Sunday, April 12, 2009
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Almost Easter
My daughter, PhillyAngel, didn't believe me when I told her the buds on the tree in our backyard would bloom on Easter.
Freedom From Thought
It's that time of year again. That is, it's time for the Easter Bunny to announce the death & resurrection of Jesus.
It's also time for the annual Blog Against Theocracy, promoting the Separation of Church & State.
This year, my essay focuses on a topic that I have been writing about quite a bit recently -- the "Pay, Pray & Obey" conservative contingent of the Catholic Church.
Most of my musings have been about the deistic doings of Bishop Martino of (my hometown) Scranton, who has single-handedly tried to make the Church a Division of the GOP by refusing communion to Scranton native VP Joe Biden and chastising Senator Bob Casey for paling around with Obama & Biden. He also threatened to lock the doors of the Catheral on St. Patrick's day if a pro-lifer (read that: Biden) was part of the parade, which is a huge event in the Electic City. And then, of course, he challenged a local Catholic college because it dared allow a gay man to speak at a forum (sponsored by the Diversity Institute, of all things) as part of its Black History celebration. See Diversity Defined and The Intolerance Institute.
Martino's views are not just a plague on the city of Scranton, but they speak to the issue of separation of Church & State. When religion requires strict adherence to its beliefs, how can members of a religion govern without conflicts between faith & law? Speaking of Martino's objections to Senator Casey, I observed in The Evil Lurks Within:
I also suppose Martino forgets that the main opposition to JFK as the first Catholic to run for President was that he would put his religious beliefs ahead of those duly enacted laws of the land. Notwithstanding his personal/religious beliefs, abortion is still legal in this country and as a Senator, Casey is obligated to respect those laws.
And as for the Bishop, if Martino was so concerned about "life," where was he on the issue of the unjust war in Iraq? Is he working to end it? How about the death penalty? Nothing extinguishes life like the death penalty. And, let's not forget he is the Bishop in the Scranton Diocese, an area rife with gun lovers. Where does he stand on gun control? Does he preach to his flock to put down the guns? And finally, this is the Catholic Church we're talking about. How did he respond to the pedophiles in the ministry? I'm sure I don't need to answer these hypothetical questions, since the answers are obvious.
Conservative Catholics like Bishop Martino are more prevelant within the Church than at any other time in recent history. As such, the hierarchy of the Catholic Church personifies the importance of the Separation of Church & State.
Of course, the most recent example on a national level is the recent "controversy" over Notre Dame's invitation to President Obama's to speak at its commencement. As I noted last week:
Religious extremism is flourishing and the inability to think critically seems to be a requirement for those religions.
The controversy over President Obama's upcoming commencement address at Notre Dame University is a perfect example of this. Obama Notre Dame Speech: Cardinal George Rips Invitation As An 'Extreme Embarrassment' To Catholics. That is, the right wing faction of the Catholic Church fiercely objects to the idea that Obama will even be permitted to speak at a Catholic institution on any topic, because he does not adhere to all of the tenets of the Church, as promulgated by the Cardinal Newman Society (and he's a Democrat). See Obama and Notre Dame and The Politicization of American Catholicism.
In other words, according to this conservative Catholic contingent, no voice that does not comport with the orthodoxy of the Church should be permitted to be heard at all. Debate? Dissent? Not permitted. Rather, they dictate and the flock obeys. To hear other opinions might cause the faithful to question the rules. For this reason, thinking -- never mind critical thinking -- is heresy.
Pat Buchanan & Lawrence O'Donnell discuss (or, should I say scream about) the issue on Hardball:
Like evangelical Christians, the views of the Catholic Church have become intolerant to ideas that are not part of the dogma of the Church. On the one hand, I respect another's right to believe (even if I believe it is wrong). However, I do object to the insistence that I must abide by those opinions. And that is why religion needs to be kept out of the state. Unless, of course, I'm required to eat chocolate bunnies.
(Poster via coffee messiah)
Friday, April 10, 2009
Lenten Sacrifices
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | M - Th 11p / 10c | ||
| Faith the Nation | |||
| |||
Good Friday. Thoughts of religion.
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
You Lost Already
I know that this video is everywhere, but I had to add my own copy. Stewart at his best:
Yes, tyranny. A.K.A. our democratically elected President. You know what guys....I think you might be confusing tyranny with losing. And I feel for you because ah...I've been there. A few times. In fact one of them was a bit of a nail biter. But see, when the guy that you disagree with gets elected, he's probably going to do things you disagree with. He could cut taxes on the wealthy. Remove government's oversight capability. Invade a country that you thought should not be invaded but that's not tyranny. That's democracy.
See now you're in the minority. It's supposed to taste like a s#%t taco. And by the way, if I remember correctly when a disagreement was expressed about that President's actions when ya'll were in power I believe the response was "Why do you hate America?" "Watch what you say." "Love it or leave it." "Suck on my truck nuts."
* * * *
For god's sake guys. You've been out of power for ten f*%#ng weeks. You've got a mid-term election in twenty months. Pace your rage!
(Video via Crooks & Liars, Video Cafe)
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Monday, April 06, 2009
The Tipping Point
Saturday morning, after I heard about the shooting in Pittsburgh, a mere day after the massacre in Binghamton, I posted my reaction/thoughts on my Twitter:
Yesterday Binghamton, today Pittsburgh. Is there ever a tipping point where gun control is the answer?Of course, I knew the answer to my rhetorical question. There is no answer or Tipping Point. After all, as I've written about before, the NRA & its adherents believe in the Last Man Standing theory of gun control. As long as there is one man standing, that man has a god-given right to bear arms.
Cenk Uygur expresses my thoughts more cogently at the Huffington Post, Have We Reached the Tipping Point on Guns?:
How many shootings does there have to be in the news before we wonder about the wisdom of allowing just about anyone to get a gun in America? Our gun culture is completely out of control.
In just the last two days we have had 13 people killed in Binghamton, NY with a 9 mm and a .45-caliber, three police officers shot and killed in Pittsburgh with an assault rifle and two other guns, and a five children killed with a shotgun in Washington at the hands of their own father. How many will it take before we say enough is enough?
How about the eight people killed in a nursing home in North Carolina a couple of days before these shootings? How about the ten killed in Alabama a couple of weeks earlier? Is there any point when gun rights advocates would admit that we have too much gun violence in America? What will it take for them to acknowledge the most obvious thing in the world?
