Saturday, September 05, 2009
What with the steep decline in contributions to charities such as food banks, imagine how relieved I was to learn that public radio stations are raising money in record amounts.
You can't blame conservatives for that one.
If they don't "blame conservatives", we'll lose an invaluable guide to future lefty actions. Every single thing they "blame conservatives" for doing is actually then done by the lefties in power. Remember the "blood for oil" meme, as an example?
"British Prime Minister Gordon Brown lied earlier this week when he said: “There was no conspiracy, no cover-up, no double dealing, no deal on oil, no attempt to instruct Scottish ministers, no private assurances.”
[Justice Minister Jack] Straw now has told the truth, telling the Telegraph: “Yes, [it was] a very big part of that. I’m unapologetic about that… Libya was a rogue state. We wanted to bring it back into the fold. And yes, that included trade because trade is an essential part of it and subsequently there was the BP deal.”
What vicki, you don't like the "blood for oil" policy from the left? How about forced organ donation?
I assume that even vicki is not as presumptuous as these unapologetic statists who have come to power in Washington. Sunstein continues to go over the top believing he knows better that the folks. Why wait until the organ donor is terminal, or heck even ill and run the risk of damaging the donated organs. Just start extracting them on everybody's 60 th birthday.
You can still have a good eye, lung, and kidney until you are 70 (unless you opt out). We'll call it "Donor Card Check."
So the guy who has been nominated to be chief paper pusher for the OIRA is also going to adminster the organ harvesting program too? Brilliant. It's about time we started doubling up work loads for these bureaucratic lackeys.
Conservatives can be blamed for being "unpatriotic, rude, nasty [and] immoral". Just ask Sherrod Brown, Senator from my home state of Ohio.
What else can we blame conservatives for doing? How about opposing the increase in minimum wage. Why would anyone begrudge some bottom of the pack workers a little bit more money?
Because it leads to higher unemployment, that's why. Dumb immoral conservatives.
It's OK, though, because the next generation of Charlie Rangels will not be American. They're going to be Chinese.
""When I grow up I want to be an official," said the girl, whose face was blurred to protect her identity.
"What kind of official?" the interviewer asked.
"A corrupt official because corrupt officials have a lot of things," she replied."
More people give to public radio? So what? Last time I checked, one was still free to donate one's money to a preferred charity. BTW, maybe conservatives can be blamed for this one? Perhaps conservatives just aren't shelling out enough money for food banks??
I stopped donating to NPR in 2005, I believe, after listening to a Daniel Snore commentary about Gitmo. He was wrong on the facts, wrong on the law, and not surprisingly drew conclusions that were completely wrong. It was the last straw for me--proof positive that NPR could not be trusted as an objective news source.
I also stopped my 20+ year subscription to National Geographic after their issue dedicated to global warming. Again, proof positive that NG can't be trusted as an objective news source.
"I also stopped my 20+ year subscription to National Geographic after their issue dedicated to global warming. Again, proof positive that NG can't be trusted as an objective news source."
Or that you can't bear being presented with evidence that conflicts with your convictions.
One of the things that made Darwin a great scientist was that he made a particular point of writing down any evidence he came across that was against his theories.
To Don Cox,
All real scientists look at contra-evidence, not just Darwin. The Scientific Method isn't a rhetorical exercise.
I'm an AGW skeptic. I see a hypothesis that hasn't been tested. I have yet to hear how this hypothesis can explain climate changes over the last thousand years, or the last 30,000.
But it doesn't matter whether AGW is correct or not. Right now it's a political question. If we believe in AGW, then we have a choice between going nuclear or living in tree forts. We could forge a consensus over this. I want 200 nukes built fast to give us more energy independence, even though I'm an AGW skeptic. It's the one energy technology on the table that's certain to work. It would help cut CO2 emissions a lot.
Instead we have the current Energy bill ... which is an abomination. Most clear thinkers believe it would actually increase CO2 emissions, by pushing jobs to India and China. Ask Hillary how hard they laughed at her in Delhi and Beijing recently. The Energy bill favors wind and solar, even though they don't scale. Go look at Spain and Denmark for proof. Obama is subtly strangling the nuclear industry to death. There's even more problematic stuff buried in the details of Energy.
This is but one example of the disconnect from reality of Obama & Co.
