WORK MORE—EARN LESS—THE AMERICAN WAY

 

A few days ago Republican Presidential candidate Jeb Bush gave an interview in which he stated, among other things, that Americans need to work harder and longer.

Those are not his precise words nor are those words standing alone.

Here is the exact quote:

My aspiration for the country and I believe we can achieve it, is 4 percent growth as far as the eye can see. Which means we have to be a lot more productive, workforce participation has to rise from its all-time modern lows. It means that people need to work longer hours” and, through their productivity, gain more income for their families. That’s the only way we’re going to get out of this rut that we’re in.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jeb-bush-people-work-longer-hours/story?id=32313997

And since that statement drew a firestorm from the left, Bush clarified his remarks

If we’re going to grow the economy, people need to stop being part-time workers, they need to be having access to greater opportunities to work.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/jeb-bush-says-his-longer-hours-comment-meant-people-need-full-time-work-2015-07-09

Either way Bush ignores the realities of the American work force and adopts the typical CEO approach to workers that is more at the heart of our economic troubles than any of the nonsense he spouts.

I will address him directly.

Well, Jeb, let me admit you into the world of reality. I know it’s scary but you’re a big boy, you should be able to handle it.

You see, Jeb, truth be told, Americans work harder at their jobs, and are far more productive, than probably any other collection of workers across the industrialized, corporatized world. And yet…and yet…the corporations that employ them do not already reward them for this productivity. Oh, a company will benefit from this productivity, turning out more widgets at a lower cost sold for a higher price generating record profits for the company, but guess where that profit goes almost exclusively.

I’ll give you a moment to ponder.

OK, time’s up. here’s the answer. Jeb, I’m sure you know many corporate heads and higher ups, have hob nobbed with them or consorted with them in your various jobs—those same jobs which have made you personally a very rich man by the way—no need to worry about your family’s health, or the costs of dealing with that at least—and which have provided you an enormous, steady, not paid by the hour income.

That profit, Jeb, goes almost exclusively to the people who are already rich and who did not have to work an hourly job to achieve those riches. How is that so? Well it is so because those rich people have the money to influence lawmakers to allow them to become even richer. The system, as well you should know, seeing as how your dear brother George was such an advocate of its very processes, keeps seeking to put more money into your pockets through a web of lax or no regulation, perpetual begging for lower taxes, maintaining the ability to earn huge sums that, if taxed at all, are taxed below the rate typically paid by one of these hourly workers you implore to work longer and harder, and…to top it all off…actively seeking to deny the financial rewards that should inure to the people who have produced those riches for you.

Work longer hours? Work full time instead of part time? Tell that to Walmart and its ilk that deliberately keep many employees below the level of full time so they do not have to pay benefits. Or pay overtime when their job responsibilities might occasionally stretch their hours beyond forty per week, all in service to the employer.

Or how about this, Jeb? Working full time…a forty hour week…at $10 per hour, which is a higher pay rate than the majority of them earn…still leaves them below the poverty line, severely so if they have children which the majority do.

Add to that the wage theft committed by corporations, again like Walmart…though it is not alone…who sneakily find ways to not even pay their employers for the time they have worked. Multiple successful class action lawsuits to recover these stolen wages do not lie, Jeb.

I’m breaking up with you, Jeb, not that we ever went steady in the first place. But, unlike in real life romances where the person declaring the split says, ” it’s not you, it’s me”, speaking definitively on behalf of all American workers acting as one, in this case Jeb, it is not me, it is YOU.

NO MORE PLAYING KING OF THE HILL.

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

I Corinthians 13:11  (KJV)

Like many kids in the 1950’s my friends and I often played “King of The Hill“, a game in which one of the players seeks to gain and maintain control of the high ground within a limited area.. Of course to do so, the winner needs to ensure her rivals go tumbling back down the hill, the other kids facilitating the champion by eliminating each other as they scramble to reach the top.

For too long, especially since the demise of the Soviet Union, the United States has been playing the game on the world stage. In doing so America is undoubtedly stronger than any of its rivals individually but to gain and maintain this superiority it must far too often spread its resources far too thinly to effectively accomplish all its goals.

As we stand atop the crest challenges come from every direction and there is no practical way to dispatch them all without serious damage to ourself.

Yet, we persist in trying.

The United States, through its many adventures, overt and covert, obviously is in denial that, because it outlasted the Soviets of the Cold War, it is THE supreme nation on Earth. Indeed, our leaders seem to believe we are entitled to this supremacy.