Of course, their answer is that we don't have enough guns in the country. If we just allowed concealed weapons at schools, nursing homes, work, bars, airports and just about anywhere else you can imagine, then we would have less gun violence. Yes, maybe in bizzaro world, but in this world the more guns we have had in this country the more people have been shot ... with guns.
Right. It's the Last Man Standing philosophy.
(Poster via Phawker)
Sunday, April 05, 2009
The Resurrection is Coming
In anticipation of Easter, the sermon on the 5th Sunday of Lent (which this year, was March 29, 2009), focuses on the gospel of John 11:25:
Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?"
I may have long ago left the Catholic Church, but obviously the Church hasn't left me. After years of drilling, the liturgy and bible passages still remain buried somewhere in the recesses of the mind. This passage popped into my head when I read about the Ramkissoon case.
The remains of Javon Thompson, a 21 month old baby boy, was found stuffed in a suitcase in South Philly last year. The child's mother and four others were charged with his death. As the Huffington Post reports, Resurrected Child And Ria Ramkissoon: Plea Withdrawn If Son Rises From Dead:
A former religious cult member who helped starve her son to death believes he will be resurrected, but legal experts say her extreme faith doesn't make her criminally insane. The mother made an extraordinary deal with prosecutors Monday that her guilty plea to child abuse resulting in death will be withdrawn if her 1-year-old son, Javon Thompson, comes back to life. Law experts and psychiatrists said there was no problem with the agreement because Ria Ramkissoon, 22, was mentally competent and freely entered into the deal, and extreme religious beliefs aren't deemed insane by law.The story itself is terribly sad. A mother, who was a member of a religious cult, 1 Mind Ministries, allowed her son to be starved to death, because he refused to say "Amen" before meals. The Inquirer reports, Mother of boy who starved admits guilt - on condition:
What is fascinating -- and equally disturbing -- is the aspect of the case that focuses on the beliefs of the religious cult. As the Washington Post notes, Death Opens Doors on Group:According to a statement of facts, the cult members stopped feeding the boy when he refused to say "Amen" after a meal. After Javon died, Ramkissoon sat next to his decomposing body and prayed for his resurrection.
Ramkissoon's attorney, Steven D. Silverman, said Ramkissoon believed the resurrection would occur. She agreed to plead guilty only after prosecutors said they would drop the charges if the child comes back to life, Silverman said.
* * * *
After the boy died, the cult members left his body inside the apartment where they lived until it began to decompose, according to police documents and the statement of facts. In early 2007, they stuffed the body inside a suitcase and filled it with mothballs and fabric-softener sheets to mask the odor.
The cult members relocated to Philadelphia, where they befriended an elderly man and stored the suitcase in a shed behind his home on the 700 block of South 13th Street. It remained there for more than a year before police found it, the documents say.
Psychiatrists who evaluated Ramkissoon at the request of a judge concluded that she was not criminally insane. Her attorney, Steven Silverman, said the doctors found that her beliefs were indistinguishable from religious beliefs, in part because they were shared by those around her.Religious extremism is flourishing and the inability to think critically seems to be a requirement for those religions.
'She wasn't delusional, because she was following a religion,' Silverman said, describing the findings of the doctors' psychiatric evaluation.* * * *Silverman said he and prosecutors think Ramkissoon was brainwashed and should have been found not criminally responsible; prosecutors declined to comment. Although an inability to think critically can be a sign of brainwashing, experts said, the line between that and some religious beliefs can be difficult to discern.
"At times there can be an overlap between extreme religious conviction and delusion," said Robert Jay Lifton, a cult expert and psychiatrist who lectures at Harvard Medical School. "It's a difficult area for psychiatry and the legal system."(Emphasis added).
The controversy over President Obama's upcoming commencement address at Notre Dame University is a perfect example of this. Obama Notre Dame Speech: Cardinal George Rips Invitation As An 'Extreme Embarrassment' To Catholics. That is, the right wing faction of the Catholic Church fiercely objects to the idea that Obama will even be permitted to speak at a Catholic insitution on any topic, because he does not adhere to all of the tenets of the Society, as promulgated by the Cardinal Newman Society (and he's a Democrat). See Obama and Notre Dame and The Politicization of American Catholicism.
In other words, according to this conservative Catholic contingent, no voice that does not comport with the orthodoxy of the Church should be permitted to be heard at all. Debate? Dissent? Not permitted. Rather, they dictate and the flock obeys. To hear other opinions might cause the faithful to question the rules. For this reason, thinking -- never mind critical thinking -- is heresy.
And the line between religous belief and madness is sometimes difficult to discern.
Saturday, April 04, 2009
The Wasilla Snowbillies
If my Palin-Be-Gone Wager hadn't had an expiration date of March 15th, I would have surely been whooped. I would have been the Big Loser, Big Time!!
Ever since our Ides of March wager deadline passed, Sarah Palin has been in the news almost non-stop. See Somebody Up There Likes Me. One of my blogger buddies emailed me to say that Palin has her own news category on AOL News and wondered what impact that would have on my bet. Luckily for me, it's too late to help my LLWL colleague -- even though she has yet to declare me the winner. She's willing to call it a tie, but lord knows I can never concede defeat. So our Old Forge Pizza fest is on hold, to the consternation of the rest of the office.
But even better than winning is the fact that all of the press that's been generated of late has been bad news for Sarah the P.
As Steven Reynolds of All Spin Zone put it, Palin Celebrityhood? Montel, Springer, Tyra Don’t Help Ambitions:
The fun part is that the Palin family is being revealed for the trailer trash sensibilities that are its foundation. Sure, Palin can’t control Levi Johnston going on the Tyra Banks Show, showing off his “Bristol” tattoo, and admitting to wardrobe malfunctions, er, ah, sometimes forgetting to use a condom when screwing making love with Bristol. Heck, she can’t control the video of that appearance, due out Monday but with a sneak peek here. But Sarah Palin can control the reactions of her staff.Sarah Palin, if she had class at all, would react to this little episode with resounding silence. But, no. Class doesn’t enter into it. Here’s the scoop on the Sarah Palin reaction from that celebrity gossip magazine People:
“Bristol did not even know Levi was going on the show. We’re disappointed that Levi and his family, in a quest for fame, attention, and fortune, are engaging in flat-out lies, gross exaggeration, and even distortion of their relationship,” says the statement from the Palin family rep.
