About Me

Name: Brenda Bee
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 

NY Times series on energy: possiblities and problems

The article below is the first in a New York Times series on   energy needs, possibilities and  problems  in the United States.    The first sentence quoted  "The dirty secret of clean energy is that while generating it is getting easier, moving it to market is not."  is the kicker.  No matter what energy source we use the problem is our  antiquated and mismanaged  power grid. 


Not only is the grid unable to carry the amount of energy needed even today, it has approximately 500 owners!  Yes the 200,000+ miles of transmission lines belong to 500 companies.  All of these companies have their own policies for use of their lines, plus the 50 states all have their own regulations dealing with the transmission of energy.  This makes it impossible for a solar energy farm in the desert of the southwest to transmit power to the large cities where it is needed.

What is needed is for the federal  government to take over the management  and ownership the nation's power grid just as they once had to take over and build an Interstate highway system.  Before President Eisenhower  demanded Congress make easy travel possible  all across the country the roads were miserable as they changed  from state line to state line. 

Eisenhower knew from his experience in moving his army in Europe over  both miserable and good roads just how important decent highways were  a country.  He knew that our economy's growth  would be curtailed  unless companies were able to move products quickly and easily across the country.  So the federal government stepped into the breech and our economy and very way of life has changed because of it.

I personally hate the federal government's involvement in my life but there are certain things that only the federal government can do and the national power grid is one of these things.  If we are ever to achieve some energy self sufficiency  this must be done.

This is a large and rather all inclusive series so you may want to pick and choose, but by all means  check it out.  This is our only future if we are to continue to prosper.  It is also the only way the United States can become independent of the fickle world leaders and the blackmail that has so often been used to tie our hands when action was needed. 

This latest crisis with Russia invading Georgia is a prime example of energy blackmail.  The European countries are dependent on Russian oil so our President's hands were tied as were those of the other NATO countries.  Of course this was all planned by the Russian leaders  of whom many if not most come from the ranks of the KGB.   Putin and his communist-in-hiding are  on the march and oil is their ace in the hole.

It behooves all of us to understand the energy crisis, needs and possible future and to get the message  to our Congressmen.  In fact, if the federal government wants to get our economy moving  this project would certainly provide the jobs to stimulate the economy much better than the ill conceived "stimulus package".  

The articles also speaks to the gasoline shortage.  BB


Wind Energy Bumps Into Power Grid’s Limits
Published: August 26, 2008       http://nytimes.com/ref/science/earth/energy.html

"The dirty secret of clean energy is that while generating it is getting easier, moving it to market is not.

The grid today, according to experts, is a system conceived 100 years ago to let utilities prop each other up, reducing blackouts and sharing power in small regions. It resembles a network of streets, avenues and country roads.

“We need an interstate transmission superhighway system,” said Suedeen G. Kelly,  a member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. "
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Sarah Palin's only mistake as Governor of Alaska

  I am so pleased with Senator McCain's choice of  Sarah Palin as his running mate!  I have been watching the lady for some time now and  like what she has done in Alaska and like her views  on most thing.  If you are not familiar with her Wikipedia has a very good bio on her.

There was only one decision that she made that really upset me greatly.  i will just quote Wikipedia to save time here: 

"She opposes same-sex marriage, but she has stated that she has gay friends and is receptive to gay and lesbian concerns about discrimination.[15] Palin complied with an Alaskan state Supreme Court[39] [40] She supported a non-binding referendum on whether there should be a constitutional amendment on the matter.[41] Alaska was one of the first U.S. states to pass a constitutional ban on gay marriage, in 1998, along with Hawaii.[42] Palin has stated that she supported the 1998 constitutional amendment.[15] order and signed an implementation of same-sex benefits into law under protest, stating that legal options to avoid doing so had run out.

Palin's first veto was used to block legislation that would have barred the state from granting benefits to the partners of gay state employees. In effect, her veto granted State of Alaska benefits to same-sex couples. The veto occurred after Palin consulted with Alaska's attorney general on the constitutionality of the legislation."

***************************************************
When the topic of providing health insurance benefits to gay or lesbian partners has been cussed and discussed, the discussions always seem to bog down in the side issues of right and wrong of homosexuality and same-sex marriage, which have nothing to do with this particular issue. The issue is: who should be allowed to be included on the employees health insurance period; no emotional side issues.