It is time to put away childish things.

Michael Klare explores this issue in this essay on TomDispatch.com

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176003/tomgram%3A_michael_klare%2C_superpower_in_distress/#more

In “Delusionary Thinking in Washington (The Desperate Plight of a Declining Superpower)” Klare discusses the trends in American foreign policy, more precisely the trends in exerting American military power to effectuate that policy, in the past tewnty-five or so years.

He quotes both George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush as to their vision of America in a post Cold War world and, though Bush 43 first formulated his vision as a peaceful one in 1999 early in his campaign for President, that vision obviously morphed into quite something else once he assumed office. (Some would argue the peaceful vision was only a  smokescreen but that argument is for another time.)

To Klare this “delusionary”  thinking extends across the aisle as he credits only Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders as totally removed from it among the D.C. lawmakers and power brokers.

He notes that other powers, big and small did not simply  kowtow to the undeniable singular supremacy of the United States as its superpower rival met its demise. General Colin Powell acknowledged this fact when he declared

We have to put a shingle outside our door saying, ‘Superpower Lives Here,’ no matter what the Soviets do, even if they evacuate from Eastern Europe.

Klare is both wary of and dismissive towards the more bellicose version of this notion of American supremacy mostly coming from the right, but does not spare President Obama.

President Obama, who is clearly all too aware of the country’s strategic limitations, has been typical in his unwillingness to retreat from such a supremacist vision.

Klare is not alone in his analysis even coming from a conservative perspective. Christopher Layne of the George H.W. Bush School at Texas A&M writing in The American Conservative in 2010 made many of these same points

Though the path Layne takes to make his point diverges in many ways from Klare’s his conclusion is

U.S. decline means that in the 21st century the United States will pay a high price if it endlessly repeats its mistakes.To change our foreign policy—to come to grips with the end of the Pax Americana—we first need to chage the way we see the world.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/graceful-decline/

And I see no change in this view at all.

Too, the idea of American supremacy is pretty laughable on any level. This century has already witnessed the utter inability to unilaterally exert our will by force no matter how antagonistic nor how much we spend on our Department of War and all the physical and technological might at our command.

And yes, the current Department of Defense needs to return to its original name of Department of War. After all, we keep seeking ways to dominate others, not protect ourselves. As I recall the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution reads in pertinent part

…provide for the common defence…

not “prepare for war at every opportunity”.

Instead of seeking to exert power over others, I want our military resources devoted to ensuring no one else exerts power over the United States.

To do so, echoing both Klare and Layne, our philosophy towards foreign affairs needs to change.

TPP……TOO PECULIARLY (BI)PARTISAN

President Barack Obama has been touting the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and its companion Trans Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TATIP). These are potential trade agreements, the former being negotiated with 11 other nations bordering the Pacific Ocean and the latter with Europe.

There have been accusations that the negotiations are secretive and that entering such pacts, no matter the assertions by the Administration, will result in the loss of American jobs. In that regard it is claimed to be similar as to what the effects were of the North American Free Trade Agreement, better known as the notorious NAFTA passed during Bill Clinton’s tenure that itself was highly praised in advance for its benefits for American workers and highly cursed since by the thousands, if not millions, of American workers who lost jobs as a result.

Obama has encountered resistance to TPP within his own Democratic Party, most notably from Senator Elizabeth Warren.

Currently there is Congressional legislation pending granting Trade Promotional Authority to the President, the power to cut trade deals and expedite their passage through Congress without amendments or procedural hurdles.

And Republicans are leading the way.

Now these are the same Republicans who have opposed just about any legislation favored by Obama, or any executive action, or any thought speech or motion by Obama down to whether he installs the new roll of toilet paper so it rolls over rather than under.

Affordable Care Act? It got no Republican votes even though its basic premise was first developed by Republicans.

Cap and Trade? Nothing has really been done to enact legislation that would allow companies to, in effect, trade for credits to allow more carbon dioxide emissions. But again this principle first emerged under a Republican. George H.W. Bush was President and cap and trade been cited as a market approach to reducing pollution. Senator John McCain was even the main sponsor of such a bill in both 2003 and 2005. Since Obama took office you’d think he had decided to confiscate the first born of every American family and sell them into sexual slavery from the Republican reaction if the topic was even broached.

Immigration reform? George W. Bush tried to get legislation passed and many Republicans favored passing some measures, though the details drew varying levels of support. Now, it seems, that any efforts by Obama to get some degree of reform is such anathema to Republicans that many are willing to self-deport as a symbolic gesture against reform.