“Bristol’s focus will remain on raising Tripp, completing her education, and advocating abstinence,” the statement continues. “It is unfortunate that Levi finds it more appealing to exploit his previous relationship with Bristol than to contribute to the well being of the child.”
The statement ends, saying, “Bristol realizes now that she made a mistake in her relationship and is the one taking responsibility for their actions.”
After I finished chuckling when I heard this, my next thought was that it had the delicious sounds of a Hatfield/McCoy feud in the making. And, if that wasn't enough, to follow up on that was the news of the arrest of Palin's sister-in-law. As noted by Mudflats, Palin Family Drama… It Never Ends:
I normally don't post the entire entry of another blogger, but I just can't resist with this one. It just says it all. From Mamadance, comes Having a Rough Week, Sarah? :Remember when Mercede Johnston was lamenting that the Palins thought of her and her family as “white trash” and thought they weren’t good enough for the Palins after the arrest of their mother Sherry Johnston for dealing oxy-contin in the parking lot of the Wasilla Target store?
Well… This just in.
[Todd Palin's half-sister] Diana Palin is charged with two counts of felony burglary and misdemeanor counts of criminal trespass and theft in connection with the break-ins this week at a home in Wasilla, the governor’s hometown.
Deputy Wasilla Police Chief Greg Wood says the 35-year-old woman was confronted by the homeowner, who hid in the home to see if he could catch the burglar who stole $400 Tuesday night.
I don’t watch reality TV, nor do I watch soap operas. Nor do I need to.
Even if I end up having to buy (or split) the pizza, it makes it all worthwhile.It sure was hard to be Sarah Palin this week. Let’s do a quick run-down of this week’s highlights:
Saturday-Sunday: Mount Redoubt covers Anchorage with ash, airport closed off and on all weekend. Thousands stranded. Six million gallons of oil at the Drift River Terminal sit in harm’s way at the base of the volcano. Palin’s response? None.
Monday: Palin’s approval index plummets to 14 points.
Tuesday: Sarah is dumped for Newt Gingrich.
Wednesday: Native groups oppose the selection of Wayne Anthony Ross to AG. Also, Todd Palin decides it’s his turn in the spotlight, and it doesn’t look good for Sarah.
Thursday: Democrats reject Palin’s pick for Senate seat.
Oh, and let’s not forget: Don Young suggests that Ted Stevens should run against Palin for Governor in 2010.
Palin’s response? “I’m having a great week! I would never get anything done if I always tried to please my critics.” Uh, yeah…right.
UPDATE, 2:11 pm, Friday: Todd Palin’s Half Sister Arrested for Burglary
(Poster via The Mudflats)
Holder On
When I first heard the news on Wednesday morning that the AG Eric Holder was planning to recommend tossing the conviction of Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, my first thought was that it had to be an April Fool's joke.
However, Scott Horton, who has been on top of the DOJ debacle, explains in a recent Harper's piece, Justice on Stevens:
Attorney General Eric Holder has decided that the Justice Department should abandon the corruption conviction secured against former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens. The bombshell decision has nothing to do with the merits of the case against Stevens–it stems from a recognition that the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section behaved unethically in the conduct of the case—withholding vital evidence from the defense, among other things. Holder is himself a former Public Integrity prosecutor. He made the right call in the Stevens case.After listening to the rationale why the conviction should be overturned, due to the egregious misconduct of the prosecutors, my second thought was: OK, I can accept that. But, using that analysis, how about the Siegelman and Wecht cases? As Horton observes:
The Stevens prosecution is only one of roughly two dozen cases in which similar charges have been made on a credible level–collectively they make plain that an ethically-challenged “victory at all costs” mentality is now well entrenched there. Judge Sullivan, presiding over the Stevens case, asked an important question: “Does the Public Integrity Section have any integrity?” By referring the Stevens matter to the Office of Professional Responsibility for an investigation and possible internal disciplinary action—in addition to the sanctions that Judge Sullivan is promising—Holder makes clear that he appreciates the gravity of the damage done to the department’s reputation during the Bush era.Holder’s difficult decision was essential, but it was only a first step. The Stevens prosecution was undertaken just as the Justice Department was coming under sustained fire from Congress and the media over a pattern of political prosecutions. The misconduct by prosecutors in the Stevens case, bad as it was, is trivial compared to what went on in a number of other political prosecutions which have been profiled here–the Siegelman case, the prosecutions of Paul Minor and two Mississippi judges, and the prosecution of Cyril Wecht.
All of these cases cry out for prompt investigation. Holder has taken the right first step. But much remains to be done if the Justice Department is to win back its reputation for integrity in politically-tinged cases. Restoring that reputation should be a top priority for Holder. Today he signals that it is a top priority.
As we know, the DOJ was politicized during the reign of Bush. See RTAs 'R Us at Justice. Not surprisingly, that corruption seeped into the public integrity division of the Department as well. An article by Horton in the American Lawyer, Public Indecency, explores this serious concern:
The U.S. Department of Justice's public integrity section was once something of a showcase operation. Its purpose was to go after corrupt politicians and judges and to help ensure the integrity of the electoral process. It stood for the highest ethical standards in government, and it was supposed to put teeth in those standards.
Today, however, the public integrity section is reeling. Federal judges in Washington, D.C., and Maine have questioned the section's ethics and motivations. A special prosecutor is investigating whether cases brought by the section were politically motivated.* * * *
What went wrong at this institution? The problems are too systematic to be laid simply at the foot of partisan politics. In fact, the section has usually been led by a career prosecutor, such as the current incumbent, William Welch II.
The whistle-blower's accusations in the Stevens case suggest a victory-at-all-costs attitude, which is difficult to reconcile with the section's ostensible purpose of upholding ethics. That attitude was also apparent in the case of former Alabama governor Don Siegelman, where the public integrity section suppressed another whistle-blower's claims of jury tampering and political manipulation. That information only became public in a House Judiciary Committee investigation in 2008.
Equally troublesome are charges that public integrity cases were politically manipulated. Statistics show that, during the George W. Bush presidency, roughly six cases were opened involving Democrats for every one involving a Republican. A Justice Department probe into the 2006 sacking of nine U.S. attorneys, which was led by Inspector General Glenn Fine, concluded that there was substantial evidence of such manipulation, but because Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, and other Bush White House figures refused to cooperate, Fine could not conclude his investigation. A special prosecutor, Nora Dannehy, was appointed to pursue the matter.