Eligibility for employee health care coverage has always been simple: the only people eligible for coverage under the employees health insurance plan is the employees immediate family. That is, wife or husband and children to age 18 or 23 if in college. No aunts, uncles, cousins, in-laws or parents because they are indeed family but not immediate family. Neither may health benefits be extended to one who is not related in any way to the employee.

Now our City Manager and Mayor have opened this eligibility up to the "partners" of gay and lesbian employees. Or, more accurately, to individuals not legally related to the employee by blood or a legal contract. There is a little clause thrown in to the city's agreement that the employee must sign stating that the relationship is "a committed relationship" and "the partners are financially co-dependent", but just as their sexual relationship has no bearing on the real issue neither does their commitment or financial co-dependency. No matter how "committed" or how "financially co-dependent" the partners or live-in companions may be they are still unrelated by the blood relationship of being siblings or by the legally approved contract of marriage which are the only two criteria that define "immediate family".

So what the two city officials have done is open the city's obligation of employee health insurance coverage to a non-family entity, and by implication to virtually anyone the employee should wish to designate as a "dependent" and willingly pay the employees share of the tax payer subsidized health care insurance for that person. All of the named family members listed above and including friends, neighbors and the man down the block ! But the real kicker give away is that our Mayor under the City Charter doesn't need any city councilman's approval because once the budget is passed he can act on this on his own authority as mayor.

This extended coverage is not a novel idea either in the country or in North Carolina. Greensboro would be the second city in the state to establish such a policy. Those living in the liberal thinking University bastions of Durham, Chapel Hill and Carrboro were the first local governments to do so. Durham County and Orange County have also extended benefits to domestic partners. The legality of Chapel Hill and Carrboro's policies have been challenged, but have been upheld by a superior court judge in Orange County. The law has not been tested by a court with statewide jurisdiction as of this writing.


The policies generally allow employees to add unmarried partners and their children to employer health plans and allow unmarried employees to take sick leave to care for their partner or family members. In the case of Chapel Hill, it is specified that the coverage is for both same-sex and opposite-sex couples who live together in a relationship of indefinite duration, have an exclusive mutual commitment to each other and can demonstrate financial interdependence to qualify for the benefits.

Our Mayor did not undertake this mission without asking some questions and trying to get some clarification from the state for his proposal. His first question concerned the North Carolina law banning co-habitation. It was settled when a state court decision was made declaring North Carolina's 201-year ban on cohabitation to be unconstitutional. Citing a 2003 Supreme Court ruling that struck down a Texas sodomy law, State Superior Court Judge Benjamin Alford ruled that Debora Hobbs' constitutional rights were violated when the 911 dispatcher was fired from her job at the Pender County Sheriff's Office because she chose to live with her boyfriend.

I have no idea what Texas law against sodomy has to do with a man and a woman living together and presumably having sex as normal men and women do, rather than the performance of sodomy, has to do with couples in North Carolina co-habiting, but apparently North Carolina State Supreme Court Judge Benjamin Alford sees a connection. Go figure. I truly believe this ruling could successfully be challenged if anyone cared to do so. The fact is in our society today co-habitation without benefit of marriage is accepted so this ruling is not likely to be challenged. But how our Mayor was able to connect this ruling to extending Health Care insurance benefits to co-habiting individuals is clearly baffling.

At any rate, our Mayor's first concern was answered, but he first intended to only extend the coverage to same sex couples since opposite sex couples could get married and comply with the original provisions if they want to. City Hall erupted like Mount St. Helena! And well it should have because the plan was exclusionary. Which proves my point that once you open the doors and dispense with the time honored two definitive aspects of family then you have made any and all relationships equally eligible.

Of course our Mayor being a careful fellow did ask the State Attorney General's office, "Would it be a violation of equal protection under the federal and state constitutions for the city of Greensboro to choose to offer domestic partner health benefits to same-sex couples while denying the benefit to unmarried opposite sex couples." The North Carolina State Attorney General's Office refused to offer any guidance on this subject.

So now we have breached the only barriers and definitions of family health care coverage to include persons and their children who are not related by blood or by legal marriage contract to the employees. There is absolutely nothing to stop the employee from placing anyone at all on his policy. He has merely to pay the premium for them and this would show a financial dependence. And if he continues this obligation of paying the premium for anyone's insurance this would be all that was legally needed to show a commitment.