And then there is the ongoing case of Iran and its intentions…or not…to build a nuclear weapon. The Obama administration, together with five other nations, has concluded a framework of an agreement with Iran that would prevent such a weapon from being constructed. Finalization of such pact is pending as the details are committed to the legal niceties.

This would appear to be a good thing, keeping an atomic bomb away from what is considered a rogue state. And I recognize that Iran could break the pact, though its actions will be closely monitored. But, then again, Japan could renounce our World War II Treaty with them, re-arm, and flood the U.S. market with autos and electronics, including those fascinating toilets (with the toilet paper coming off over the top, of course.

But first 47 Republican Senators sent an open letter to Iran’s leadership stating their outright opposition to ANY agreement and their intention to thwart Obama at every turn. Some have even voiced a desire for war against Iran in preference to even the most stringently enforceable treaty possible.

So, just why would Republicans all of a sudden fall all over themselves to work with President Obama on the TPA for both the TPP and TATIP? By god they’ve been willing to work with Democrats to get them to agree in the Senate in order to have enough votes to ensure passage.

In the past few years we have witnessed no cooperation between the two parties in Congess unless the American public was going to get screwed.

Senate Democrats may have maintained unity to prevent the fast tracking sought by Obama,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/12/senate-democrats-trade-promotion-authority_n_7267600.html

But the mere fact that Republicabns are siding with President Obama on this issue should be sufficient to raise suspicion if not simply reject the TPA out of hand.

The old saying is Politics makes strange bedfellows, commonly atributed to American writer and essayist and friend of Mark Twain, Charles Dudley Warner, though it may have derived from Shakespeare’s The Tempest.

Obama and Senate Republicans make for strange bedfellows indeed.

Anyone have pictures?

BUSH VS CLINTON—2016

I just had a thought. At least it’s not as dangerous as most of my impulses.

While reading an article about Bill Clinton’s possible role in Hillary’s campaign, and having seen a headline where former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley stated that we need to get rid of the Clinton—Bush mindset, I was inspired. (Also expired and perspired but that’s for later)

Let us have a Clinton vs Bush contest in 2016, but Bill against Dubya, not Hillary against Jeb.

There’s no Constitutional problem with a third term for either because, as the Teabaggers have been telling us for several years, the Constitution has been taken away, just like school prayer, everybody’s guns, and their freedom to worship  the two or three time divorced Conservative heroes of their choice.

You ask, “how is this a good idea?” And I pretend I am on a Sunday morning network political talk show and reply, “How is it not?”

Don’t ask again, I’m moving on with my own talking points. (I am a HUGE fan of Meet The Press)

How in the world could one not appreciate another Presidential campaign involving these men, but for the first time, facing off directly.

The contrasts are clear. It would be as if Sandy Koufax were to come out of retirement to pitch to a similarly unretired Willie Mays. Their records are clear, if not written in stone…or, as in the case of Koufax and Mays…written in BaseballReference.com.

One easy comparison would be to say one sucked and the other one was sucked. But that would be crude and lowdown and I refuse to go there.

Another easy comparison is that one finally brought the federal budget back into balance with a surplus four years running as he left office while the other immediately brought yearly deficits back to life.

One used his powers as Commander-in Chief (CINC) to deploy troops with a loss of approximately one hundred as a result. The other used his powers as Commander-in-Chief to deploy troops who suffered deadly losses of over 6000.

One saw the creation of nearly 23 million private sector jobs during his tenure and the other saw the creation of fewer than 2 million private sector jobs during his.

But I’m taking myself far too seriously here. What I am really concerned about is entertainment value.

Just imagine the delight the media will take in bloviating about draft dodging vs AWOL, about “not inhaling” vs drunken, cocaine fueled escapades.

Post-Presidency fund raising from foreign despots vs Post-Presidency crappy artwork.

Avoiding your Vice-President because you never got along anyhow vs avoiding  your Vice-President because you refuse to hang out with known criminals.

But there is one main reason Bill, rather than Hillary Clinton should run. We probably will not hear the word Benghazi more than 6453 times in attack ads if Bill runs while the number would be infinite if Hillary did.

On the Bush side running George instead of brother Jeb means the deepest desires of their mother, Barbara,  to not have another Bush in the Oval Office will be satisfied.

And I kind of like the old gal.