If you really fear AGW, more nukes in the US is the only practical answer. When I don't even hear this being discussed, I suspect there's another agenda at work.
I read a story today about how a family radio station in Washington state has been held up in court over trying to build bigger towers. The response of a green group was to go out last night and bulldoze the family's existing towers. And so it goes ...
My daughter, a geography minor in college says that cap and trade is about the worst idea EVER. She lived in Belgium for a semester and, like the French, is a big believer in nuclear power. You can believe in nuclear power and still support the idea that global warming is human caused. Not mutually exclusive. And Don, you should have subscriptions and read information that is contrary to what you believe, an informed citizenry is knowledge's best tool.
I read all the info on this blog eventhough I am diametrically opposed to much of what I read and think that some of you are certifiable. Many people here think I am too. It's OK.
Thank god for NPR. I learn new stuff everyday. Morning Edition when I run in the morning and All Things Considered in the PM. They are far more balanced with their reporting of the news than CNN or FOX. My husband and I watched a PBS documentary on Dalton Trumbo and the blacklist last night, one I had DVR'd. Watch it, Y'all.
I welcome you all to attack, as you probably will.
Sorry, but the three links don't track (at least for me). Large donations from corporate donors are down because these institutions have less money to give because of losses in their invested reserves. And, as that article states, lavish charity fundraisers are also off pace (um, this is the new "age of austerity" right?). Food banks need more now than ever because DEMAND is up -- even if supply is flat. Direct appeals via radio to individuals are up. In fact, many institutions that solicit individuals are finding a great deal of generosity (as it seems you did when you put the word out to TH readers) -- it is so with local churches, etc., if you are involved with them and their direct-appeal fundraising; but their need has also increased.
Why politicize this? I mean, I understand that this is what you do, but why? It's good to help others when they need it and you are in a position to do so. It turns out that it takes a village to do a lot of things.
I last gave to an NPR station back in the early or mid-1990s, and I wouldn't consider giving to NPR now. But I still listen to NPR in the morning for the same reasons that Vicki says she reads this blog. Rarely is media bias as purely and blatantly on display in the detail one finds it on NPR. Ever since 2004, I've noticed a very high amount of partisan bias and the advancement of a partisan narrative on NPR. Prior to that point, I used to consider it a decent source of information. Now I listen mainly just to hear what the other side is trying to sell.
vicki says she expects "attacks". Why? Most attacks are left on right, but conservatives are falsely blamed.
I live in New Jersey, where the WaPo today described the governors election race as "nasty". In the article they omitted saying that the attack ads running are entirely from Corzine against his GOP opponent. Corzine is down right now, in this bluest of states, because he's been a terrible financial manager and because such a great many of his co-party members (including a cabinet member) have been busted for varying corruptions that the Feds needed to charter a bus to haul them all away. But WaPo sets up the strawman conservatives to share the blame, just as vicki sets up a strawman of the "attacks" she expects from the center or right.
The theme is: "Blame conservatives. That'll work."
Alan Colmes goes on the offensive today, saying the "right got it's man" in shaming the WH into firing Van Jones. Never does Colmes question how this reprehensible man got his job in the first place, or even if the administration's non-constitutional flanking of the advise and consent role of the Senate is wise or legal. No, it was all a McCarthyite witch hunt and we should blame the conservatives.
For how long can the left go on blaming "conservatives" without the hypocrisy becoming obvious even to them? vicki?
I decided to stop donating to NPR when the questioner asked "Why is Mr. Obama the right person to be President?". A better question would have been "Why do you think Mr. Obama is the right choice to be President?". So much for being impartial.
I believe that Van Jones was the wrong man for any government job, period. Too radical even for me. That being said, the only reason Beck and many others on the right attacked him was that they saw an opportunity to bring down the president and presidency, with such rancor that I haven't seen since we wrongly went in to the Iraq war and killed thousands of americans and Iraquis for NO good reason. Rancor that I believe they deserved and shame on all who supported the war, right and left alike.
I denounce that war and the Afghanistan was with the same vigor that I denounced the Vietnam war over 40 years ago, when I was 15.
The only reason that we are so heavily in Afghanistan is because we took the eye off the ball to invade Iraq. Nothing anyone says will convince me otherwise.
My words, GET OUT!!!
Blame the conservatives, you make yourselves an easy target, Birthers, Deathers, Citizenship wonks. Nut cases all around.
