The Christian Science Monitor has a story about a Brazilian tough-on-crime politician accused of arranging violent crimes so that he can present himself as the solution.
The Christian Science Monitor has a story about a Brazilian tough-on-crime politician accused of arranging violent crimes so that he can present himself as the solution.
Hart, in a rumination vaguely linked to Obama vacationing on Martha’s Vineyard: “I fear we have departed from a society where the genteel moneyed set once held sway. This traditional role has been usurped by corporate lobbyists, fast money hedge fund pirates, actors (who often confuse being famous with being important), and corrupt political hacks who have inserted themselves into the epicenter of modern society.
Maybe this upward mobility is for the best, but I am not sure.
Historically, power and charm were the hallmarks of well bred members of society. Unlike Obama, most made or came from money and valued that heritage as important, not only for their own ascension, but as a means to provide for others.”
I’ll agree that the people who occupy the center of society aren’t exactly inspiring, but come on, when were they ever? The Americans who got themselves into “the genteel moneyed set” weren’t a superior breed, they were, many of them, as cutthroat a band as anything ever seen in business (way beyond the schemes of an average hedge fund manager). They dabbled in crime, in politics, in labor exploitation, in industrial espionage, you name it.
As one writer put it after the Titanic went down, some of the men in first class might be noble enough to give a seat in a lifeboat to a poor immigrant, but on dry land they’d work them half to death in sweatshops without batting an eye.
And of course, they ruthlessly excluded anyone who wasn’t right: No blacks, no Jews (there are still a few ritzy places where that holds sway), no non-WASPS … in fact I seriously doubt a guy from a hick state like Tennessee like Hart would have been terribly welcome. That’s not meant as an insult to Hart, only to point that the kind of mannered gentry he idolizes were a bunch of snobs.
Which is why I find it odd: He’s actually mourning the loss of a social order that might have looked down its nose at him?
Even weirder is his statement that Obama “constantly seeks the favor of the social class he could never have come close to had it not been for the kindness of this nation.” What kindness was that? Electing him? Treating him as if he was as good as a white person? Is he suggesting that allowing Obama in Martha’s Vineyard is an act of charity by his superiors?
And just who is it who was being so kind? We have vast numbers of Republicans, ranging from the local Daily News to big names like Sarah Palin who’ve accused Obama of being not legally qualified for the presidency, of plotting to put handicapped children to death, of insisting he’s a communist/fascist/socialist/Nazi, etc. If they’re being kind, what would Republicans being mean look like?
A few weeks ago I wrote in one of my columns that groups pushing to challenge incumbents in Congress might be the best shot for getting a government that’s a little more responsive to the people, rather than corporate donors.
Glenn Greenwald tackles the topic in his Thursday post, pointing out some of the pitfalls: According to Greenwald a lot of Democratic challengers are intimidated by the possibility the administration and the party will put its weight on the side of the incumbent. Which is a reasonable fear. When Ned Lamont challenged Sen. Lieberman in 2006, Lieberman said he’d run as an independent if he lost; the party leaders in the Senate announced that even so, he’d keep all his Democratic seniority and committee assignments.
Best Greenwald quote, on Washingtonians who squeal that running against an incumbent is like a political purge: “What rational person would ever think that it’s a bad thing to force incumbent members of Congress to have to justify their actions to voters, compete within their own party over conflicting ideas, and maximize the instruments available to citizens to keep their representatives accountable? Supporting primary challenges against incumbents who enable policies that you think are bad and harmful is about the purest expression of democracy there can be. And yet, so many people have become convinced that primary challenges are inherently illegitimate, and that what is “anti-democratic” is not the 97% re-election rates and the huge institutional advantages incumbents possess, but rather, attempts to expand the democratic process and the range of acceptable ideas by fostering intra-party debates and forcing incumbents to have to go before voters to explain what they’ve done.”
From the Daily News Spout Off this morning, on punishing CIA agents who torture: “Tell that liberal garbage to the families of 2,740 people who died on 9/11 and thank God that you weren’t one of them.”
In the first place, torture is still a crime, regardless of how p.o.’d the spouter feels. Revenge is not a justification for breaking the law.