IT’S GOOD NEWS WEEK

Pardon me if I seem a little tired to you. I am positively worn out. From what, you ask? Well from celebrating the good news that has been consolidated in some stories found over the past week. Not to worry. Though I live in Morgantown, W.Va. whose reputation for post sports event destruction in victory is surpassed only by Genghis Kahn and his Hordes, I celebrated peacefully, even having a nice lunch Saturday with four conservative friends and I remained alcohol free to boot.

You should be accustomed to seeing headlines or hearing TV pundits loudly exclaim about the failures of President Barack Obama. But here in Wit and Wisdom Central we are rejoicing in his accomplishments. Oh, now you laugh because from what appears in both the mainstream media and most decidedly in the various outposts of the right wing noise and obfuscation machine, the news has been portrayed as so bad and Obama as so incompetent that he has to ask for Secret Service help in tying his shoelaces.

Even former enthusiastic supporters, those who have voted for him twice (whether that list includes Alison Lundergan Grimes we may never know) have soured on him, so we are told and that is why polls reveal that he is the least popular Chief Executive in this nation’s glorious history. And that is true. President Barack Obama’s lowest approval ratings are below those of any POTUS ever to occupy the Oval Office…any Potus to occupy the Oval Office since JFK except for LBJ, RMN,GRF, JEC, RWR, GHWB, WJC, and GWB.

That’s right, the lowest approval of Obama has been 39% but each of his predecessors fell below that mark at some time in their tenures.

http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/data_access/data/presidential_approval.html

But even more good news has been summarized which, if one thinks about it, may be why that approval rating is as high as it is. Plainly this good news is that there are at least 14 specific items of positive news about the nation’s performance on his watch/

Here are a few

 

1. We’ve now had 63 straight months of economic expansion.

3. Unemployment has dropped from 10.1% in October of 2009 to 5.9% and projected to reach 5.4% by summer of 2015.

5. The Federal budget deficit is shrinking. It’s been reduced by two-thirds since 2009.

7. For 95% of American taxpayers, income taxes are lower now than just about any time in the previous 50 years.

8. Our dependence on foreign oil has shrunk due to record domestic oil production and improved fuel efficiency standards.

And possibly the most important since the legislation passed to effectuate this has been one of the most contentious is memory:

9. At least 7 million more Americans now have health insurance than before.

http://jeff61b.hubpages.com/hub/14-Facts-About-The-Obama-Presidency-That-Most-People-Dont-Know

Within the story itself, alongside the bullet points, you can read in more detail what the numbers show and link to the sources if you have doubts of the veracity of these claims.

With regards to the economy and the recovery from the recession that was ongoing when Obama took office, he has led a recovery that exceeds that led by Ronald Reagan after the recession that began shortly after his inauguration.

THIS IS GOOD NEWS!

Well, as much as I take issue with the Commander In Chief, especially when he’s doing Commander in Chiefy things like drones and bombs and Guantanamos and boots on the ground but not really and failing to punch Vladimir Putin in the nose, you may be surprised to learn that the guardian of our dollars has done a pretty good job of that in many of the aspects of those efforts upon which our Presidents are often judged.

Naturally the critics will nit pick and assert that Obama does not merit kudos for  the recovery and the drop in unemployment. They will loudly proclaim that his policies had no positive effect.and that other forces were at play. And those with the perspicacity to recognize perfidy and mendacity…often called a bullshit detector…have a ready and apt response. When things go bad the President is responsible so when they go right, he deserves the credit.

I’ll ignore these critics.

 

I am going to P-A-R-T-Y.

 

MEAT THE PRESS

The Sunday morning network news/interview programs used to have a certain cachet. Led by Meet The Press—the oldest such entity having debuted scant months after your favorite blogger emerged from the womb—these shows often presented newsmakers actually making news. That is, many politicians would drop by offering their ideas and opinions. Lo and behold, many of these ideas and opinions were thoughtful, logical, and offered valuable insight into how our nation was being run or could be run if these ideas were implemented.

The press, for its part, knew not to take these ideas and opinions at face value and were capable of…even more importantly…desirous of asking probing questions and challenging the interview subjects to expose hidden agendas and self-serving interests.

Those of us at home tuned in, probably on a VHF TV channel brought into the home via rabbit ears or a roof antenna requiring frequent adjustment to receive the proper frequency.

Not that these shows necessarily provided a fully sating seven course gourmet dinner of politics and policy. But they did treat us to a healthy appetizer that many Americans used as incentive to surfeit their own intellectual curiosity by..and this is the funny part…searching on their own for the ingredients needed to complete the meal and possibly even add a scrumptious dessert by voting for candidates for office based on issues not images.