Believe me the nazi hunters, socialist and communist baiters will come to regret that rhetoric too.
Believe me look at any documentary or read any book on the blacklist. I knew a number of people who were affected by the blacklist and we do not want to re-live those days.
Calling someone a commie or a socialist does not make it so.
Vicki states herself that Mr. jones is a radical.
Then sentences later, her narrative is socialist and communist baiters will come to regret their rhetoric.
Wonder what type of radical he was exactly?
Also, who exactly put him in charge of billions of dollars worth of taxpayer funds?
Well, Jones called himself a communist, so does that make it so, or is just a liar and/or delusional?
And I've read a great deal about the so-called 'blacklist'. It wasn't official, most on it, including Trumbo (who also was an admitted comunist) continued their careers under noms d'plume, so what is there complaint? That they got busted?
Are you still supporting Alger Hiss?
That being said, the only reason Beck and many others on the right attacked him was that they saw an opportunity to bring down the president and presidency, with such rancor that I haven't seen since we wrongly went in to the Iraq war and killed thousands of americans and Iraquis for NO good reason. Rancor that I believe they deserved and shame on all who supported the war, right and left alike.
Vicki from Pasadena, is Glenn Beck soooooooooo scarily powerful that he can bring down the "great Obama" ?
And yet at the same time he is an extreme right wing nut in a country that voted the mosted liberal candidate since FDR to power a mere 7 months back... winning in states that Dems have lost for the last 40 fricking years.
Vicki, how do you reconcile the irreconcilable ? or is NPR helping you with this exercise?
By the way, in trying to pin vicki down I wanted to write with respect and convey to her that I appreciate her point of view in comment threads on this blog. I may not agree with you very often, vicki, but I am glad you are here. If my comments were in any way too personal they were not meant to be. Sometimes the internet (or excess passion) makes things sound uglier than they would sound face to face.
(I wish CC would remember that when he so casually calls everyone a racist.)
With respect to the mentioning of National Geographic Publications, I found the 'New Orleans / Katrina' editorial to be so spot-on that it must forgive some of the more biased articles. I was actually surprised to find such writing there.
Also by the way, before we close the book on Van Jones, WH Communist, it's worth noting that the left is going all out on attacking Glenn Beck over this firing. Why? Who knows. Apparently WH incompetence is Beck's fault.
Here's Der Olberfuhrer tasking his minions to spread forth across the land and get ugly:
"Find everything you can about Glenn Beck, Stu Burguiere, and Roger Ailes."
Blame the conservatives. Yeah, that's the ticket. This is foul. Keith Olbermann is foul.
By the way, Beck has always seemed purile to me in the two five minute stretches I've watched. Have I missed something? Is there more there than first appears?
The only reason the toejams didn't score 70 on SJSU was because they started a true freshman at QB (a great one, I'll grant). The only winners of note yesterday that didn't play against seven on seven HS opposition were BYU, Oklahoma State, and the Golden Bears of the University of California. Watch out Trojans when you come up to Berkeley in October.
Nagarajan Sivakumar said at 3:33
in a country that voted the mosted [sic] liberal candidate since FDR...winning in states that Dems have lost for the last 40 fricking years.
Actually, sir, I think that's more of an indictment of the republican party that couldn't keep the fricking states it has carried for the past 40 years.
Glenn Beck is dangerous clown who makes outrageous claims with little proof or fact to an audience that requires neither. He cuts and pastes clips together to advance his latest whipped up bogeyman to the talk radio crowd who have access to a TV.
He'll bring up topic like Eugenics and say "Now, I'm not saying Eugenics are coming but let me tell you about of the horrors of it." After a 5 minute spiel complete with clips of Nazi Germany running in the background, he'll say "now I'm not saying eugenics are coming but let's listen to what Obama said the other day...."
It's masterful manipulation for those who like to listen to their news rthaer than read it, and irrestible candy for the angry, the paranoid, and those who don;t even know how to spell eugenics!
I say, watch our Berkeley. Pete Carroll is not one to do things without a great deal of thought and planning. Crazy like a fox.
Right on Anon. I understand your passion, I have it too. The liberal leaning kind, but passion non the less.
