Posted by
flagwaver on Monday, December 07, 2009 11:24:21 AM
Palmetto Impeachment: Today a South Carolina judiciary panel is set to decide on whether Mark Sanford should have to face impeachment for running off to Argentina to rendevous with his "soulmate" for a few days last summer. It seems that since all of the charges that it seems would have deserved impeachment were found to be inadequate to support any official action, this should have been finished awhile ago. But the charges left point to the purely political nature of the impeachment effort, as they involve whether or not Sanford was derelict in his duty by not designating a plan of succession while he was gone. That charge brings tow questions to my fertile mind: What crisis was going to come up in a five day period in the state that would need the immediate and sole attention of the chief executive, and why doesn't the state already have something like this worked out ahead of time? I mean, when President Obama leaves for his next European sojourn, the executive branch is not going to be in crisis because he's not in Washington, D.C.! He is still in charge, even if he's not on the scene, and if something catastrophic happens he will be in touch and on his way back in a flash. And if something happens to him, then we know that "Plugs" Biden will assume the mantle of the presidency; so why can't they figure that out in South Carolina? It's because that isn't what this is about; it's about Sanford stepping on toes in both parties as governor, and now is the opportunity for some get back for his opponents. What Sanford did was immoral, but doe we really want a bunch of elected officials acting as the morals police?
Fox Fumbles: I like Fox News, I really do. I open every weekday morning by checking in on "The O'Reilly Factor" at about 5:30, then it's "Fox & Friends" until I flip over to ESPN's "Mike and Mike" at about 7:00. And I usually cringe and then get agitated when I hear people talking down the Fox News brand as "Faux News" and overly biased, simply because of the slant of its commentary shows. That irks me because usually even on the opinion shows Fox tries to give everyone a hearing and an opportunity to make known their positions. But in the past week I have been really disappointed in Fox, namely in the way that they have covered the Tiger Woods story and the murders of the four police offiicers in Washington State by a man whose sentence was commuted by then Gov. Mike Huckabee, now a host of his own FNC show. First to Tiger Woods, as it is really not a major story to begin with...but you wouldn't know that by watching FNC. I understand if the opinion shows want to talk about it, because it is ripe fodder for conversation: the entertainment/media matrix, attitudes of privilege by star athletes, and questions about how much of a public figure's life should be private can make for some excellent discussion segments. But if you want to keep the news and opinion sides separate, I would suggest not having heavy coverage of a matter like this on your news shows; I don't want to see long segments on "The Fox Report", "Fox & Friends", or "Special Report" about this garbage! I tune into FNC to get straight news, and often news and analysis that I can't get anywhere else, not a rehashing of the latest TMZ headlines! But the more serious concern for me is the "circle the wagons" mentality that took over when it was revealed that it was Huckabee who commuted the sentence of the murderer of the four Washington peace officers. O'Really had him on to diffuse the blame for this matter to the parole board in Arkansas, Hannity did the same, and "Fox News Watch" did a segment acting as though the Legacy Media was simply trying to torpedo any chances for Huckabee running for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012 by creating a "Willie Horton moment" for good old Huck. The only thing is, Huckabee does bear a great deal of responsibility for this tragedy, as it was his commutation of the man's sentence that allowed him to be up for parole in the first place. And in a state where the governor appoints the parole board, how likely is it that the board is going to ignore the clear signal that the commutation sends about the governor's attitude about the convict? Besides which, it was conservative alternative media for the most part that advanced the story, and it was Michelle Malkin and The American Spectator (spectator.org) that have been long reporting on Huckabee's penchant for freeing violent offenders who then went on to reoffend. What FNC did in trying to muddy the waters and protect Huckabee was shameful and they have to realize how much their actions can further tarnish their brand, epsecially with those who support them.
Good News? So the official national unemployment rate dropped from 10.2% to 10%, and the government and their media lackeys act as if this is the news that shows that we are well on the road to economic recovery. Now, I am no high powered, well connected economist, but I can tell you this....those numbers are not good news. Why not? Because the numbers, from my perspective are indicative of two things: seasonal hiring and the employer soupbone. The decrease in unemployment can be explained by an blurb I saw on AOL news last week about FED-EX looking to hire thousands of people for the holidays, and other places doing the same. These are not jobs that are likely to last, but are jobs to fulfill a temporary demand for help during the Christmas economic spike; after Christmas watch the jobs that are shed when the temps are sent packing. As for the soupbone, the old ladies here in the South used to use a ham bone with just a little meat on it when making soup in order to add some flavor to the soup; when the soup was finished the bone was as empty as Al Capone's vault because all the meat was cooked off of it. The employer's soup bone basically means that employers have already cut staffing to the bare bones, so when the bone was thrown into last month's economic soup, there simply wasn't much left to cook off the bone...hence the low number of layoffs nationally. It is not really impressive to have low layoff numbers after shedding so many jobs in the previous months; all it indicates is that employers don't have anyone left to layoff and still maintain a stable business.
Did Climatgate Happen? If you listen to NPR you would have reason to wonder! I listened to a report this morning on "Morning Edition" that dealt with the dropping numbers in opinion polling for the idea that climate change matters to the American people. While there are some polls that show just over 50% of Americans spend their time ranking "climate change" as a real priority, most others show that "climate change" is way down on the list of concerns for Americans, with the economy ranking at the top. What amazed me is that the reporter and anchor both brushed past the Climategate episode of "stolen emails" that show that global warming is a serious fraud cooked up by ideologically driven climate scientists as a reason for the recent spike in disbelief of the concept of global warming. (Whew! Just writing that sentence wore me out! I think I'll take a break for a minute.........Okay, I'm back!) They are saying that when the issue is presented as "green jobs" and the like, the awareness becomes more intense and the numbers go up. But maybe that's because "green jobs" does not address the concerns of the AGW cultists, and it sounds enough like an economic concern that people pay attention to it. But everyone that wants to know knows about the attempts to bury "inconvenient truths" and to destroy the ability of people holding contrary views of AGW to have their work peer reviewed, and it is actions like that which are waking people up to the hoax that is climate change.
On the SCOTUS Docket: Today the SCOTUS begins hearing a case that challenges the Sarbanes-Oxley law governing regulatory oversight in financial accounting, but in fact is really a challenge to the entire system of independent executive level agencies in the federal government. In a nutshell, the lawyer for the plaintiff is arguing that organizations like the SEC and FCC are basically unconstitutional because the POTUS does not have the ability to fire the heads of the agencies, even though he appoints them. Most of them can only be fired for cause, which the plaintiffs say means that the POTUS does not have control of those agencies, as he does with the Cabinet posts, where he can fire a Secretary for any reason he sees fit. The argument has been tried before and failed, but it may have a better chance of success with the current make up of the court. You can go to
NPR for the full story.
So there you go my friends! Happy Reading, and thanks for stopping by!