Okay, perhaps my notions and memories are more romance than reality. We have always had craven politicians willing to say or do pretty much anything to advance their careers and political visions, visions that could turn into nightmares for their constituencies. And there were members of the press (now the all-inclusive media) who, if not acceding to these politicians’ visions, at least did little to impede them. You can explore on your own the history of the usual suspect known as Exhibit A, Tailgunner Joe McCarthy.

Today these Sunday morning not so much news shows are akin to a Sunday much more than you can healthily stomach breakfast brunch buffet. Instead of being greeted by friendly, efficient, underpaid servers in tidy aprons catering to your needs, these shows are hosted by obsequious interchangeable overpaid hosts who cater to the delusions of their guests rather than to an audience hungering for genuine political analysis and a cogent and valid interpretation of verifiable facts that may affect their lives. Indeed the facts served are anything but, the equivalent of the near tasty pastrami on rye that is, in truth, nothing but an artificially formed collection of ground turkey parts including the gobble.

Watching these shows on the cable outlet of your local government’s choice today leads one to recognize they have descended into an agglomeration of unpalatable sound bites consisting of rehashed talking points and red meat lies seasoned with the crusty overlay of a virtual packet of Shake and Bake adding no intellectual nutritional value but which merely disguises a paucity of real ideas.

Of late the focus has been on the venerable Meet The Press and its devolution of emcees from the (inexplicably) revered Tim Russert to the nearly universally condemned David Gregory (known as “Stretch” to George W. Bush—whether for his lanky height or his elastic credulity is unknown) to the…no not King of Kings…but Tool of Tools Chuck Todd.

Todd, who made his NBC bones as network White House Correspondent and MSNBC morning commentator, is facile to the extreme. Since he took over MTP he has drawn fire for being a Republican lackey. Oh, who the hell cares?

True nourishment for your political health is as rare on network and cable TV news shows…Sunday or any other day…as nourishment for your corporeal survival is in a steady diet of nothing but bacon and M&M’s.

VOTE UMOC IN 2016

 

Yes, I am running for President in 2016. There is no one better prepared than I. As demonstrated in this space for the past four years I am knowledgeable about everything. Furthermore I not only have the knowledge concerning all the important issues, I also have the solutions for them.

Bah on Hillary and Elizabeth and Joe.

Bah on Ted and Rand and Michele and Rick and Jeb.

A pox on all their houses.

My obvious wisdom is flavored with wit, amalgamated with compassion, annealed with life experience, and fortified through enduring the slings and arrows of outrageous comments by trolls.

Yet, my chief qualification is unarguable. My name is neither Clinton nor Bush.

Whatever proficiencies are possessed by potential candidates of those names they are tempered by the realization that we have already lived through regimes commanded by relatives of blood or marriage and we need to avoid the possibility of being forced to relive those years.

Now admittedly there are some negatives that my opponents and political enemies (including Fox News by default) will undoubtedly emphasize.

Dinesh D’Souza accused Barack Obama of being an”anti-colonialist”. I wear that label proudly. I share that view with men such as Jefferson, Franklin, Monroe, Adams, and some dude named Washington (no, not the character from Welcome Back Kotter). Sadly none of these men are willing to assist me in defending that view. Dammit, they all died on me!

I do have something in common with conservatives that should garner some support from the right. I very much believe in self-sufficiency and prefer the government have little or no role in people’s economic lives. So all those welfare queens can pretty much count on no longer feeding at the public trough. Take that Exxon and hedge fund managers and Halliburton and Israeli Military Industries, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

I must be careful. Laying out too much of my precise plan of action too far ahead of time can be deleterious to one’s campaign. Suffice it to say every proposal I will put on the table will help bring the federal budget into balance, make the world safe for democracy, enable all Americans to live the dream, and eliminate nasty corns, calluses, bunions, and sore feet. (Uh, sorry, that last part comes from an old commercial.)

To avoid controversy the only percentages I cite will relate to MLB won-loss records.

Since I will defend Social Security with my dying breath I will eschew the Presidential pay of $400,000 a year and live off my benefits. I have no wife or minor children whom I can dispatch around the world at taxpayer expense. I don’t golf. I’ll end the silly practice of bringing championship sports teams to the White House. The members of the college teams could better spend their time in class. The members of the professional teams are paid more than the President. Why the hell should I have them as guests? They should be hosting at THEIR mansions.