If Holder's next moves are to exonerate those Democrats like Siegelman and Wecht who were also wrongfully prosecuted by the DOJ, see, e.g., Time to Go, it helps silence the outcry by the Republicans that a Democratic Administration is playing favorites. A brilliant move, if that was the plan.
Of course, the GOP is trying to spin this as a complete exoneration of Stevens, which is far from the case. Instead, it merely speaks to the fact that the conviction was tainted by the prosecutorial misconduct of the DOJ. The fact is, Stevens ended up going free because of a "technicality," which is the kinda stuff that normally drives the Republicans nuts when applied to most criminal defendants.
It is somewhat ironic that DOJ ended up applying the same corrupt standards to republicans as democrats. Some have suggested that this was due to incompetence on the part of the prosecutors, as being the only logical explanation for targeting their own party in the politicized environment that was DOJ in the Bush Administration. They were corrupt AND incompetent.
On this one, I have to disgree. I'm not sure that they were incompetent so much as arrogant. Having worked in the D.A.'s office one time in my life (long ago & far away), I learned that there is a certain personality that tends to gravitate to criminal law, especially prosecutors. I have found that prosecutors generally have a self-righteous, right and wrong view of the world. On the one hand, it's what makes them so good at their job -- a sense of mission, of doing the right thing. On the other hand, it can be so narrow-visioned as to cloud their judgment. The single-minded "win at all costs" mentality, that so infused the DOJ during the Bush Administration was so extreme that they truly came to believe that the rules just didn't apply to them. It was a philosophy generally adopted by the Bush Administration, so why not for them?
Peek-a-boo Rainbow
The skies from the east and the west, with a rainbow peeking through, after the torrential rains last night.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Sunday, March 29, 2009
All Hail the Hail
The sun had been shinning and the temperate was a warm, springlike 74 degrees. A sudden clap of thunder was all the warning for the torrential rains -- and hail -- that came with force and just as suddenly stopped. The layer of hailstones in the yard was the only sign left behind.
That and the toad that we saw later walking along the path in our backyard, emerging from his winter hibernation.
Exposed
Shortly after John McCain picked the now infamous Sarah Palin from Alaska as his running mate, I began looking around for information about her. It was then that I first discovered The Mudflats, which I have found to be an interesting, informative and reliable resource for all things Palin. See, Change, Republican Style and Valley Girls.
Like Palin's view of Russia from her house, the Mudflats was also my window into Alaska, a distant state that I frankly knew little or nothing about before Sarah's first ya betcha. Since then, I've often checked back to see what was happening in Palinland, via Mudflats.
Even after the election, with the Palin-Be-Gone wager I had with one of my LLWL colleagues, Out of the Spotlight, I visited the site to check in on Palin news. Like me, AK Muckraker was Anonymous. I have no idea (nor is it any of my business) why. Everyone has their reasons.
As I noted several years ago, in I Hardly Knew You:
I keep an anonymous persona because many of my business relationships and clients are conservative and I certainly can't have my blog impact my work. Of course, some of my clients know that I'm liberal, but we don't often discuss politics. Also, the law is a funny business, and I don't want my political views to distract from my representation of my clients in any way. A client surely doesn't need opposing counsel to be more difficult when negotiating a transaction because they strongly object to the views of their attorney. Based upon my experience of personalities of lawyers, I'm sure that it could happen.
Of course, anyone who knows me who reads my blog could fairly easily figure out who I am. Which is why only a few close friends (and the LLWL* of course) even know that I have a blog.
Whatever her reason for anonymity, I can certain relate. For that reason, I was dismayed to learn that an Alaskan state representative (Democrat no less) had revealed the real identity of AK Muckraker. Blogger identity exposed by Alaskan Rep. Mike Doogan. And Rep. Doogan did so solely to be vindictive because she had once written a piece that was critical of him. See Famed Anonymous Anti-Palin Blogger 'Outed' by Lawmaker.
After being exposed in this way, AK Muckraker wrote an essay about the dastardly deed by Doogan, In Exposing the Identity of Mudflats, Rep. Mike Doogan Exposes Himself. Regarding her decision to remain anonymous, she says:
It said in my “About” page that I choose to remain anonymous. I didn’t tell anyone why. I might be a state employee. I might not want my children to get grief at school. I might be fleeing from an ex-partner who was abusive and would rather he not know where I am. My family might not want to talk to me anymore. I might alienate my best friend. Maybe I don’t feel like having a brick thrown through my window. My spouse might work for the Palin administration. Maybe I’d just rather people not know where I live or where I work. Or none of those things may be true. None of my readers, nor Mike Doogan had any idea what my personal circumstances might be. But that didn’t seem to matter.The only good thing to come out of this is the outpouring of good wishes to AKM and bad PR for Doogan. In The Darkness.. Let There Be Links.. If I didn't hate the cold so much, I'd be tempted to move to his district just for the pleasure of voting against him. But, I may not have to, since he may have exposed himself and won't need any help from me.
(LLWL = Lady Lawyers Who Lunch, a/k/a my officemates)
Doctor No
With all of the shunning of (Democratic) politicians who don't tow the line of official Catholic orthodoxy by the Catholic Church, it won't be long before the Church turns on the medical profession.
After the Pope condemned the use of condoms, as fostering the spread of HIV/AIDS, the medical journal The Lancet strongly objected, Medical journal says Pope distorting condom facts:
A prestigious medical journal on Friday accused Pope Benedict of distorting scientific evidence to promote Catholic doctrine by saying that condoms increase the spread of AIDS.The Lancet in an editorial called on the Pope to retract the comments made last week, saying anything less would be an immense disservice to the public and health advocates fighting to contain the disease.
"When any influential person, be it a religious or political leader, makes a false scientific statement that could be devastating to the health of millions of people, they should retract or correct the public record," the editorial said.
"By saying that condoms exacerbate the problem of HIV/AIDS, the Pope has publicly distorted scientific evidence to promote Catholic doctrine on the issue."
During his first visit to Africa, the Pope told reporters that AIDS is a problem that "cannot be overcome by the distribution of condoms; on the contrary, they increase it."
The comment ignited a firestorm of criticism from health officials, activists and politicians who criticized that view as unrealistic, unscientific and dangerous.