And for you Dave, some of the writers, like Trumbo did finally continue to write and use "fronts" but they never reaped the financial rewards that they had earlier. Some of them never worked again in the US and many of them, including John Garfield and Larry Parks (gifted and so talented) had their careers so decimated that they never worked again, period. Sad, really. So what if they were communists. They were members of the communist party in the 30's when Russia was our friend, remember that time? These people were harmless. talented, but harmless. They did not deserve the jail time that some of them got or the public humiliation and loss of income. Read about it somewhere other than Ann Coulter, the blacklist supporter. She believes that Joe McCarthy was misunderstood. Phoey. A man with unbridled power and the support of a cowardly vice president did damage that is still felt today.
Don't worry about CC, anon, we know who we are, right?
BTW, Glenn Beck only has Glenn Beck to blame if things don't go well for him. Fanaticism in any form is dangerous. Ask the people in the Murrah building. Oh, that's right, you can't... all gone.
Our government is a fiscal dead man walking. We can't tax our way out of this -- the working rich aren't rich enough; the middle class is too stretched. Inflation -- or letting the dollar collapse -- is only a short-term answer -- it's also a Pandora's box. Obama is either oblivious to this, or wants everything to collapse to set the stage for the Revolution ... take your pick.
I expect that we'll have two years of jobless recovery and then flatline. The political fault lines will shift to divide those who get government checks from those who don't. The New Jersey gubernatorial race will be prologue.
I agree with Anon at 7:41. We're in this mess in part because the Republicans under Bush-Cheney were abysmal. They betrayed their supposed Republican principles and helped feed the two-headed beast in DC. Obama & Co have the potential of course to be far worse, but Bush-Cheney set the bar pretty high. I keep hyping this because if all we do is bring back another pack of Republican scalawags, we won't have solved the problem.
So with that as backdrop, I find it comical that Obama will go on national TV this week to say we have to spend another $1 trillion on healthcare.
I also find it comical that we'll be burning calories over the Van Jones resignation with scant questioning of why Obama needed a green energy jobs czar at all. It ties to some of the mind-numbing detail buried in the Energy bill. Obama helped Tony Rezko get $100 million of Illinois financing to build what turned out to be dilapidated slums ... what Obama plans for green jobs is on a scale 100x to 1,000x. Can you say reparations?
Glenn Beck is a carnival sideshow to all this, and not worth the attention.
Cripes, Link. You sound like Glenn Beck. He claims Jones was going to use solar panels in the 'hood to hijack our country. He also claims Van Jones is an acclaimed communist, a socialist, a marxist and a black nationalist. [Dollars to donuts he's a feminist too!] Here's Glenn Beck in his [and Link's] own words.
Listen carefully, please. Your country is being hijacked. They are using things like green jobs as a front. They are using healthcare as a front. In the context of Obama style reparations, that's what they're doing. In his book, The Green Collar Economy, he argues the best way to fight global warming and urban poverty is by millions of green jobs, >weatherizing buildings, installing solar panels and constructing mass transit systems. He says in his book, quote: The green economy should not just be about reclaiming thrown‑away stuff. It should be about reclaiming thrown‑away communities. [Forfend!]
This is an acclaimed, self‑ acclaimed communist who has just written the book, "How one solution, green collar jobs, can fix two problems." Climate, if he even believes it. He wasn't a believer before he went to prison. If he even believes it. Climate will solve inner city poverty. How? Because we'll take money from the people who can afford to have this piece of glass thingy and the jet engine on their house and get them to pay to put a jet ‑‑ I'm just quoting him ‑‑ them to pay to put the jet engine, as he likes to describe it, and piece of glass ‑‑ that I like to call a solar panel ‑‑ on your home. And then on their home. And then on the person's that lives next to you, and the one that lives next to them. And then everybody in the inner city, you know, all the homes in the hood. That's what this is really all about.
Say what? Jones wants to take money from the rich people so that folks in the inner city can have solar panels with jet engines on top of their houses? Oh, the inequity!
Honestly I think you're both several french fries short of a happy meal:~>
I've never watched Glenn Beck. I never heard of Van Jones before last week. I may be short of a happy meal.