In the meantime I better get cracking on organizing my campaign.

Any volunteers?

 

 

 

NSA—DO NOT KEEP YOUR LISTENING EARS ON!

Judge Judy is clearly irascible, frequently wrong on the law while ignoring facts, and far too often seems to have as her sole purpose not to fairly judge a case but to simply humiliate the litigants and piss them off. One of her favorite expressions, invoked when she’s expressed her view of the case but a party seems to have missed the point is “Put your listening ears on.”

Well recent revelations about the National Security Agency (NSA), the spies whose secretive ways make the CIA look like neighborhood gossips by comparison, demonstrate that they have absolutely no compunctions about  putting their listening ears on. In fact, they appear to never have them off.

Now the NSA’s performance during the Obama administration reveals that its actions have increasingly been more intrusive, tracking emails and other computer correspondence as well as building a metadata base of phone calls made by EVERYONE. All this without warrants or even a healthy suspicion of illegal activity by their targets. Of course their targets include you and me. I don’t know about you, but I believe the last plot I was involved in was throwing a surprise birthday party for my then wife in 1985.

But, no mind, the NSA has brought us closer and closer to Big Brother. I find fault with Obama for permitting this broadening of unwarranted and warrantless surveillance but in reality, the NSA has been conducting such activities since before Obama took office and the main difference might be the simple notion that technology keeps advancing at an alarming rate, thus increasing the possibility of more and more intrusiveness.

Then again, what we have learned by observing our spy complex over the years is that though the President…any President…is nominally in charge, these agencies have few reservations about going rogue and acting with no or at least dubious authorization.

Throw in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) which dates back decades, its later revisions, and the Patriot Act in response to 9/11, and instead of fear and loathing in Las Vegas we have fear and intelligence gathering in our homes. Of course it behooves the spy-industrial-security complex to keep us scared shitless. Those in the government gain ever more power and those in the private sector bleed the public fisc while advising the government that terrorists lurk in every corner.

So the private guys build sales and profits by supplying the very goods and services that the private guys, in separate contracts, have recommended that the government utilize. All those “independent” security consultants are nothing but shills.

Now we have the case in which a federal judge attempts to put the brakes on the runaway train that the NSA has morphed into.

Judge Richard Leon of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (a George W. Bush appointee) ruled today that the NSA is probably trampling the Constitution with its metadata base.

Emily Bazelon incisively explained this decision in Slate.

Let’s start with what the government is doing.At issue is the part of the Patriot Act, building on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, that allows the government to collect an enormous trove of phone call metadata, and then query it based on an “identifier” phone number called a “seed.” A seed is a number associated with terrorist activity, based on a reasonable and articulable suspicion. Sounds OK so far. But wait: Once you’re an NSA agent with a seed, you can analyze all the numbers within three hops from that seed—meaning the numbers the seed called and received calls from, and the numbers connected to those numbers. Judge Leon points out that if one seed calls just 100 numbers in five years, and each of the numbers in the next two hops also connects with 100 numbers, the NSA can trawl through the metadata for 1 million phone numbers. And that’s got to be a low-ball estimate, since it doesn’t take into account the possibility that someone used one of those phone numbers to order from, say, Domino’s Pizza, allowing the NSA to vacuum up zillions of other callers.  http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/12/judge_richard_leon_rules_the_nsa_s_phone_record_collection_program_probably.html

Unfortunately Judge Leon strikes me as a lone wolf fighting against the tide of technical progress combined with fear-mongering about terrorism. Relatively few objections come from our citizens upon hearing these revelations. While it is easy to blame the President or Presidents under whom these offenses have occurred, to paraphrase Shakespeare, “the fault, dear Americans, lies not in our Presidents but within ourselves.”

I have noticed a tendency in our Commanders in Chief to exercise that power even if ill-advised. (https://umoc193.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=544&action=edit) Such power in practicality extends to matters that are not pure military in nature such as any matters of security.

If you object to the NSA  actions have you also objected to the Bush wars? Have you also objected to the drone strikes killing “terrorists”? Have you objected to the establishment of and maintenance of the obscenity known as Guantanamo? Have you objected to the profiling of Muslims? Have you objected to any hint of further military action in the Middle East and North Africa? Have you objected to the uncovering of terrorist plots that really were fomented by undercover government agents? Have you objected to the needless and costly measures taken in the name of security that provide anything but?

If you cannot answer “yes” to each and every one of those questions please spare me the drama of your objections to bad NSA behavior. I may listen but those are crocodile tears I am shedding in sympathy.

UNRIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION

All of us tend to get a little peeved when seeing a news item or observing an event that doesn’t sit right with our sensibilities. Fair enough. And our sensabilities may clash with those of our neighbors. Again fair enough. On occasion our perception is sufficient to raise our level of upset to that of righteous indignation.

Then there are those people who go out of their way to find offense. Send a humorous birthday card instead of one proclaiming the celebrant the most wonderful person on Earth? You’ve just made their shit list. Women wearing the same dress to a big gala? Double shit list.

Finally there are those people who find offense not simply to find offense but because they have an agenda. What offends them pales in comparison to true affronts that they ignore. Anything, no matter how petty, innocuous and even well-intentioned, if the action or statement can be construed in a totally negative way these people will be twittering, blogging, or punditing like crazy, intending to raise the ire of their like-minded puppets.

This behavior has been on display by our right wingnuts ever since noon on January 20, 2009. Coincidentally that is the moment when Barack Obama was sworn into office as President. Or maybe not so coincidentally.

There have been the complaints from Fox News and other conservative outlets about Obama’s supposed excess vacations combined with his golf outings detracting from the attention due his high office responsibilities. The problem is, giving credit for accuracy to the numbers they cited, he had taken 115 days off during his first four years. On the other hand, verifiable information on George W. Bush reveals he AVERAGED 120 days of vacation per YEAR.

Yes Obama was presiding over a fitful recovery from recession and some crises in Egypt and Libya and Syria, not to mention his NCAA basketball bracket. But Bush presided over the recession that led to the fitful recovery as well as two wars. Of course his surrogate, Dickie Cheney, was really the one in charge so George’s absences were of no import. But hey, Cheney did find time to shoot a friend in the face.

We are now dealing with Umbrellagate. (While there is cause to object to the suffix of “gate” being used for every scandal, large or small, umbrellas are designed to deflect water.) Yes, the President had the temerity to have a marine hold an umbrella to protect him as he gave a speech. http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/16/obama-breaches-marine-umbrella-protocol/

By the way, The Daily Caller is particularly notable for forensic examioations of non-existent crimes of this nature.

Evidently male marines are forbidden to use umbrellas while on duty.

Yes, the Marines are often forced to get wet while standing outside the White House because they cannot hold an umbrella. Yes, the Marine Corps uniform regulations state a Marine cannot hold an umbrella. But Marine spokesman Capt. Eric Flanagan explained to the Washington Post that, according to Title 10 of the U.S. Code, Marines must “perform such other duties as the President may direct.”

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/05/presidents-umbrella-scandal-folded-it-could-take/65372/

Now those seeking to ensure our national holidays are properly observed…never mind big bellied shirtless males swigging beer while charring hot dogs and chicken breasts…a young lady finds herself needing to perform that horrible and degrading human function of urination (but, hey, wouldn’t ur-i-nation be very apt for the Fourth of July?). Yes, she tweets about it…somehow no triviality of human conduct eludes the twittersphere…but she’s criticized for degradation of our holiday honoring fallen soldiers.

But in this case the peeing young lady is one Lena Dunham who has recently garnered some measure of fame due to a cable TV series.  http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/05/28/lena_dunham_tweets_about_peeing_on_memorial_day_and_conservatives_explode.html

More importantly to offended eyes she also had the gall to produce campaign ads for Obama. That fact alone makes her patriotism suspect to the wingnuts.

So the next time you read of Obama’s “apology tour” remember it never took place, it never left port. He was booked on Carnival after all.

TRYING TO MAKE SENSE OUT OF NONSENSE

Okay, I’ll narrow the field for you since there is so much nonsense afoot at any particular time.

We have learned that the IRS targeted right wing groups regarding their tax-exempt status or efforts to secure that status. I’ve already addressed this issue and I can safely maintain that I’m agin’ it! https://umoc193.wordpress.com/2013/05/12/no-country-for-old-tax-exempts/

We have also learned that the Department of Justice obtained at least two months of phone records of Associated Press (AP) journalists in an attempt to determine the source of leaks in conjunction with anti-terrorist activities.

There is no doubt these actions by our government are extremely troubling and the Obama Administration is deservedly taking heat.

Piggy-backing on top of the renewed Benghazi investigation Republicans in Congress are undoubtedly feeling their oats. Especially joyful at these revelations are those on the right who are constantly preaching of the evils of the federal government and warning of complete government suppression.