As for the "live with" clause, well what does "live with" really mean? in one space? or could paying as little as $1 a month on the rent and going over for dinner once a month qualify as "living with" granny and pops? and why shouldn't an employee be able to add a person and their children he/she is having a long term affair with and can show commitment and financial dependency but does not share the same space with? I think it is safe to say he/she certainly "sleeps" with the person and could eat in their residence and could pay that $1 per month rent. It is certainly feasible that a man could then have his legal family (wife by marriage and children) covered as well as his mistress and her children. Why not? It would fit the criteria that has to be met to receive this tax payer subsidized health care insurance.

What I am saying is that  once you shatter the time honored definition of dependent or family relationship then you open it up to a whole host of new configurations. This would make anyone eligible for tax payer subsidized city employee health insurance. Aunts, uncles, cousins, kissin' cousins, grand parents, parents and in-laws. Also conceivable as eligible are neighbors, homeless people, orphans, friends and Joe the bartender at the employee's favorite watering hole.


This is the real issue here folks! Not the pros and cons of same-sex marriage or homosexuality or whether or not people need insurance because of the high cost of medical care, but this opening of a Pandora's Box.

The re-defining "family" is a matter for the courts, the legislature, or more democratically, the ballot box. And until "partners" are given the legal definition of family my rights as a tax payer are being violated when I am forced to pay for non-family members insurance. And when companies and businesses offer these benefits to their employees then I am an unwilling contributor thru the higher prices I must pay for goods and services of these businesses, I have not, and will not, judge these actions on a moral or personal or religious basis in an open forum because the issue will not be judged on this basis in a court of law. And if the issue comes to the ballot box then each person will make a decision based on their beliefs whether religious or secular.

I would like to point out that while the country is absorbed with the issue of same-sex marriage businesses, cities and counties all over the country are making headway in dissolving the tradition definition of family by the same method used in my city. The more companies, cities, counties and states who breech the traditional definition of family by offering benefits to those outside of the family unit then the closer our country is to making the issue of same-sex marriage a forgone conclusion appearing to have the population's tacit approval and needing only the legalities to make it the law of the land.  
BB
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

It worked in the 1930's so why not now.

President Franklin Roosevelt put people back to work with government work projects in the 1930's and it seems  that  somewhat the same things are happening now.  Construction projects of the Federal government, the states and  local governments that were authorized previous to the  current conditions  in the economy are just now being undertaken and thus providing blue collar jobs all over the nation.  This worked by design before to drag the economy  out of the depression, so maybe it will work  by accident now. 

There really won't be many government work projects following these however because  budgets are being cut at all levels since the tax payers are screaming for relief.  Inflation nearing 10% is also putting the breaks on governments spending.  The projects that are in the works right now however will likely have to absorb the inflated costs with cost overruns.  (Mitch will enjoy this since writing Change Orders is his favorite past time.  This is where he gets to pay people $83,000 for a project rather than the bid price of $31,000.)

Bottom line: the tax payer is getting it in the pocket regardless.

Good news: Bridges are being repaired and replaced all over the country so we may not see too many more bridges collapsing with any luck.  BB


Headline:  Governments' building projects shore up economy
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2008-08-19-spending_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip


By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY

"Construction spending by federal, state and local governments has reached record levels, lifting the economy and employing some blue-collar workers despite a collapse in home building."

"Governments are on track to spend a record $300 billion this year on schools, roads, bridges and other projects, the Census Bureau reports. That's a 7% increase on top of a 12.4% jump last year, the biggest increase since 1993, when the agency began tracking construction spending."
Tags: economy  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Putin Rollin'

Soon after  Vladimir Putin came on the scene in the mid 1990's  I saw him on TV and  told my husband that the majority of the Russian people have finally gotten back what they had lost when the Berlin Wall fell.  They had gotten back their cradle to grave security. 

Of course for this security there is a huge price that must be paid in freedom and dignity, but the Russian population had had 70 years of this  lifestyle and they really didn't want anything else.  Most little people once they have lost their ability to face life on their own two feet haven't the courage to  stand up again.  The few in Russia who yearned for freedom to  make their own way did prosper, but the slackers, the dullards, the lazy, the cheats  didn't do as well.  You see they were required to work for a living for the first time in their lives.   A privately owned  business expects their employees to earn their pay or they are replaced.  The state owned  businesses on the other hand accepted the inferior products  and productivity of the "employed for life"  workers.

You might point out just how much Vladimir Putin has done for the Russian people.  Russia fell because the Communist system of government doesn't work and the state was finally bankrupt.  This of course precipitated  terrible hardships on most of the population who due to the bare essentials provided from Communist Russia  had no resources to carry them thru the difficulty.   As stated above, those who were enterprising  found ways to survive and prosper, but most did not.  Then of course the criminals and mobs took over and the weakened state could not control the crime.