I read the Energy bill when it came out, which affected my reaction last week to learning that Van Jones was already Obama's green jobs energy czar. Energy would have Fannie and Freddie provide the financing for a sizeable green energy home improvement program. Note that the subprime mortgage industry has historical connections to the home improvement industry -- twenty years ago they were largely one and the same. There's a huge potential for rip-offs here. Involving Fannie and Freddie is especially diabolical, especially after what we've just experienced. To me the perversion of Fannie and Freddie was the single biggest cause of our financial crisis, in which DC and Wall Street both share the blame. Barnie Frank never learns, does he?
Solar panels are barely cost-effective when put on the roofs of homes in Arizona. Do we really want to put them on rooftops in inner city Chicago, installed by ACORN activists, and have Fannie and Freddie provide the funds? If so, we've gone insane. There are other zingers buried in Energy as well -- who cares if it won't decrease CO2 emissions a wit?
To me, Van Jones as green jobs energy czar is just a symptom. Obama has a troubling back story in Illinois of being involved in seemingly praiseworthy projects that failed at great loss -- measured in the many millions. Now he can do it in the many, many billions.
ps The future is unwritten. I could actually see Hillary challenging Obama in 2012, if he falters.
No question. Hillary is an on the bench replacement manager, just waiting for Obama to work himself into a box from which he can't escape. If that happens, get ready to fight all these battles over again, just uglier.
learning that Van Jones was already Obama's green jobs energy czar. Energy would have Fannie and Freddie provide the financing....
First off Link, Jones was appointed as a special advisor to the Council on Environmental Quality. Secondly, he reports to the Chairman of the CEQ, Nancy Sutley, who was appointed by President Obama and confirmed by Congress. The CEQ was established in 1969 as part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
As Chairman, Ms. Sutley is responsible for coordinating President Obama's climate, energy and other environmental policy initiatives with several federal agencies. Her office reports to the Executive Office, and has oversight by Congress.
Now, if you think she's going to let Van Jones ride roughshod over her chairmanship, leapfrog over other federal agencies regulated by the NEPA (DOE, EPA for two) and bypass the House Appropriations Committee to implement some bogus plan to make reparations to his boyz in the hood--through wind turbines no less--well, than you have a far, far more cynical view of our Constitution's system of checks and balance than I could even imagine. Not to mention a helluva imagination:~> And that's after I lived through 8 years' of George Bush!
BTW, you can read Sutley's recent testimony before the House Appropriations Committe here.
To Mara, from Link
I'm referring directly to what's already in the Energy bill that was passed by the House. What I read either got slipped in two days before -- or the night before -- the House voted. I'm not imagining anything -- I'm not that creative!
Van Jones is a sideshow to this.
Mara, methinks you're on Axelrod's payroll.
Follow-up from Link:
Welcome to Van Jones's world.
Mara accused me of making this stuff up. Ego nunco pronunciari mendagio [ at least not here ] sed ego sum homo indomitus.
So set forth below are select section headers from "Title II / Subtitle H--Green Resources for Energy Efficient Neighborhoods" of the Energy bill passed by the House. You can get the whole thing directly from the Library of Congress here: http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:3:./temp/~c111WHH4qx:e712452:
I've confirmed that Subtitle H was added to the Energy bill in the wee small hours of the morning of the day that the House voted on it. Thus, for most of the time spent on the vote -- until Boehner made an issue of it -- there wasn't even a physical copy of Subtitle H in the building. Reread that last sentence slowly.
The headings are indicative. Fannie and Freddie would buy the home improvement loans to pay for the green resources. Just wait until the rules get written to implement this. Lest you think this is just voluntary, if Energy is passed you'll need to pass "federal code" on energy efficiency to be able to sell your house.
SEC. 286. ADDITIONAL CREDIT FOR FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC HOUSING GOALS FOR ENERGY-EFFICIENT AND LOCATION-EFFICIENT MORTGAGES.
SEC. 287. DUTY TO SERVE UNDERSERVED MARKETS FOR ENERGY-EFFICIENT AND LOCATION-EFFICIENT MORTGAGES.
SEC. 290. COLLECTION OF INFORMATION ON ENERGY-EFFICIENT AND LOCATION-EFFICIENT MORTGAGES THROUGH HOME MORTGAGE DISCLOSURE ACT.
SEC. 292. MORTGAGE INCENTIVES FOR ENERGY-EFFICIENT MULTIFAMILY HOUSING.
SEC. 294. ASSISTED HOUSING ENERGY LOAN PILOT PROGRAM.
SEC. 295. MAKING IT GREEN.