In the second place, we’ve documented that our torture victims included people who had no more to do with 9/11 than Saddam did (which is to say nothing whatsoever). We’ve tortured people who were innocent of any crime at all.
And Dick Cheney’s claims to the contrary, there’s not the slightest evidence we’ve ever turned up evidence via torture that prevented another 9/11 or that we couldn’t have gotten the same information legally.
In his letter to the Daily News today, Ronald Rodda of Shalimar explains why allowing people to buy health insurance even with “pre existing conditions” is a bad idea: If the condition is pre-existing, it’s no different than allowing someone to buy fire insurance, then filing a claim for a fire that’s already occurred.
Bollocks.
Pre-existing condition doesn’t mean you can bill the insurer for earlier medical treatment, it means you can get coverage for future medical treatment, even if it stems from some problem you had (weak heart, asthma, psoriasis) at the time you took out the policy.
Under the current rules, insurers routinely exclude people who have a wide variety of pre-existing conditions. Which is understandable–they make more money if their clientele is in good health–but not very good for the people who want insurance.
Jonah Goldberg on the latest torture report: “In countless films and TV shows the good guys — not the bad guys — do things to get important information that makes all some [see update] of the harsh methods and allegedly criminal techniques in the IG report seem like an extra scoop of ice cream and a Swedish massage. In NYPD Blue, The Wire, The Unit, 24 and on and on, suspects are beaten, threatened, terrified. In some instances they are simply straight-up tortured.
…
Now, I know I will get a lot of “it’s just a movie” or “TV shows aren’t real” email from people. At least I have every other time I’ve made this point. So let me concede a point I’ve never disputed while making one these folks don’t seem to grasp. If such practices, in the contexts depicted, were as obviously and clearly evil as many on the left claim, Hollywood could never get away with having the good guys employ them.”
So by this logic—it can’t be that bad if heroes do it—
•Stealing is OK, because a lot of caper films take the crooks’ side.
•Adultery is OK, because that sure happens a lot.
•Rape is OK, because there are romance novels that show rape as sexy (a lot of people actually do buy this).
And, of course, some things that have been detailed about Abu Ghraib and elsewhere in the Bush gulag have been a lot worse than you’d see on TV (plus, of course, they happen to innocent people).
And the names: The first speaker was Norman Beumel with Coastal Planning and Engineering, the engineer was Thomas Pierro with the same firm.
I’m done and heading back to the office. Story to come on Saturday.
So probably the next meeting is early October. And we’re done.
No, there’s some discussion of the armoring already on Norriego Point. That’s already been worked into the model. And some more discussion on sand build-up and other details. A lot of details.
What effect did the 2006/7 dredging project have on sediment transport? Both the sand removed and the effect of the added beach.
What effect will the proposed next restoration project have?
These are things they coudl check.
Dave Sherry asks if they’re implying the dredging has an effect on beach erosion. Speaker says probably not a major impact: When you get out a certain distance, the effects of dredging on the shore are pretty minimal.
Kisela; When will be ready for our next meeting?
Speaker: “That depends on the level of pressure … sometimes you get a hiccup in the model and have to start all over again.” He says even under heavy time pressure, they’re looking at six weeks to two months.
Even after the final analysis, they have to have a final meeting, convince the city to adopt this and then convince the state to sign off.
Someone asks: If the study should show that we can deposit spoils on Holiday Isle, why shouldn’t the next dredging (which I guess is coming up) wait until after?
Someone replies: No guarantee that if we skip the window for dredging (which is coming up in October), we’d have a dredge available, or funding available to do it again.
Speaker: Since this modeling technology has only been around for a decade or so, it’s difficult to evaluate how well it works as a predictor, but the results have been good overall, and there’s constant effort to review and improve.
Stahlnaker shows pictures of Jetty East today and 20 years ago: “Our sand has been transported away.”
Dave Sherry: “One eight hundred pound gorilla in the room … it seems like all these scenarios assume something will be done with Norriego Point.” It’s a big draw on the sand.
Speaker: Our scenarios will have to assume either that nothing is done or that some sort of armoring is adopted.
Sherry: either way, that will be a huge difference to the overall picture.