Why pick on just the politicians who support these positions? Why not go to the source of the problem? In addition to being responsible for the sins of contraception and abortion, medicine and doctors are responsible for all kinds of medical treatments. After all, doctors and medical professionals are the same people who cure the sick, which obviously interferes with God's plans. That is, if prayer can't save you, it clearly means it's your time to go. So, I think its time for doctors to be added to the list of the verboten.
In other words, I think the Church needs to take a stand here. No good Catholic, at the risk of ex-communication, should be permitted to see a doctor or other medical professional. To do otherwise would certainly be, as that keeper of the faith Scranton Bishop Martino would say, “cooperating with ... evil.”
(Picture via Mirth, Musings, & More)
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Signed, Sealed, Delivered
It's the last part of the Stevie Wonder song that's been causing us problems at the office. It all started last week, when we realized that our mail delivery had substantially slowed. Then, one day, we had no mail at all. With the number of people in the office, this only happens on holidays, when there isn't any mail delivery.
A call to the post office revealed the problem -- our mail had been deliberately stopped. Our local postmaster had decreed that the address we had used for the nine years we occupied the office was no longer sufficient. He then decided that all of the businesses in our building needed to change suite numbers. Of course, neither he or anyone else at the post office bothered to tell us about this beforehand, so our mail ended up being returned to sender as undeliverable.
No mail -- including payments from clients, bills from vendors and correspondence related to various pending legal matters, including from the courts. In this economy, a prolonged denial of our mail delivery could put a number of small businesses out of business.
Our efforts to deal with the postmaster were rebuffed. We requested that he put the new requirements in writing and explain the necessity for the change, as well as provide us with a phase-in period before ceasing our mail delivery. He laughingly refused to do anything. He basically read his role as being the "master" and forgot about the "mail" part. So, we spent much of this past week filing complaints, contacting the postal service and our representatives, trying to restore our delivery.
Imagine our surprise when one of the LLWL picked up her Inky Thursday morning, to discover that Hateful Harrison, our postmaster, was featured in a piece by Daniel Rubin. In Dog stops mail; customer howls, Rubin describes the travails experience by a neighborhood who also stopped receiving their mail delivery when postmaster John Harrison abruptly changed the delivery rules for them. The column reports:
[S]even households received "Dear Postal Customer" letters, informing them their delivery might be suspended due to safety concerns. They learned they needed to install mailboxes at the curb so carriers could reach them without having to leave their trucks.After Levy, a lawyer, brought suit, concern about a dog was used as justification for the new rule, although Rubin discovered that the dog was in fact fenced in. It took the lawsuit to reach a resolution among the parties that restored mail delivery.And that was the last day mail was distributed to this old pocket of Whitemarsh Township.
Bart Levy relies on the mail to receive legal papers and rent checks from tenants who live in his properties.
He said postmaster John B. Harrison had told him he couldn't put a box just anywhere; the Postal Service would have to come out and determine the safest location. This investigation, Levy said he had been told, would take an unspecified amount of time.
Of course, our tales of mail woe were merely a microcosm of the mail madness that enveloped Philly last year. See, e.g. Complaints about service piling up - like mail that isn't being delivered and Docs blast delays in the mails. For the whole Philly Daily News series on the mail tales, see Dead letters.
Perhaps it was the bad press from the article, along with our complaints and letters, but our mail finally resumed by week's end, even if it was lighter than usual.
So, at least we can finally sing "Signed, Sealed & Delivered" with Stevie & Beyonce:
It's Mine, All Mine
I admit that I was tempted, when I read about the new Kindle. I had been reading about it and then I saw one a few weeks ago. See What is the Floss?. I'm a committed techie after all. I lust for the newest gadget. In fact, I always have to look for a new gadget to lust for.
Other than the ouch price of the Kindle -- $359, which merely gives you the e-book reader, which then allows you read books/magazines once you've purchased them for an additional cost, my biggest beef with the Kindle is the fact that you can't share what you have on it. If I "buy" an e-book or magazine, I want to be able to pass it on, much the same way I do now with hard copies.
As my husband & I discussed the other day, I can't even share a story with him, without having to pass on the Kindle to him. Of course, if he has it, I don't -- which sorta defeats the purpose of this handy take-it-with-you device.
As a piece in Slate observed, The amazing Amazon Kindle is bad news for the publishing industry:
In exchange for this convenience, though, the Kindle locks you down with more rules than the Army Field Manual. The Kindle won't let you resell or share your books. Anything you buy through the reader is fixed to your Amazon account, readable only on the Kindle or other devices that Amazon may one day deem appropriate. (The company has hinted that it'll build an iPhone app that can read Kindle books.) Even worse, you can buy books for your Kindle only from Amazon's store. Indeed, the device makes it difficult to read anything that's not somehow routed through Amazon first—you can surf the Web on the Kindle, and you can convert some of your personal Microsoft Word or text files to the device's format, but doing so is slow and not very reliable. In order to read blogs, magazines, newspapers, and books, you've really got to go through Amazon's store first.Along with the non-sharing, the Amazon lock-in is bothersome. For example, Google Books offers free classic e-books, but they aren't accessible through the Kindle. It's was that very proprietary lock-in that has caused me to avoid most things Sony and may put a damper on the embers of my Kindle lust.
The Christian Science Monitor also discusses the "dangers of digital commodification" in a piece by Emily Walshe, a librarian & professor, Kindle e-reader: A Trojan horse for free thought:
For now, though, Kindle is on fire in the marketplace. Who could resist reading "what you want, when you want it?" Access to more than 240,000 books is just seconds away. And its "revolutionary electronic-paper display ... looks and reads like real paper."
But it comes with restrictions: You can't resell or share your books – because you don't own them. You can download only from Amazon's store, making it difficult to read anything that is not routed through Amazon first. You're not buying a book; you're buying access to a book. No, it's not like borrowing a book from a library, because there is no public investment. It's like taking an interest-only mortgage out on intellectual property.
* * * *
Why is this important? Because Kindle is the kind of technology that challenges media freedom and restricts media pluralism. It exacerbates what historian William Leach calls "the landscape of the temporary": a hyper mobile and rootless society that prefers access to ownership. Such a society is vulnerable to the dangers of selective censorship and control.