SEC. 296. RESIDENTIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
SEC. 299A. CONSIDERATION OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS IN APPRAISALS.
SEC. 299D. LOANS TO STATES AND INDIAN TRIBES TO CARRY OUT RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES ACTIVITIES.
SEC. 299E. GREEN BANKING CENTERS.
SEC. 299H. SECONDARY MARKET FOR RESIDENTIAL RENEWABLE ENERGY LEASE INSTRUMENTS.
SEC. 299I. GREEN GUARANTEES.
For example Sec 287 "Duty to serve" specifically says: [Fannie or Freddie] shall develop loan products and flexible underwriting guidelines to facilitate a secondary market for energy-efficient and location-efficient mortgages on housing for very low-, low-, and moderate-income families, and for second and junior mortgages made for purposes of energy efficiency or renewable energy improvements, or both.
This has passed the House, although I doubt that more than a handful in Congress even knew it was in there. A real reporter would look into Van Jones' whereabouts in those wee small hours.
I wish I was creative enough to imagine this stuff. It's beyond even Philip K Dick.
"I wish I was creative enough to imagine this stuff. It's beyond even Philip K Dick."
Great job Link.
This is what kills me-- if we aren't perpetually on guard during this administration, terrible stuff gets done. We may need an amendment limiting Congress to meetings six months of the year, unless called by the President. Or something...
I asked once before, and I'll repeat: who approved Jones clearance? Fox is reporting he didn't even fill out the standard questionnaire for his approximate level (I say "approximate" because the senate has willingly let the administration side-step the confirmation process with all these extra-constitutional jobs).
The Secret Service wasn't so gullible. Jones was indded investigated by the Service, and he would have failed because of his two riot and mayhem arrests from SF and Seattle. An individual signed off on his clearance. Somebody like David Axelrod or Valerie Jarrett, for instance.
The White House needs to tell us if it was Axelrod or Jarrett. Now.
The White House needs to expose every one of their appointees to Senate confirmation, just like the Bush White House did. Just like every other administration did. They need to do it right now.
Lefties should be demanding action on this affront, because someday the shoe will be on the other foot and sitting on your hands with your voices mum robs you of the right to protest when it doesn't go your way. No Republican would have tried to take these powers away from Congress, and if they had, no Bob Dole or Dick Lugar would have permitted it to happen.
Pasadena Vicki re Dalton Trumbo and other Hollywood writers:
So what if they were communists. They were members of the communist party in the 30's when Russia was our friend, remember that time? These people were harmless. talented, but harmless.
During the Vietnam War, my draft board granted me Conscientious Objector (1-O) status. Had I not obtained it, I was prepared to refuse induction and go to jail. Some time after I became a (1-O), a neighbor lent me a copy of Dalton Trumbo’s Johnny Got His Gun.The book impressed me. Here was a somewhat kindred spirit.Though my personal view on being a C.O./(1-O) differed from Trumbo, as my emphasis was more on avoiding killing than on avoiding dying.
Here are some lines from the book, taken from a Time Magazine review: . . . There's nothing worth dying for. ... I would trade democracy for life. I would trade independence and honor and freedom and decency for life. . . .
This same Time Magazine review also summarizes the points of Trumbo’s The Remarkable Andrew, published in early 1941.
1) Europe's wars are no concern whatever of the U. S.; 2) the U. S. has little interest in the British Fleet; 3) Great Britain is not a democracy; 4) if Hitler can't even cross the English Channel, he can't cross the Atlantic; 5) U. S. concern with fifth columnists is hysteria; 6) Germany is not "an international outlaw"; 7) the U. S. didn't help Loyalist Spain, therefore shouldn't help any other country; 8) the U. S. Government is deceiving the electorate, etc.
By early 1941, Trumbo had published two books that from different angles argued strongly against the US getting involved in WW2, at a time when the party line pushed US neutrality. After the events of June 22, 1941, Trumbo suddenly changed his mind.
From Wikipedia :
Shortly after the 1941 German invasion of the Soviet Union, Trumbo and his publishers decided to suspend reprinting of Johnny Got His Gun until the end of the war. After receiving letters from individuals, including pacifists, isolationists, as well as those with apparent ties to Nazis requesting copies of the book, Trumbo contacted the FBI and turned these letters over to them.Thus did Trumbo, in effect, "name names", something that would come back to haunt him years later when others would name him before the House Un-American Committee.