Vladimir Putin had been Head of the KGB so he knew what to do to control the criminals and he did.  Then he concentrated on running the state own businesses more efficiently.  Then came the kicker:  he took over all the privately own businesses that had  come about to supply the needs no longer supplied by the state.

During his eight years as President of Russia he has
been very popular with the Russian people because he was the man who "saved" them.  The economy skyrocketed because of the measures he took,   wages increased  from an average of $80 a month to $640  (of course so did prices! but people just feel richer with more money to spent just ask us Americans).   Best of all,  poverty was cut in half.  Poverty of those who hadn't been able to stand on their own two feet after the bankruptcy of the state run system.  Poverty that happen when the state no longer provided jobs because any good comunist will tell you there was no poverty before the Berlin Wall fell.

So while Putin was violating every single human rights issue in his own country the majority of his country men were praising him.

In the meantime, other countries that had once been under the hard heel of  Communist Russia had managed to prosper under their own forms of capitalism and relatively free elections.  It is these countries that Putin wants back in the fold and he has been working towards this end.  Attacking Georgia is, I believe, the first step.  The tanks are rolling and will continue to roll right over all the small independent countries  so that Putin can recreate the Russian Empire.  And there is absolutely no one to stop him.

And make no mistake, Vladimir Putin the former head of thje Communist KGB   has no love for America.  he has been able to keep the United States from putting in  missile bases in some of the former  Russian provinces.  He has managed to get moist of Europe hooked on Russian oil.  He is manuevering to get and keep the US and the UN tied up in the Middle East fiddling with Iran.  He has watched China become a  now greedy semi-capitalist country that doesn't want to shake the boat so they will look to their own interest by looking the other way while he plunders.
 
For a student of history it is going to be quite a show, albeit a  sad show  for  any who love liberty.  BB

Robert Kagan in today's Washington Post says it very well and gives some pertinent facts that I didn't  include with my opinion:

"This war did not begin because of a miscalculation by Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili. It is a war that Moscow has been attempting to provoke for some time. The man who once called the collapse of the Soviet Union "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [20th] century" has reestablished a virtual czarist rule in Russia and is trying to restore the country to its once-dominant role in Eurasia and the world. Armed with wealth from oil and gas; holding a near-monopoly over the energy supply to Europe; with a million soldiers, thousands of nuclear warheads and the world's third-largest military budget, Vladimir Putin believes that now is the time to make his move. "

See the rest of this article in today's  Washington Post

Headline: Putin Makes His Move

Monday, August 11, 2008; Page A15
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/10/AR2008081001871.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter

Addendum:  
EDITORIAL: Subverting Iran sanctions
The Washington Times Wed, 13 Aug 2008 1:28 AM PDT
While the United States emphasizes the need to halt investment in Iran's energy sector, Russia and China continue to forge ahead with billions of dollars in new investments that will enable Iran to finance its military buildup and fund terrorist groups. During the past year, Washington has had some success in persuading European allies not to go forward with projects that would provide capital ...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Puti

Soon after  Vladimir Putin came on the scene in the mid 1990's  I saw him on TV and  told my husband that the majority of the Russian people have finally gotten back what they had lost when the Berlin Wall fell.  They had gotten back their cradle to grave security. 

Of course for this security there is a huge price that must be paid in freedom and dignity, but the Russian population had had 70 years of this  lifestyle and they really didn't want anything else.  Most little people once they have lost their ability to face life on their own two feet haven't the courage to  stand up again.  The few in Russia who yearned for freedom to  make their own way did prosper, but the slackers, the dullards, the lazy, the cheats  didn't do as well.  You see they were required to work for a living for the first time in their lives.   A privately owned  business expects their employees to earn their pay or they are replaced.  The state owned  businesses on the other hand accepted the inferior products  and productivity of the "employed for life"  workers.

You might point out just how much Vladimir Putin has done for the Russian people.  Russia fell because the Communist system of government doesn't work and the state was finally bankrupt.  This of course precipitated  terrible hardships on most of the population who due to the bare essentials provided from Communist Russia  had no resources to carry them thru the difficulty.   As stated above, those who were enterprising  found ways to survive and prosper, but most did not.  Then of course the criminals and mobs took over and the weakened state could not control the crime.