Digital rights management (DRM), which Kindle uses to lock in its library, raises critical questions about the nature of property and identity in digital culture. Culture plays a large role – in some ways, larger than government – in shaping who we are as individuals in a society. The First Amendment protects our right to participate in the production of that culture. The widespread commodification of access is shaping nearly every aspect of modern citizenship. There are benefits, to be sure, but this transformation also poses a big-time threat to free expression and assembly.
Even bigger concerns arise with a digital transformation. Books are more "permanent" than digital technology (and less easily susceptible to alteration). Finally -- and most importantly, is the issue of control over access. As Walshe notes:
Print may be dying, but the idea of print would be the more critical demise: the idea that there needs to be a record – an artifact of permanence, residence, and posterity – that is independent of some well-appointed thingamajig in order to be seen, touched, understood, or wholly possessed.
"You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture," Ray Bradbury once said. "Just get people to stop reading them."
Access equals control. In this case, it is control over what is read and what is not; what is referenced and what is overlooked; what is retained and what is deleted; what is and what seems to be.
All in all, I think I'll skip the Kindle, at least until I'm comfortable with the resolution of these issues. Until then, this techie is happy with a book in hand.
(CSM article via buzzflash on Twitter)
Quote of the Day
It's been a tough week for Barack Obama and Friday [couldn't come soon] enough.Shaun Mullen of Kiko's House, Barack Obama's Positively Awful Week
Iran says it will sit down with its long-time foe at a U.S.-sponsored conference on Afghanistan. Financial markets at home and around the world are rebounding and leading domestic economic indicators like factory orders and home-sale prices are showing some signs of life. The most damaging thing his critics can say about his second prime-time news conference, watched by some 40 million people, is that he was too professorial. And billions of dollars of stimulus money are flowing into states and cities with the promise of jobs creation and infrastructure improvements.
Worse yet, there is a feeling in some quarters if the bottom has not been reached in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression then perhaps the bottom is finally coming into view.
Then there is the fact that in a mere two months Obama has been more accessible -- doing real town-hall meetings, going online to answer questions and out in public hanging with ordinary folks-- than his predecessor was in eight years.
I ask you: How bad can it get?
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
The Wolf Shuts the Door
When I first heard the news yesterday morning of the possibility that the firm might dissolve, I have to admit that I was shocked. Sources: Wolf Block partners to discuss dissolving firm.
After all, Wolf Block was a legal institution in Philly, a large firm established over 100 years ago, as a way to counter the anti-semitism that prevailed at the time in the venerated white shoe (WASPY) firms. As noted in Wolf Block Dissolves:
The 300-lawyer Wolf Block was formed in 1903 by Morris Wolf and Horace Stern, two Jewish lawyers who could not get work at Philadelphia’s elite law firms. The firm rose in prominence during the first half of the 20th Century along with the local Jewish business community. It was able to attract some of the nation’s top Jewish law school graduates until other firms changed their hiring practices in the late 1960s.I suppose, to some extent, it had become an anomaly once the raison d'etre no longer existed. Yet, it survived and thrived for many years. At this point, as noted by the Business Journal Wolf Block decides to dissolve:
[T]he firm has 287 lawyers and 400 support staff, with 156 local lawyers and 255 local staff. The firm has roughly half of its lawyer count in Philadelphia with about 60 lawyers in Roseland, N.J., and more than 40 in New York and smaller sites in Cherry Hill, N.J., Harrisburg, Pa, Boston and Wilmington.By yesterday afternoon, however, its days were numbered. As the Inky reports, Wolf Block law firm will dissolve:
Hit hard by defections of top lawyers and tight credit markets, partners at Wolf Block voted this afternoon to disband the 106-year-old law firm, a Philadelphia institution that for generations played a central role in the city's civic, legal and governmental affairs.
The decision was made during an emotional partners meeting at the firm's Center City offices. Lawyers from offices in other cities were video-conferenced in.
Like many other firms, Wolf Block had been hit by a sharp fall-off in revenue as credit markets seized last fall and the housing market collapsed. But the firm also had been plagued with defections by top fee generators and faced further defections in the coming months.
It appears that the demise of the firm was due, in large part, to the fact that some of the partners were grumbling that they weren't making enough. Sound Wall Street enough for you? The Holy Grail for Big Law, PPP (Profits Per Partner) "fell 18.5 percent from $502,000 to $409,000 and the average compensation for partners dropped by 19.7 percent from $400,000 to $321,000 in 2008." After all, who could be expected to survive on that? Not the big boys -- they deserve the big bucks to go with all they bring to the firm.
The other major impediment was the fact that the annual line of credit renewal was coming up and personal guarantees would be required by the Bank, as noted by the Legal Intelligencer, Wolf Block to Close Its Doors:
One source familiar with the firm's financial situation said Wolf Block sought in late 2008 an extension of its line of credit with Wachovia. After some back and forth, it was eventually decided that the line of credit would have to be personally guaranteed by each partner. That didn't go over well and a number of partners announced they would leave before signing such a deal, the source said.The death knell, however, was apparently the missed paycheck or draw:
Ultimately, Wachovia -- now owned by Wells Fargo -- extended the line until March 31 without mandating the partners personally guarantee it. But by that time, the source said, a large number of attorneys, including all of the New York office, said they would be moving to Cozen O'Connor. Some put the number close to 100 attorneys while others said it was still fluid and was probably lower.
Looks like the firm's Chairman, Mark Alderman, and a number of other lawyers may be bolting over to Cozen, which personality-wise, is probably the best fit for them. One of my client's was involved in a contentious partnership split-up matter with them a few years ago and it was particularly ugly among both the clients and the lawyers on both sides. Based upon the reputation of many of the W/B lawyers, I'm sure that more than a few lawyers in town are intoning that old meme: it couldn't happen to a nicer (more deserving) bunch of guys.A former Wolf Block partner said the year-end distribution of partner profits was “almost non-existent,” creating a loss of confidence in the current management team, which then moved to get the firm back on track with its credit line. Firms need to take a line of credit out with banks to pay operating expenses at the start of each fiscal year until receivables come in from clients.
But more concerns arose on March 1, when former partners said Wolf Block partners did not receive their monthy stipend, called a draw, electronically that day. Instead, it was delivered manually as a check a few days later, indicating the firm might have had some financial problems.
