in its' own infrastructure reconstruction. Recently a Senate panel agreed unanimously to block the Defense Department from funding about $2 million in Iraq reconstruction projects.
Part of the problem with Iraq assuming a greater role is what has been termed "pervasive corruption". And even when projects are completed their effectiveness has been compromised by poor coordination. A $277 million water-treatment plant in the southern city of Nasiriya was running at only 20 percent of capacity because it lacked a reliable power source and trained employees.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates told a Senate Armed Services Committee he heard lawmakers, "loud and clear" during hearings this month and would cut $171 million which had been earmarked to build a police station in Iraq. Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee called it "an important first step."
Levin also said an attempt would be made on the Senate floor to expand to the State Department the prohibition on using taxpayer money for major Iraqi reconstruction. The State Department handles most of the large rebuilding efforts. "The intention here is to stop the funding of infrastructure by whatever department," he said.
No Picture, No Vote
The Supreme Court upheld Indiana's voter identification law this week. The law requires voters to present a photo identification on an "unexpired document" before they can cast a ballot. This effectively limits the ability to vote to those people who have a driver's license or passport. People without the proper identification can cast a provisional ballot, but it will only be counted if they appear within 10 days and show the proper documentation or declare they are indigent or cannot be photographed for religious reasons.
The state does issue photo ID cards to people who don't drive, but you can only obtain one of those if you have a "primary document" such as a birth certificate or passport.
Indiana's law is considered the most restrictive in the nation. Six other states have similar laws and bills are pending in two dozen other states to require photo identification as a prerequisite to voting.
The requirement seems to be a totally partisan issue. Most of the laws have been passed in states with a Republican majority in the state legislature. In fact, the Indiana Democratic Party was one of the complainants in the Supreme Court case.
It seems to be a tactic of the Republican party to pass laws to require photo identification which it claims is to avoid cases where one person impersonates another in voting. Democrats claim these laws are an attempt to disenfranchise poorer voters who tend to vote Democratic.
The minority opinions in the Supreme Court decision noted the lack of specific instances of voter fraud in Indiana and very little evidence of a pervasive problem with voter fraud across the nation. It also decried the requirement which would place even a mild burden on voters which might cause disenfranchisement. One dissenting justice also compared the Indiana law to similar statutes in Georgia and Florida which have broader acceptance of photo identification.
Later in the week it was noted that Supreme Court decisions like the one in the Indiana case demonstrated a subtle but profound change in the direction of the courts ruling on constitutional questions.
In the past the court was willing to strike down laws before they went into effect out of concern that the rights of some people might be violated. But, with the arrival of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. the approach seems to have changed and the court has defeated broad challenges to state laws.
The new atmosphere has sent the message that suing parties have to prove a law has actually violated someone's rights and to name actual names if possible. This atmosphere also reflects Roberts' stated policy of limiting court rulings to the narrowest possible interpretation. The Indiana ruling does leave the door open to future challenges because of the narrow scope of the decision.
I just wonder if the public is being best served by the unwillingness of the justices to protect possible violations of rights and require actual, named violations.
Quickies
For all of those who are cheering the ACLU for decrying the way in which the children were taken from the Texas polygamist compound the following is offered. There were 53 young women aged 17 and younger removed from the control of the religious sect. It has been found 31 of the 53 are either pregnant or have already had a child.
Yes, girls below the age to vote, four years short of the age to drink and below the legal age to marry in most states.
Those of you that don't like sports can skip this one.
Just as all the flap about Roger Clemens and steroids has finally died down, now comes a report in The New York Daily News that Clemens may have carried on an inappropriate relationship with a younger woman. Mindy McCready was just 15 and Clemens was 28 (and married with 2 children) when they met. The relationship has continued for the last seventeen years. Unnamed sources said inappropriate things happened in the relationship, but Clemens (through an attorney) claimed there was never a sexual content to the friendship.
McCready was an aspiring country singer when they first met, but most recently spent time in jail for violating probation on a previous drug charge. Clemens allegedly sent her money recently to help with legal problems.
None of this will do Clemens any good in bolstering his character while he pursues a defamation claim against Brian McNamee who named Clemens as a steroid user.
I got this in a bulletin from one of the people on my Friends list. Yes, some things cost more per gallon than gasoline, but since we don't buy them as often or need them as much these things don't have the impact on our lives or the country's economy. It's fun to see these things, but gas is still too high and going higher. And remember, the companies making these products are not reporting the record profit's the oil producing companies are.
Just a little humor to help ease the pain of your next trip to the pump...
Think a gallon of gas is expensive? This makes one think, and also puts things in perspective.
Diet Snapple 16 oz $1.29 $10.32 per gallon
Lipton Ice Tea 16 oz $1.19 $9.52 per gallon
Gatorade 20 oz $1.59 $10.17 per gallon
Ocean Spray 16 oz $1.25 $10.00 per gallon
Brake Fluid 12 oz $3.15 $33.60 per gallon
Vick's Nyquil 6 oz $8.35 $178.13 per gallon
Pepto Bismol 4 oz $3.85 $123.20 per gallon
Whiteout 7 oz $1.39 $25.42 per gallon
Scope 1.5 oz $0.99 $84.48 per gallon
And this is the REAL KICKER...
Evian water 9 oz $1.49 $21.19 per gallon?! $21.19 for WATER - and the buyers don't even know the source. (Evian spelled backwards is Naive.)
So, the next time you're at the pump, be glad your car doesn't run on water, Scope, or Whiteout, or God forbid, Pepto Bismol or Nyquil.
Most disturbing news story of the week? The confession of Barbara Walters she had an affair with a senator. No, not that she had an affair, but the mental image of Barbara Walters in the throes of passion is really frightening.
Another sign the economy is headed South (as if we needed one). The warehouse clubs, Sam's Club and Costco, which are notorious for selling mass quantities of an item have limited the amount of rice you purchase at one time. I don't see why anyone would want that much, but you can only buy four 20-pound sacks at a time now.
The call girl named in Gov. Eliot Spitzer's recent sex scandal is now attempting to cash in on an old incident from her past. Ashley Alexandra Dupre has filed a $10 million lawsuit against the founder of the "Girls Gone Wild" video series.
She was in negotiations with Joe Francis to appear in the Girls Gone Wild magazine for $1 million. The deal fell through when Francis found out he already owned video footage of Dupre. Years earlier Dupre had displayed her 'assets' and signed a release form.
Dupre claims when she was vacationing in Florida some years ago representatives of the video series got her drunk and she flashed her breasts for the camera. She also claims she was underage at the time and thus her release form is invalid.
So now she wants $10 million for her youthful indiscretion. Francis says he is getting ripped off. "She charged Gov. Spitzer $2,000 for sex and she wants to charge me $10 million for taking naked pictures of her."
(POST NOTE; I've been doing this for a while now. No, not that long, but this blog marks the 18th in the series. That being said, I was thinking of taking a break. The reasons are my own and I won't bore anyone with them here. Let's just say I may be scaling back a lot of things in my life. And this includes time on MySpace.
The unexpected act of one of my friends on MySpace has modified my intentions. I will try to keep up this blog. I want to express my thanks to those of you who have visited here and participated by making comments. And thanks to those who merely came by and read.)