Dalton Trumbo was a very skilled propagandist whose loyalties were not to any principles, but to Uncle Joe and the Party. He was very much against war when the USSR was neutral during WW2. The minute Hitler invaded the USSR, Dalton Trumbo changed his tune, like the Stalinist toady he was.
Considering a Stalinist toady such as Dalton Trumbo as a victim of injustice is beyond my comprehension. I grew up with too many refugees from Hitler and from the Iron Curtain to view anyone adhering to such toxic ideologies as “harmless.” “Harmless” only to the degree they are powerless, perhaps.
Recall Churchill’s quote about allying with the Devil to defeat Hitler. That’s what we did with the USSR during WW2- not during the 1930s. When the USSR invaded Estonia in 1940- I knew two unrelated people who had fled Estonia during their childhood- we were not allied with the USSR.
Anon at 4:00
"the senate has willingly let the administration side-step the confirmation process with all these extra-constitutional jobs)."
I'm not sure what you mean by "extra-constitutional jobs" but nevertheless, there are more than 7,000 positions to fill in a new administration. Do you have any idea how long it would take to vet 7,000 nominations through Congress? By then Obama would be finishing up his second term:))
As it stands now, the POTUS has to submit over 1,100 positions to the Senate for approval beyond the high-profile Cabinet positions. It's Septmeber and more than half of his appointees have not been confirmed. You may recall that when we were attacked on 9/11 Bush still didn't have his nat'l security team in place.)
To require that the Senate approve an advisor appointee positions, e.g., to environmental council position Van Jones held (which is a staff position as opposed to a polcy making slot), is overkill regardless of how you feel about Jones. If not, I'd certainly want a do over for the appointment of Karl Rove to Office of Strategic Initiatives, which I might add was a newly created position under the Bush Administration and did not require Senate approval.
Hope that helps.
The term was intended to refer to jobs at under secretary or secretary equivalent levels that have been artificially designated as something different for the specific purpose of sidestepping tedious and time consuming, not to mention prying, Senate scrutiny. Hope that helps, even if it now seems an obvious definition to you in retrospect.
I asked once before, and I'll repeat: who approved Jones clearance? Fox is reporting he didn't even fill out the standard questionnaire for his approximate level
Anon at 4:00 pm, what the article that you linked to failed (conveniently) to mention is that Jones WASN'T even required to fill out the questionnaire because the position didn't require senate confirmation (as two commenters noted above).
The article's inference that he received special treatment of some sort by failing to complete a questionnaire he wasn't asked to is just one more example of the biased crap (from both sides) that passes as "news" these days.
Please people use your heads. Just because it's on a blog or in newspapaper or on the news doesn't mean it's true or accurate. In this 24 hour news cycle where consumers are moving from one sound byte to another it's very easy to be manipulated and by the time the real story/facts surface most people have moved on and the damage is done.
I've found that one of the best, most balanced resources to decipher fact from fiction is the "truth-o-meter" analysis section at at Politifact.
To the immediately preceeding Anon (noon): it's tautological- the reason why the job not requiring Senate confirmation was created for Jones was because he couldn't pass Senate confirmation. He absolutely received "special treatment". He received it not just in his appointment to a czar-ship, and escaping the constitutional scrutiny normally due a high ranking member of the administration, but also in having a Secret Service unsuitability finding presumably over-ruled, if that happened.
It's important to find out if that did indeed happen, for a host of obvious reasons.
Think, then post. Or perhaps you can find a naive-meter site that can help distinguish silly from serious.
Sad to say, noon Anon is not the only one pushing this lunatic sort of bewildering hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil approach to citizenship.
Tom Freidman and Tom Brokaw are right there with Anon: It's better not to know.
He absolutely received "special treatment". He received it not just in his appointment to a czar-ship, and escaping the constitutional scrutiny normally due a high ranking member of the administration, but also in having a Secret Service unsuitability finding presumably over-ruled, if that happened.
To anon at 2:35, I'll pay a large sum of money to the charity of Tigerhawks's choice to have you provide support for ONE of the allegations included in your rant above.
Go ahead, defend your statement. You made it. Own it. Just once pretend your under oath.
Blog posts, drive time noise and other personal musings do not qualify as evidence.