Missed paychecks, grumblings about who deserves what, guarantees on the line -- all bring back bad memories of the dissolution of a former firm many years ago (of course, at that time, I was one of the big income producers and generators supporting some of my lazy ass partners). The last place in the world I'd want to be right about now would be W/B, with the infighting and scrambling, as the firm winds down.
UPDATE (3/25): One point I didn't mention, which is really the worst part of the news (other than the demise of a legal institution in the city) of W/B's closing, is the fact that the legal environment couldn't be worse for out of work lawyers right now. Except for those lawyers with a book of business, as I've mentioned before, times are tough. As noted by the Inky, Wolf Block lawyers face difficult job-hunting climate:
From an employee's perspective, the announcement Monday that Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis-Cohen L.L.P. would soon be closing its doors couldn't have come at a worse time.Those are the people who have really been hurt by the firm's decision to shutter its doors.
Law firms in Philadelphia and across the nation have been trimming lawyers and staff for months, and jobs are in short supply.
Yet for lawyers with a deep base of clients, and there are many of those at Wolf Block, there likely will be many suitors.
'I would say that for lawyers with solid business generation, they are going to be highly sought after,' said Sheldon Bonovitz, the former chairman of Center City's 650-plus lawyer Duane Morris firm. 'For those that don't, they likely will have a hard time, unless they are part of a group.'
Finally, a good retrospective on the firm can be found here, Wolf Block's end marks an era's passing.
(Photo via JD Journal)
Monday, March 23, 2009
Celebrations
Whatever with the past has gone,
The best is always yet to come.
- Lucy Larcom
The best is always yet to come.
- Lucy Larcom
Another birthday for our daughter, PhillyAngel
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Cacophony of Complaints
Everybody's angry. Republicans, Democrats, Liberals & of course, those nutty people on the Right. Fingers pointed, pitchforks raised, death threats, the blame game is in full gear. The anger, frustration and fear -- no terror -- about the financial crisis have reduced us to a babbling bunch of babies.
Our troubles are deep, the solution uncertain and the resolution a long time off. Of course, it has taken us 20 years or so to reach this critical point, and although we understand that at some level, we want the problems solved now. Obama may have had nothing to do with creating the crisis, but we expect him to fix it immediately, now that we've actually acknowledged that it's happened.
Congress, who preceded the Obama Administration, is perfectly happy to demand that the Administration come up with the fix without any assistance from that august legislative body, other than to fail to provide the laws requested by the Administration. Despite that they are more than happy to accuse him of not dealing with the issues needed to fix the problems we face. The GOP, of course, is sitting on the sidelines, doing its Christian duty, by praying for us all. Unfortunately, the prayers are for the failure of fix proposed by Obama, since that is the only savior for the party of NO. See The End is Near.
The overall signal from all sides, to mix a few metaphors, is that you shouldn't listen to the "rosy forecasts," since the hard times have only just begun. Why the Banking Crisis Is Far From Over.
Even those pundits I respect and admire are harshly critical of the Administration's efforts to fix the economy. See e,g., Booman Tribune who has been exploring this issue, Catching the Populist Wave and A Response to a Response.
For example, according to Frank Rich, Obama isn't fully channeling the anger of the mob and is faced with his own Katrina moment. Has a ‘Katrina Moment’ Arrived?. It seems that he and other liberals believe that it is necessary to stoke the fires of fury, not calm them. The virtues of public anger and the need for more. While I agree in principle with their views, that the corruption that was created by the failure to regulate the financial industry for many years has caused or contributed to the depression we are in, and surely the the situation needs to be corrected, but stirring up fear and anger will not fix the immediate depressed economy, it will only exacerbate it.
Before the Administration's financial plan is even released, never mind implemented, Paul Krugman has warned us of it's failure. Despair over financial policy. See also, Bigger Than the Both of Us. John Cole of Balloon Juice sums it up the chorus of liberal complainers about the Administration's plan aptly, The Geithner Plan:
While I must say that more than anyone, I trust Krugman, I'm not totally convinced that his way is the one true way either. If I was sure that Obama's proposal would fail, that's one thing, but I'm willing to guess that there is more than one answer to the problem.If this were a medical emergency, it appears it would look something like this:
The Illness- reckless and irresponsible betting led to huge losses
The Diagnosis- Insufficient gambling.
The Cure- a Trillion dollar stack of chips provided by the house.
The Prognosis- We are so screwed.
What does concern me is the the cacophony of complaints itself is creating the crisis of confidence that will definitely exacerbate or prolong the economic disaster we are in. Part of the way out is to instill a form of confidence in the banks, the market, the economy. That can't happen in this corrosive environment that we're mired in.
Last week, Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke made a comment that I thought was especially pertinent. Whatever you think of his economic policies, his observations on 60 Minutes struck me:
Bad enough the GOP and right wing pundits are ranting, but the cries of the left are contributing to the din. The tenor & level of vitriol is disturbing -- you would think that the Obama Administration is the enemy, intentionally determined to crater the country. To destroy the government, to finish the job begun by the Bush Administration."What are the dangers now? What keeps you up at night?" Pelley asked.
"I think the biggest risk is that, you know, we don't have the political will. We don't have the commitment to solve this problem, and that we let it just continue. In which case, you know, we can't count on recovery," Bernanke said.
The Fed estimates the wealth of American families fell 18 percent in 2008, the worst since the Great Depression. (Emphasis added)
The best thing that the Obama Administration has going for it is the fact that it has shown the naysayers in the past, who have questioned the wisdom of a position adopted by Obama, that his vision often works when given time. That's precisely how he got to be President against all odds. While he's only been President for a minute, during the campaign, Obama's team has consistently taken a longer view of a situation and has often been correct, despite misgivings from the left and condemnation from the right. Recall the moaning and groaning that preceded the passage of the stimulus package. What a Loser. Because of this, if for no other reason, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Obama Looks for Calm in a Firestorm.
Finally, unlike other bloggers on both the left & right who are sure of the correctness of their opinions, I know that I certainly don't have a better plan that I'm sure will succeed over any other proposal.
(Edited)
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Spitfire
Once all the hoopla (and snickers) died down, it wasn't a big surprise that the so-called charges against Eliot Spitzer ended up being much ado about nothing.