Infortuitously for Obama and his minions, it will be easy to exploit these missteps to make political hay that even, conceivably, could carry over into the 2016 Presidential campaign.

However much one is offended by these actions, and I am sorely offended, I really cannot say that they signal a seachange in government misdeeds that threaten our very Republic.

Senate Majority Leader Democrat Harry Reid offered his two cents that the IRS focus on Tea Party groups is no different than when the agency picked on Greenpeace and the All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, California during the Cheney…er…Bush Administration without a peep of protest from Republicans. http://www.salon.com/2013/05/14/reid_republicans_hypocritical_for_benghazi_irs_outrage/

In the former instance Greenpeace was subject to an extensive IRS audit due to allegations its advocacy passed lines of permissibility for a tax-exempt. It seems that a supposed watchdog group, heavily financed by Exxon, instigated this audit. Exxon, of course, is the natural enemy of Greenpeace. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0322-10.htm

The Church got into trouble when its former Rector, Rev. George F. Regas, gave a guest sermon chastising Bush for the Iraq war. http://articles.latimes.com/2005/nov/07/local/me-allsaints7

Neither did spying on journalists originate with the Obama DOJ.

But obtaining phone records of journalists is an extreme course of action that has serious ramifications. There are special rules in place in the United States that authorities are supposed to adhere to when obtaining journalists’ communication records, and they’re intended to protect press freedom and stop prosecutors from compromising journalists’ constitutionally protected newsgathering role. Federal regulations instruct investigators that they can obtain journalists’ phone records only as a last resort, and the decision to seek the records should receive the “express authorization of the Attorney General.” The authorization should be given on the basis that “effective law enforcement and the fair administration of justice” is deemed, in the specific circumstances, to outweigh “the public’s interest in the free dissemination of ideas and information.”

In recent years, however, the FBI has flagrantly disregarded these rules on multiple occasions. A scathing 2010 review by the DoJ’s inspector general criticized how the feds had spied on Washington Post and New York Times reporters in a leaks investigation carried out in 2004. The feds obtained 22 months of reporters’ phone records “without any legal process or Attorney General approval,” the inspector found, which illustrated “the absence of internal controls” and was judged to be “negligent in various respects.” The same report detailed two other cases of the FBI obtaining reporters’ phone records without following the proper procedures. One of these cases was described as “deficient and troubling” and the other a “clear abuse of authority” that violated the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, federal regulation, and DoJ policy.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/05/14/ap_reporters_allegedly_spied_on_by_the_justice_department_aren_t_alone.html

Also in the past American journalists have allowed themselves to be used by the CIA for intelligence gathering, i.e. spying, mostly furing the Cold War. Carl Bernstein gave a lengthy review of this practice in this essay. http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php

So the great concept of Freedom of the Press has often been compromised in the past and, on occasion, it is the Press doing the dirty deeds.

Our level of disgust when we are informed of these abuses usually depends on whose ox is getting gored. That is, if the party in power is one you are antipathetic towards, your umbrage will reach record highs.

It often develops that the offenses are dreamed up at the lower levels of bureaucracy, whether out of a misgiuded sense of loyalty to the administration then in power or from an inner need to feel self-important by wielding power not actually granted to you.

But these offenses and abuses are most egregious when they are the product of the high political appointees to office who are most likely striving to consolidate and enhance their designated powers.

However outraged we are over the AP spying, we seem to be less so when faced with the erosion of 1st and 4th Amendment rights when it comes to fighting terrorism. In Salon, Natasha Leonard enumerates the steps taken, laws enacted, etc, that seem to have us going quickly down the slippery slope. Again, though not new with Obama or even George W. Bush, since 9/11 the government has sought and been granted greater access to our personal lives, all in the name of “anti-terrorism.” http://www.salon.com/2013/05/14/whats_so_special_about_journalists/

Reg Henry of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette opines that these current scandals are simply more of Obama’s opponents crying wolf. http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/reg-henry/obamas-opponents-do-a-lot-of-crying-wolf-687665/

I take a more wait and see attitude before judging the impact of these matters. I’ve already clearly stated that the IRS actions merit full investigation.

I do have a suspicion that there will be no sustained effect on the Obama Presidency. I’ve had my own bones to pick with him but to date these latest “sins” don’t appear to be anywhere near as serious as what I’ve been railing about.

In the end, history will tell us which it is. We do not, however, need to wait thirty years or so in order for that history to be written. These scandals often have a way of working themselves out so that in a few years down the road we will need stark reminders to recall they ever occurred.