Vladimir Putin had been Head of the KGB so he knew what to do to control the criminals and he did.  Then he concentrated on running the state own businesses more efficiently.  Then came the kicker:  he took over all the privately own businesses that had  come about to supply the needs no longer supplied by the state.

During his eight years as President of Russia he has
been very popular with the Russian people because he was the man who "saved" them.  The economy skyrocketed because of the measures he took,   wages increased  from an average of $80 a month to $640  (of course so did prices! but people just feel richer with more money to spent just ask us Americans).   Best of all,  poverty was cut in half.  Poverty of those who hadn't been able to stand on their own two feet after the bankruptcy of the state run system.  Poverty that happen when the state no longer provided jobs because any good comunist will tell you there was no poverty before the Berlin Wall fell.

So while Putin was violating every single human rights issue in his own country the majority of his country men were praising him.

In the meantime, other countries that had once been under the hard heel of  Communist Russia had managed to prosper under their own forms of capitalism and relatively free elections.  It is these countries that Putin wants back in the fold and he has been working towards this end.  Attacking Georgia is, I believe, the first step.  The tanks are rolling and will continue to roll right over all the small independent countries  so that Putin can recreate the Russian Empire.  And there is absolutely no one to stop him.

And make no mistake, Vladimir Putin the former head of thje Communist KGB   has no love for America.  he has been able to keep the United States from putting in  missile bases in some of the former  Russian provinces.  He has managed to get moist of Europe hooked on Russian oil.  He is manuevering to get and keep the US and the UN tied up in the Middle East fiddling with Iran.  He has watched China become a  now greedy semi-capitalist country that doesn't want to shake the boat so they will look to their own interest by looking the other way while he plunders.
 
For a student of history it is going to be quite a show, albeit a  sad show  for  any who love liberty.  BB

Robert Kagan in today's Washington Post says it very well and gives some pertinent facts that I didn't  include with my opinion:

"This war did not begin because of a miscalculation by Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili. It is a war that Moscow has been attempting to provoke for some time. The man who once called the collapse of the Soviet Union "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [20th] century" has reestablished a virtual czarist rule in Russia and is trying to restore the country to its once-dominant role in Eurasia and the world. Armed with wealth from oil and gas; holding a near-monopoly over the energy supply to Europe; with a million soldiers, thousands of nuclear warheads and the world's third-largest military budget, Vladimir Putin believes that now is the time to make his move. "

See the rest of this article in today's  Washington Post

Headline: Putin Makes His Move

Monday, August 11, 2008; Page A15
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/10/AR2008081001871.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter

Addendum:  
EDITORIAL: Subverting Iran sanctions
The Washington Times Wed, 13 Aug 2008 1:28 AM PDT
While the United States emphasizes the need to halt investment in Iran's energy sector, Russia and China continue to forge ahead with billions of dollars in new investments that will enable Iran to finance its military buildup and fund terrorist groups. During the past year, Washington has had some success in persuading European allies not to go forward with projects that would provide capital ...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Low Tech Jobs May Be Coming Back to US

Good and bad coming out of the energy crisis.  Today's New York Times reports on a trend that  bodes well for the low tech/skills jobs that may be coming back to the US due to the high costs of energy.  This should take care of the high unemployment rate among the unskilled/uneducated segment of the population.  Therefore this should prove to be a cure for some of our increasing social ills because employed people are more likely to keep to the straight and narrow and build for a future.  Marriages and stable families are more likely to increase among the minorities leading to upward mobility and a better educated second generation.  These things that the United States has lost in the last 30 years  with a corresponding rise in crime.

It will not however do a great deal to save the high tech jobs that have been going overseas unfortunately.  When I call for help with my new Dell computer I get this help from the Philippines.

Then again the United States will undoubtedly continue to be the creators of new technology. Surely ours will be the new technology for alternative sources of energy which will perhaps save the earth from further degradation from fossil fuels, as well as reducing our need to placate the more unstable and troublesome countries who seem to have the lions share of fossil fuels (Middle East, Russia, some South American countries) .

We have always been the inventors and   entrepreneurs while other countries have taken the role of  copiers.  Other countries reap the benefits of our first rate minds and then out perform us because we have a gigantic gape between our super intelligent inventors and our workers!  It would be a joke if not so sad.  ( this is of course simplistic because much more is involved that just an inadequate work force that caused jobs to go overseas, but it certainly is a very significant yet unacknowledged reason for being upstaged by others.  Americans tend to be a pampered, greedy and very  lazy people.)