After last year's revelation that he had been involved with an escort service, Spitzer resigned as Governor of New York (he's a Democrat after all). In November, the announcement that no laws were violated after all, as the Huffington Post reported, Spitzer Won't Face Charges:
Federal prosecutors said Thursday that they will not bring criminal charges against Eliot Spitzer for his role in a prostitution scandal, removing a legal cloud that has surrounded the former New York governor since his epic downfall eight months ago.U.S. Attorney Michael Garcia said investigators found no evidence that Spitzer or his office misused public or campaign funds for prostitution. Investigators found that Spitzer solicited high-priced call girls, but federal prosecutors typically do not prosecute clients of prostitution rings.
Coincidentally, Spitzer was in the process of investigating the sub-prime mortgage mess when he was busted for cavorting with hookers, Elliot Spitzer - The First Patsy in the Meltdown:
Former New York Governor Elliot Spitzer was cleared in the first week of November this year of a fairly serious offense against the Mann Act, a Federal Offense as opposed to a State Offense, which prohibits 'the transportation of people 'across state lines for the purposes of prostitution'.
Well, they didn't really clear him; they just 'declined to prosecute'.
Why? The Bush administration's job was done: It has been universally accepted that the political assassination of Elliot Spitzer was engineered by the Bush administration because of his public accusations against the United States Federal Reserve Bank and the top Wall Street bankers and lending institutions of a predatory lending practice called 'sub-prime' mortgaging.
See also, The $200 billion bail-out for predator banks and Spitzer charges are intimately linked.
But now with Fall of the House of Wall Street Usher, Spitzer has re-emerged to remind us of his attempt to warn us of the danger, Spitzer on AIG: I told you so:
Eliot Spitzer has a few words to say about the AIG bonus brouhaha: I told you so.As Spitzer wrote in Slate, The real scandal at AIG is the not the bonuses. It's the payments to counterparties.:
The former New York governor battered American International Group with charges of corruption long before his own dizzying downfall in a prostitution scandal. He has used this latest financial scandal to strike his old populist, Sheriff of Wall Street themes and, just maybe, mend his reputation -- though critics contend that he bears a share of the blame for the insurance giant's historic near-collapse.
Spitzer says the AIG bonus issue is "penny ante" compared to the billions of the insurer's bailout money funneled to bad banks, and that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner owes America an explanation, quickly.
Everybody is rushing to condemn AIG's bonuses, but this simple scandal is obscuring the real disgrace at the insurance giant: Why are AIG's counterparties getting paid back in full, to the tune of tens of billions of taxpayer dollars?For the answer to this question, we need to go back to the very first decision to bail out AIG, made, we are told, by then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, then-New York Fed official Timothy Geithner, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke last fall. Post-Lehman's collapse, they feared a systemic failure could be triggered by AIG's inability to pay the counterparties to all the sophisticated instruments AIG had sold. And who were AIG's trading partners? No shock here: Goldman, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, UBS, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank, Barclays, and on it goes. So now we know for sure what we already surmised: The AIG bailout has been a way to hide an enormous second round of cash to the same group that had received TARP money already.
It all appears, once again, to be the same insiders protecting themselves against sharing the pain and risk of their own bad adventure. The payments to AIG's counterparties are justified with an appeal to the sanctity of contract. If AIG's contracts turned out to be shaky, the theory goes, then the whole edifice of the financial system would collapse.
In an excellent piece, Melina at Brilliant at Breakfast explores the role of Spitzer, the Bush Administration and Wall Street shenanigans, in He's Back...The Return of Elliot Spitzer....:
Spitzer may be as "disgraced" as any anonymous sex loving Republican loser, but America is known for its great second acts, and we may be witnessing the curtain rising on Spitzer's. Today in Slate Elliot Spitzer has a short op-ed that speaks volumes about what is going on, and indirectly, if you follow the money, what happened to him. Plainly stated, Spitzer brings the AIG Ponzi Scheme one step closer to the revered establishment when he explains how the bailout money was funneled straight into the top players, with Goldman Sachs being the name that comes up again and again. These top players already got bailout money, and Goldman is looking at zero losses at this point, while regular Americans are being asked to make concessions or just plain losing everything. here are the biggest financial entities in the world, making billions on what appears to have been nothing but air traded back and forth, and having gutted the American people they are walking away with 100% return to their stockholders. In return AIG seems to think that its appropriate to pay themselves bonuses with the leftover funds. This leaves AIG still a wobbly shell with no plan of how to go forward, and the threat of the collapse of all of the world's financial markets still up in the air. So, what was all that bailout money for? Apparently to make sure that no one at Goldman or the other few top firms in the hand-out-line lost anything!But, of course, you would have to believe that the Bush Administration would be capable of using partisan politics for illegal ends, to cover up the fraudulent and unethical activities of Wall Street, to think that the of persecution of Spitzer was done intentionally to get him out of the way.* * * *This is country that Spitzer is familiar with; he has been a terrible liability to entities that, under the Bush administration, were allowed to literally gut the country and its citizens. All of this seems to have been part of the Bush Administration's own Ponzi Scheme, which figured that the illusion of an ownership society, terrified of the "terraism" and steeped in the me, me, me, culture would look the other way while they finished clearing out the vault. Beyond that, it's clear that the media hyped housing bubble encouraged the house flip mentality and the idea that anyone could be rich. The idea of the lottery dropping on our own heads made us more protective of the rich, because we might one day be one....or look, we could be one with no money down, if we could just balance that on this, and flip that house!!* * * *Spitzer has been fighting these guys and asking questions all along. Coincidentally, right after the WSJ editorial appeared on Valentine's Day 2008, Spitzer was caught up in what was an extremely unusual sting. So unusual is an investigation like this that it seems almost like it was a set-up; and considering where it all came from and how it all came down, it might well have been.
It seems that Spitzer's bank was investigating expenses under the auspices of the newer Homeland Security laws of the Bush administration. Greg Palast wrote about this compellingly, and in light of how the whole thing is shaking out now, and what Spitzer said back then about this financial mess and what he tried to DO about it, Palast had a pretty good early grasp on what had gone down. So now, with Spitzer poking his head up from the underground of "healing his family," at this most compelling of moments, its probably worthwhile for Americans to screw their heads on straight and forget the details of the hooker, and look at what Spitzer was working on when he was taken down. We might all find ourselves wanting to thank the egotistical crime fighter who cant keep it in his pants.
And, if you believe that, you might even think thatthe financial disaster that has befallen us might have been prevented or at a minimum, lessened, if he hadn't been stopped.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