Anyhow, I have lifted some quotes from the article if you want to read more about it. BB

Headline: " Shipping Costs Start to Crimp Globalization

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/business/worldbusiness/03global.html?th&emc=th

Cheap oil, the lubricant of quick, inexpensive transportation links across the world, may not return anytime soon, upsetting the logic of diffuse global supply chains that treat geography as a footnote in the pursuit of lower wages. Rising concern about global warming, the reaction against lost jobs in rich countries, worries about food safety and security, and the collapse of world trade talks in Geneva last week also signal that political and environmental concerns may make the calculus of globalization far more complex.

"The industries most likely to be affected by the sharp rise in transportation costs are those producing heavy or bulky goods that are particularly expensive to ship relative to their sale price. Steel is an example. China’s steel exports to the United States are now tumbling by more than 20 percent on a year-over-year basis, their worst performance in a decade, while American steel production has been rising after years of decline. Motors and machinery of all types, car parts, industrial presses, refrigerators, television sets and other home appliances could also be affected."

"The spike in shipping costs comes at a moment when concern about the environmental impact of globalization is also growing. Many companies have in recent years shifted production from countries with greater energy efficiency and more rigorous standards on carbon emissions, especially in Europe, to those that are more lax, like China and India.o avoid having to ship all its products from abroad, the Swedish furniture manufacturer Ikea opened its first factory in the United States in May. Some electronics companies that left Mexico in recent years for the lower wages in China are now returning to Mexico, because they can lower costs by trucking their output overland to American consumers."

"But with transportation costs rising, more wood is now going to traditional domestic furniture-making centers in North Carolina and Virginia, where the industry had all but been wiped out. While the opening of the American Ikea plant, in Danville, Va., a traditional furniture-producing center hit hard by the outsourcing of production to Asia, is perhaps most emblematic of such changes, other manufacturers are also shifting some production back to the United States."

"But with transportation costs rising, more wood is now going to traditional domestic furniture-making centers in North Carolina and Virginia, where the industry had all but been wiped out. While the opening of the American Ikea plant, in Danville, Va., a traditional furniture-producing center hit hard by the outsourcing of production to Asia, is perhaps most emblematic of such changes, other manufacturers are also shifting some production back to the United States."

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Senator McCain had a better example than P. Hilton or B. Spears

Controversial McCain campaign likens Obama to Paris Hilton

By David Usborne in Cedar Rapids, Iowa  Friday, August 1, 2008

“John McCain has unleashed a withering television commercial interweaving clips of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears with footage of Barack Obama addressing 200,000 Germans in Berlin a week ago in an apparent attempt to portray the Illinois senator as a bimbo celebrity with more smile than substance.”

Senator McCain’s staff  missed the boat on this one because they should have run a clip of the Dixie Chicks and their little tirade in London.

(From Wikipedia:  The music group Dixie Chicks were mired in political controversy after comments made by one of the band members about the 2003 Iraqi war and George W. Bush. During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, the Dixie Chicks performed in concert in London on March 10, 2003, at the Shepherd’s Bush Empire theatre. During this concert, the band gave a monologue to introduce their song Travelin’ Soldier,Natalie Maines, a Texas native, was quoted by The Guardian as saying, “Just so you know, [...] we’re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas.”[1]

Though this is the official circulation of the comment, the full text of the statement Natalie Maines made was as follows: “Just so you know, we’re on the good side with y’all.  We do not want this war, this violence, and we’re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas.”

“Maines’ remark sparked intense criticism; many Americans believed that she should not criticize George Bush on foreign shores.”)

Country music fans dropped the group after that and it took them four  years to make their way back into the fans good graces even tho many celebrities came out for their right to speak.  But it was their speaking out against the President and thus the United States on foreign soil that caused all the back lash.  The same statement could probably have been made here in country and not even cause a ripple since so many were bad mouthing Bush and his run up to the Iraqi War.

Is Senator McCain’s staff too far removed from the rednecks who vote to have not known which notorious female “mouth” to use?  Or maybe it was just that Paris shows better on camera?

This all is a big joke to me of course because Obama’s handlers are now referring to McCain as “McNasty”.   Obama however continues to play the race card, so just who is nastier?

Putting all the petty political rhetoric aside tho, I feel that race will not play out as having any influence in November UNLESS Obama continues to play the race card as he has been doing recently in some of his remarks.  He is careful not to mention the word race, but the inference is clear.  BB

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/controversial-mccain-campaign-likens-obama-to-paris-hilton-882630.html

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »