"Only dull people are brilliant at breakfast"
-Oscar Wilde
Brilliant at Breakfast title banner "The liberal soul shall be made fat, and he that watereth, shall be watered also himself."
-- Proverbs 11:25
"...you have a choice: be a fighting liberal or sit quietly. I know what I am, what are you?" -- Steve Gilliard, 1964 - 2007

"For straight up monster-stomping goodness, nothing makes smoke shoot out my ears like Brilliant@Breakfast" -- Tata

"...the best bleacher bum since Pete Axthelm" -- Randy K.

"I came here to chew bubblegum and kick ass. And I'm all out of bubblegum." -- "Rowdy" Roddy Piper (1954-2015), They Live
Saturday, April 19, 2008

A Real Voice From Iraq Prepares for the Journey of a Lifetime; Mike Boettcher Launches No Ignoring
Posted by Anonymous | 10:27 PM

I don't have many heroes left in my life. It seems like alot of the specific people who I embraced when I was younger have turned out to be disappointing in one way or another, and others have twisted what it even means to be a hero into this odd form of narcissism that is going around these days. Most of the real heroes of our time would hardly call themselves that. They are those who rely on their gut feeling about things, with empathy, and ethics, and a sense of mission that rises above career and riches and even security. These people aren't following themselves with one eye in the mirror sizing up how their actions look on them; they just go and do what needs to be done.

Mike Boettcher has been, for the longest time for me a sane voice in the rubble. He has reported steadily from war zones at home and abroad, covering just about every major disaster and conflict on the ground, regardless of the danger, and as a voice of reason who works shoulder to shoulder with the troops in order to get the real story out. This is not the breathless wonder of Mick Ware, (though, I am fond of him too, in his spectacularly, magnificently, gigantic way of reporting a roller coaster ride,) but rather its this person who is woven into the fabric of our beings, like the trusted anchor who we lost sight of in the age of information, and the real journalists who uncovered stories by actually digging, regardless of what it would do to their access.

This guy, with his blond mop of hair, scraggy beard, and world weary eyes, delivers real news from places outside the green zone, where the M$M no longer treads. I was thankful that he was there just about every day of this occupation in Iraq, and worried about him as well because it was clear that he was on the move all the time, in the dark, past the line, beyond the curfew. He is well beloved among the troops, with full access to places where most reporters dare not go.
Mike Boettcher is but one of the many heroes in this war, but he is one who really stands out in that he is setting off on his own to deliver to us the truth of what is being done in our name and what its like for our young men and women out there who are so brave in serving their country in such a difficult time. I'm sure that he considers the soldiers the real heroes in this, and himself merely the messenger, but, to me, Mike is a real true hero.

As our window to the Iraq war has closed as tightly as the window onto the skeleton of Afghanistan War had, Mike realized that there is a huge gap in the reporting that is being made possible by our media. So, he has gone off on his own and created a mission for himself, his crew, and his 21 year old son, to do a 15 month tour of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, reporting on their own dime, independently, and from the soldier's point of view. There will be a website that will provide real time, on the ground, information and stories that you will not find anywhere else. This is really dangerous work, but this is something that Mike feels he has to do, and as, in fact, done all along, as much as his corporate bosses would let him; tell the soldier's real stories in a non-partisan way, and remind us what a real hero looks like once again.
I will be following this project as closely as possible, and looking forward to the launch of the website(which is not up yet.)

Al Tompkins had a chance to catch up with Mike at the NAB convention, and asked Mike about his plans and his upcoming deployment in this clip:



Godspeed Mike, and thanks for being our eyes and ears on the ground out there.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share

Remember THIS white male?
Posted by Jill | 12:01 PM
While the punditocracy are touting the importance of the poor, put-upon, persecuted white male, the white guy the pundits mocked out of the race had some fun on The Colbert Report.

Introducing......EdWørds:





(h/t: C&L)

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
Friday, April 18, 2008

Teflon John and the tax returns
Posted by Jill | 6:32 PM
So the evolution of John McCain as the "man of the people" as compared to that elitist Barack Obama has begun.

Today John McCain released his tax returns, but only for 2006 and 2007 -- and for nothing previously. And they only reflect his own income, not that of his wife Cindy, who heads up a privately-held beer distributorship and reportedly owns eight homes.

Funny how the media are relatively silent on this, particularly when Republicans were having the vapors in 2004 when they clamored for Teresa Heinz Kerry to release hers and howled about what she's hiding.

And of course you recall this hue and cry from March of this year.

So why were Teresa Heinz Kerry's finances relevant in 2004 but Cindy McCain's aren't in 2008?

All together now:

BECAUSE IT'S OK IF YOU'RE A REPUBLICAN.

And we'd better be prepared to deal with that fact.

UPDATE: Joe Sudbay dug up this article that the Associated Press put out earlier this month showing that McCain's finances are not as separate from those of his wife as he wants to pretend now:

The McCains' marriage has mixed business and politics from the beginning, according to an expansive review by The Associated Press of thousands of pages of campaign, personal finance, real estate and property records nationwide. The paperwork chronicles the McCains' ascent from Arizona newlyweds to political power couple on the national stage.

As heiress to her father's stake in Hensley & Co. of Phoenix, Cindy McCain is an executive whose worth may exceed $100 million. Her beer earnings have afforded the GOP presidential nominee a wealthy lifestyle with a private jet and vacation homes at his disposal, and her connections helped him launch his political career -- even if the millions remain in her name alone. Yet the arm's-length distance between McCain and his wife's assets also has helped shield him from conflict-of-interest problems.

Nearly 30 years before John McCain became the Republican presidential nominee, he worked in public relations at his wife's family company.

Within a few years of marrying Cindy Hensley, the daughter of a multimillionaire Anheuser-Busch distributor, John McCain won his first election. He was new to Arizona politics and fundraising in the 1982 House race, and his campaign quickly fell into debt. Personal money -- tens of thousands of dollars in loans to his campaign from McCain bank accounts -- helped him survive.

Anheuser-Busch's political action committee was among McCain's earliest donors. Cindy McCain's father, James Hensley, and other Hensley & Co. executives gave so much the Federal Election Commission ordered McCain to give some of it back. McCain's campaign used Hensley office equipment such as computers and copiers, and Cindy McCain personally paid some of the campaign's bills.

The campaign gradually reimbursed Hensley for use of its equipment and Cindy McCain for her expenses. The loans -- described initially by John McCain as coming from him and his wife -- caught the eye of the FEC, which repeatedly questioned him about them; spouses are held to the same donation limits as everyone else.

McCain told the FEC the loaned money came from his share of joint accounts. At the time, McCain reported drawing a $25,067 salary and $25,000 bonus working for Hensley in public relations and receiving a Navy pension of $11,038 a year; his 1982 financial disclosure report showed bank interest but didn't say how much the bank accounts held.


But hey, he's a maverick and spent five years in a Hanoi prison, so everything he does is by definition OK, right? And besides, he makes Tweety's leg tingle.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

Bobo is getting frightened
Posted by Jill | 6:23 AM
How cool was it to see Barack Obama turn ABC's attempts to turn him into the man who would revive the Weather Underground right back on them?





We are so used to seeing "toughness on the campaign" take the form of saber-rattling at other nations and attacks on the opponent taking the form of dire predictions of what he/she is going to do to the country. We're used to Democrats apologizing for lamebrained photo-ops that make them look silly instead of coming out and saying, "Hey, you want these photo ops? Well, sometimes we're going to look silly doing them." But we have never, ever seen a cool customer like Barack Obama. I would like to see this "shoulder brush" become THE memorable moment from this campaign.

Doesn't it seem like Obama is really starting to enjoy this? Sure, it's easy to be confident when everything your opponent does to try to bring you down backfires on her. It remains to be seen what happens when the Republican noise machine really starts in earnest. But the fact that ABC's obvious and craven attempt to bury the Obama candidacy seems to have not only backfired, but backfired spectacularly, with fireworks and a big brass band, may mean that such tactics no longer matter, that the hunger that Americans have for a change of direction isn't just limited to young people, or black people, or whatever groups the pundits decide form Obama's voter base. On the contrary; Obama's voter base includes everyone -- young, old, black, white.

Yes, it's "scary", because we are so used to seeing white men, mostly old white men, sworn in on January 20 every four years. Because Obama is not only African-American, but also has this unusual background that flies in the face of the kind of log-cabin, homespun, Norman Rockwell picture that we associate with presidents. But when George W. Bush has shown just how much a white guy can screw things up, there's something about Someone Different that has this aura of potential that Just Another White Guy doesn't have.

You can make the argument that Hillary Clinton, as a woman, would also represent this kind of sea change, were it not for the baggage that her husband's presidency brings to the table, and were it not for the fact that she's arguably more of a warhawk than John McCain and wants as much if not more of a unitary executive than George W. Bush:





With Clinton not having gained any traction from the debate, and with Obama closing the gap in Pennsylvania despite the best efforts of ABC and others to stop him, the upcoming election being one of Bush III vs. some kind of very real change is becoming clearer.

Unless you're David Brooks, in which case despite Obama's lift in the polls every time the punditry declares him dead in the water, Obama is doomed:

Back in Iowa, Barack Obama promised to be something new — an unconventional leader who would confront unpleasant truths, embrace novel policies and unify the country. If he had knocked Hillary Clinton out in New Hampshire and entered general-election mode early, this enormously thoughtful man would have become that.

But he did not knock her out, and the aura around Obama has changed. Furiously courting Democratic primary voters and apparently exhausted, Obama has emerged as a more conventional politician and a more orthodox liberal.

He sprinkled his debate performance Wednesday night with the sorts of fibs, evasions and hypocrisies that are the stuff of conventional politics. He claimed falsely that his handwriting wasn’t on a questionnaire about gun control. He claimed that he had never attacked Clinton for her exaggerations about the Tuzla airport, though his campaign was all over it. Obama piously condemned the practice of lifting other candidates’ words out of context, but he has been doing exactly the same thing to John McCain, especially over his 100 years in Iraq comment.

Obama also made a pair of grand and cynical promises that are the sign of someone who is thinking more about campaigning than governing.


Do you get the sense that Brooks had this column ready to use about either one of the Democratic candidates?

For decades, the pundit corps has been able to rely on their games of gotcha and their conventional wisdom about voter blocs and about the "fact" that what Americans really care about is flags and abortion and two guys kissing and other things completely irrelevant to the lives of most people. And for the most part, Americans have willingly gone along.

This time it seems to be different. How much different it is remains to be seen. But there is a different aroma in the air today, and it's scaring poor David Brooks half to death.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Thursday, April 17, 2008

Time to put Imus in the corner again
Posted by Jill | 7:08 PM
If Randi Rhodes gets suspended for things she says about Hillary Clinton when she's NOT ON THE AIR, why is Don Imus able to say things like this while ON THE AIR?


IMUS: Stephanopoulos I thought was great, and the debate was fine. I thought Senator Obama was on the defensive most of the night. But they're both sissy boys or sissy girls, or whatever. Because they talk big when they're out on the campaign trail, wolfing on each other.

McCORD: But then --

IMUS: And then when they show up at the debate, they fold up like a couple of cheap lawn chairs. I mean, I don't understand that. And he's almost a bigger pussy than she is.


Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

Thursday Big Blue Smurf Blogging: What They Said, Wow, Two In One Day Edition
Posted by Jill | 5:18 PM
I know he's one of the Big Boiz, but I still love it when John Aravosis goes on a tear. And this is a good one: Does John McCain Require His Mistress to Wear a Flag Pin?

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share

Make your voice heard
Posted by Jill | 2:34 PM
Make ABC sorry they ever allowed Charles Gibson and George Suckupagus in front of the cameras last night:

ABC:

abcaudr@abc.com,
abcnews.storyideas@gmail.com,
abcradio@abc.com,
anne.x.sweeney@abc.com,
brian.frons@abc.com,
brian.frons@abc.com,
brian.ross@abc.com,
charles.a.gallo@abc.com,
charles.gibson@abc.com,
chris.j.berry@abc.com,
damonl@abc.com,
Edmund.w.poor@abc.com,
erin.felentzer@abc.com,
erin.felentzer@abc.com,
ernie.fears@abc.com,
frank.valentini@abc.com,
heidi.b.oringer@abc.com,
investor.relations@disneyonline.com,
jill.phelps@abc.com,
john.e.mcconnell@abc.com,
jonathan.hogan@abc.com,
Julie.carruthers@abc.com,
Lauren.kapp@abc.com,
Michael.t.connolly@abc.com,
netaudr@abc.com,
Patrick.k.preblick@abc.com,
randall.bloomquist@abc.com,
Stacey.goldfaden@abc.com,
steve.jones@abc.com,
stossel@abc.com,
wendy.figliuolo@abc.com,

Disney:

alan.braverman@disney.com,
albert.cheng@disney.com,
alex.wallau@disney.com,
andy.bird@disney.com,
anne.sweeney@disney.com,
brent.woodford@disney.com,
David.K.Thompson@disney.com,
david.stainton@disney.com,
david.thompson@disney.com,
david.westin@disney.com,
gary.marsh@disney.com,
gary.wilson@nwa.com,
george.bodenheimer@disney.com,
george.mitchell@dlapiper.com,
jestrin@packetdesign.com,
jewell.engstrom@disney.com,
john.bryson@edisonintl.com,
john.chen@sybase.com,
kevin.mayer@disney.com,
leo.odonovan@mbna.com,
meredith.metz@disney.com,
mike.shaw@disney.com,
monica.lozano@laopinion.com,
nicole.nichols@disney.com,
patti.mcteague@disney.com,
paul.lee@disney.com,
peter.murphy@disney.com,
preston.padden@disney.com,
rich.ross@disney.com,
Robert.A.Iger@disney.com,
Ronald.iden@disney.com,
scott.garner@disney.com,
sean.cocchia@disney.com,
siobhan.kenny@disney.com,
Thomas.staggs@disney.com,
tom.staggs@disney.com,
zenia.mucha@disney.com,

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share

Thursday Big Blue Smurf Blogging: What They Said
Posted by Jill | 8:31 AM
Bookmark and Share

Wow....I'm glad I didn't watch it
Posted by Jill | 6:03 AM
I suppose I had somewhat of an obligation to watch the debate last night. But at this stage of the campaign, there is absolutely nothing that such debates can add to my understanding of the issues.

And the issues, apparently, from what I am reading from those intrepid angels who DID dare to tread, are flag pins, the word "bitter", who people associated with when they were in their 20's, and pastors who say mean things.

The war in Iraq doesn't matter because it's going SO swimmingly, even after a suicide bomber hit a funeral procession just north of Baghdad today Iraq is not "standing up so we can stand down" and VP-wannabe Condi "Totture Dominatrix" Rice says that diplomats who refuse posts in Iraq will be terminated. The economy doesn't matter, even though oil has topped $115/barrel, housing starts have reached a 17-year low, there's a global shortage of rice which is already causing a humanitarian crisis in volatile North Korea. Bank stocks are tanking so badly that when the results are slightly less horrendous than expected, the Dow picks up over 200 points -- for one day. States with no money to burn are using band-aids to stop the crack in the mortgage dam and keep the foreclosure mess from destroying their towns and cities. If you're arrested for any federal crime (not convicted, just arrested), your DNA will be captured and kept by the government forever, even if you are exonerated via trial or charges are dropped. And just to top things off, they're fighting in the Gaza Strip again.

But does any of this matter to the Washington pundit corps? Not one bit. What a bunch of multimillionaire pundits are telling you should be important to you is not your dying neighborhood, or your lost job, or your son in Iraq, or the trillions of dollars in debt with which your new grandbaby is going to be stuck. No, the candidates weren't asked about any of these things. Here's what they were asked:

GIBSON: There have already been many votes in many states, and you have each, as you analyze the vote, appealed disproportionately to different constituencies in the party, and that dismays many in the party. Governor Cuomo, an elder statesman in your party, has come forward with a suggestion. He has said, look, fight it to the end.

Let every vote be counted. You contest every delegate. Go at each other to the -- right till the end. Don't give an inch to one another. But pledge now that whichever one of you wins this contest, you'll take the other as your running mate, and that the other will agree if they lose, to take second place on the ticket.

******


CHARLES GIBSON: Talking to a closed-door fundraiser in San Francisco 10 days ago, you got talking in California about small-town Pennsylvanians who have had tough economic times in recent years. And you said they get bitter, and they cling to guns or they cling to their religion or they cling to antipathy toward people who are not like them.

Now, you've said you misspoke; you said you mangled what it was you wanted to say. But we've talked to a lot of voters. Do you understand that some people in this state find that patronizing and think that you said actually what you meant?

******


GEORGE SUCKUPAGUS: Senator Clinton, when Bill Richardson called you to say he was endorsing Barack Obama, you told him that Senator Obama can't win. I'm not going to ask you about that conversation. I know you don't want to talk about it. But a simple yes-or-no question: Do you think Senator Obama can beat John McCain or not?


GIBSON: Senator Obama, since you last debated, you made a significant speech in this building on the subject of race and your former pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. And you said subsequent to giving that speech that you never heard him say from the pulpit the kinds of things that so have offended people.

But more than a year ago, you rescinded the invitation to him to attend the event when you announced your candidacy. He was to give the invocation. And according to the reverend, I'm quoting him, you said to him, "You can get kind of rough in sermons. So what we've decided is that it's best for you not to be out there in public." I'm quoting the reverend. But what did you know about his statements that caused you to rescind that invitation? [...] And if you knew he got rough in sermons, why did it take you more than a year to publicly disassociate yourself from his remarks?

******


SUCKUPAGUS: Senator, two questions. Number one, do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do? And number two, if you get the nomination, what will you do when those sermons are played on television again and again and again? [...] But you do believe he's as patriotic as you are?

******


SUCKUPAGUS: Senator Obama, your campaign has sent out a cascade of e-mails, just about every day, questioning Senator Clinton's credibility. And you yourself have said she hasn't been fully truthful about what she would do as president.

Do you believe that Senator Clinton has been fully truthful about her past?

******


MR. GIBSON: And Senator Obama, I want to do one more question, which goes to the basic issue of electability. And it is a question raised by a voter in Latrobe, Pennsylvania, a woman by the name of Nash McCabe. Take a look.

NASH MCCABE (Latrobe, Pennsylvania): (From videotape.) Senator Obama, I have a question, and I want to know if you believe in the American flag. I am not questioning your patriotism, but all our servicemen, policemen and EMS wear the flag. I want to know why you don't.


SUCKUPAGUS: [...]if you get the nomination, you'll have to -- (applause) -- (inaudible).

I want to give Senator Clinton a chance to respond, but first a follow-up on this issue, the general theme of patriotism in your relationships. A gentleman named William Ayers, he was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol and other buildings. He's never apologized for that. And in fact, on 9/11 he was quoted in The New York Times saying, "I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough."

An early organizing meeting for your state senate campaign was held at his house, and your campaign has said you are friendly. Can you explain that relationship for the voters, and explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem?


Need I go on?

This media obsession with nailing Democrats to the wall infuriates me because it's gone on in every single election since 1980. I linked above to Glenn Greenwald discussing the way the media portray every single Democratic nominee as some kind of elitist freak, even as they cave into the macho iconography of the parade of wealthy true elitist Republicans that come down the path every four years. It's one thing to ask tough questions, it's another thing for a major news network to air what it's billing as a debate after it's gotten its marching orders for questions to ask from Sean Hannity.

Here you have a Republican nominee, John McCain, whose father and grandfather were four-star Admirals in the U.S. Navy. who got into the Naval Academy at Annapolis as a legacy admission, and graduated fifth from the bottom. His wife is heiress to a $100 million beer distributorship fortune. You have a Democratic candidate whose husband, a former president, left office in debt up to his eyeballs and now is worth $109 million, most of it from speaking fees, just eight years later.

And Barack Obama is the elitist?

This relentless obsession that people like Chris Matthews and Maureen Dowd, pundits who like to point themselves as the product of hard-working blue-collar families but now make millions of dollars a year telling Americans what they like and what they are looking for in a president, with "regular guy" stuff is sickening. I don't want the president to be some guy holding forth at the corner bar, or someone in a bowling league chowing down on chili dogs. Troubled times require a president who can string two coherent thoughts together. The president SHOULDN'T be just a "regular guy", because "regular guys" don't spend their time thinking about how we can get out of Iraq, or how we can invest in this country's future when the current occupant of the White House has spent us into oblivion.

You would think that after eight years of a president who's about as faux a "regular guy" as there is; a guy born in Connecticut who got into Yale as a legacy, drilled a bunch of dry holes in Texas using the money of people who wanted access to his father, gained one of the weakest governorships in the country, bought a "ranch" in a scrubby part of Texas to be used as a prop setting to bolster his cowboy cred and to which he is NOT retiring when he leaves office, and as president who has shown himself to be the same fuckup he's been all his life, that Americans would be smarter than this. And perhaps they are, at least so far, since polls seem to indicate that not only aren't people concerned with Barack Obama's pastor, but they aren't concerned about the word "bitter" either, because yeah, Obama is damn right they're bitter.

But memes like "elitist" have a nasty habit of becoming ingrained in the public consciousness when they're repeated again and again and again, as they will be no matter WHO gets the Democratic nomination. And this, from Tuesday night's pr0n flick that was Chris Matthews' interview with John McCain, is what we can expect from the press where the Republican nominee is concerned:

MATTHEWS: So this is what it‘s like to be president, right this moment. It‘s going to be like this if you make it. You‘re a flip of the coin away from being the president of the United States, based on all the polls. You‘re about 50/50. The toughest question first is for you.

(LAUGHTER)

MCCAIN: Can I—can I...

MATTHEWS: The question is...

MCCAIN: Can I ask you a question first?

MATTHEWS: No.

MCCAIN: Cheese steaks, Pat‘s or Gino‘s?

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE AND CHEERS)

MCCAIN: Do you refuse to answer?

MATTHEWS: The answer is, take your chances!


Of course this show was at Villanova, about as Guy a Guy School as you're going to find. So here's the kind of questions the audience THERE asked him:

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Good afternoon, Senator McCain, Mr. Matthews. My name is Matthew Brady (ph). Senator McCain, the day following Barack Obama‘s speech on racism at the National Constitution Center, he remarked on comments he made during his speech about his racist grandmother, referring to her as a “typical white person.” Would you characterize yourself, as Barack Obama would phrase, as a typical white person?

(LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE)

[...]

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hi, Senator McCain. My name is Peter Doocey (ph). I‘m a junior here. And I‘m sure that you saw your—one of your Democratic opponents, Hillary Clinton, recently drinking whiskey shots with some potential voters. Now, I was wondering if you think that she‘s finally resorted to hitting the sauce just because of some unfavorable polling. And I was also wondering if you would care to join me for a shot after this.

(LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE)

[...]

MATTHEWS: Why do you think a guy, Barack Obama, who grew up in not exactly easy circumstances—he—his father went back to Africa after he was just born, basically. He was raised in Indonesia, a Third World country, a white American mother, basically never had any breaks, except he‘s a smart guy, obviously.

But why do you think he thinks like an elitist, or talks like one, if he‘s not an elitist?


And because Matthews can never, ever, ever use the name "John McCain" in a sentence without using the "M" word, here we go:

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about your Republican party. You‘ve been a maverick, and a lot of people like you because of that. I want to ask you how much of a maverick you are. Would you put a person on the ticket with you, like the former governor of this state who is very popular, Tom Ridge, even though he may disagree on the issue of Roe v Wade and abortion rights? Would you put somebody on the ticket like that, on that one issue? Would that stop him?


Welcome to Campaign 2008. Just like Campaign 2004, and Campaign 2000, and Campaign 1996 and Campaign 1992 and Campaign 1988 and Campaign 1984 and Campaign 1980.

Will Americans finally get smart this time?

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
Wednesday, April 16, 2008

We Don't Torture...That is Unless We Do...Oh Yeah, We Actually Do Torture!!
The concept of these assholes meeting to set the standard on torture is mind boggling. Who in that group has their doctorate in psychology and can speak to the truths told under certain physical stress? Who in that group even has the moral compass to make the decision for us in this matter, because what we do now is gonna effect us in the long run; especially if there is a draft that takes our kids and family members into a world that knows no Geneva Convention.

Its gonna be your kids and my kids who grow up in a world in which the likes of Condi Rice has decided how much to torture someone...and we know that TORTURE DOESN'T WORK! Not if you want reliable information. Torture works to force people to confess things they didn't do, to force them to renounce their country, and to force them to make up information in order to stop the torture. So, while our forces are tracking down those false leads, what else is going on that might have been extracted using other psychological and intelligence based tactics that actually work!
John Stewart jokes about this, but it is no joke...We all laugh because if we didn't laugh we would be crying. But, he delivers a very serious message within that funny. McCain will be the continuation of this policy, through the haze of aPTSD flashback brought about by the grotesque reality of the tactics and some sort of reality break/cognitive dissonance. We have to be very, very clear as we watch our two possible candidates try to ruineachother and the party while they're at it, that its gonna be our kids who grow up in a world where we torture and we get tortured back.
Rock on, Jon...maybe someone out there will hear you....

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

Air America...What Could They be Thinking?...Sign to Let AAR Know That We Want Sam Seder on 5 Days Per Week!

Brave New Films has set up a petition to let Air America know that we want Sam Seder to have a 5 day per week show. Go HERE and sign. Then write to pcollins@airamerica.com and let him know what you think about the lineup, the celebrity guest hosts, and what this country needs as far as the liberal voice goes.

I'm not down on Richard Belzer, who is filling in from 3-6 PM this week in Randi Rhodes sold slot, but the problem with him is alot like the problem with Jerry Springer or Lionel; there is a lack of real reporting and deep knowledge of the issues there. They may be able to get guests or liberal callers, but they don't stretch our awareness of the issues much past what is on the normal news or in the paper. If you want a talker who is just there to lull you from a left sided viewpoint, then I can understand liking these guys. But of you want to be challenged, to think, to find out more about the surface story, and to find out what you can do about it, then Sam Seder is better for the network.

When the Green brothers took over Air America and put Lionel in the morning slot that had previously been Sam's, there was talk that the feeling was that Sam was too substantive and that there was a desire for...er...less substance in the morning. Now, already, Morning Sedition had proven that wrong as the numbers were good and climbing when the plug was pulled on that for no other reason than that one person didn't like it. And I would also say that the fact that there are a range of news programs in morning drive time disproves that as well. I think that its completely disrespectful to the audience to say that they should have less substance in that time slot. I suppose that a morning zoo with content would be nice...but one would have to rebuild that from the ashes of bad management decisions.

The thing is, that where maybe Randi Rhodes was maybe too wild for the new owners, and not enough of a Hillary soldier, (and good luck trying to find anyone who is anymore,)or they didn't like her contract, or whatever it was, to replace her with Richard Belzer who is a bit of a snooze, but might be fine in a night slot, is gonna alienate any listeners who haven't followed Randi but who tune in for a peppy afternoon show with a little anger and energy. I just cant imagine how the casting is done over there in the bowels of AAR, but the management of said casting and the way that the very talented Sam Seder has been treated, is deplorable if one wants to go for continuity and keep the audience that they have.

And in a nod to the brilliance of the late great Morning Sedition, Belzer had a Kent Jones character call in. Unless management is renewing Kent's contract, I find it in pretty strange taste...though I am not in that loop at all, so who knows what goes on...but the thing is, Belzer is not a sketch comedian of the sort that played those sketches originally. So the comparison is brutal, and the sketch didn't make alot of sense...and as much as Belzer is held in high regard in the liberal community, the comedy community, and the NYC community, he just didn't hit it right, leaving those of us who knew the origins of that sketch shaking our heads, and those who didn't wondering what the fuck that was. There is a need for more of the funny on AAR, but digging this stuff out of the vault and trying to recreate it is not the way to go. That's the recycled funny and it doesn't work unless the originals are called in to reunite with these characters; to do it right, you've got to build it new from the ground up, and with some very talented people who have the time to work together so its not so strange and stilted.

I suppose I'm pretty well finished with AAR. I wrote a pretty good second letter to Phillipe Collins, and I signed the petition....I don't know how much I can even care anymore...and as long as Mark Green is in on these decisions, and I keep seeing his face on Hardball and the like, I get an icky, sticky, smarmy feeling about the whole thing. The edgy coolness is all gone now...you only have to look at Green and know his history in NYC to hear that bell toll. So, I'm expecting the worst, and Ill be happily surprised if they do anything that makes sense. But we are not in an age of sense, and I can see that there is gonna be a time soon where all of the media content out there is going to be cobbled together by subscription, and delivered by WiFi (wait...get this...I ordered an 80 gig Zune!...more on that as it develops.)I really hope that Sam is offered a good, 5 day per week slot, with some job security, but I also know that he is so talented and so interested in the media of the future that not being saddled with AAR could be a good thing for him too. So, in the long view its exciting to see what he might do...its just that in the short term its going to be a real bummer not to have him navigating the decline and fall of the Bush empire, and the election and cleanup of whatever comes next. This is a season that I would hate to go through without his voice and point of view out there with me.

c/p RIPCoco

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

The final nail in the coffin of the maverick
Posted by Jill | 6:38 AM
Of course the fact that John McCain has now decided to be a George W. Bush clone on economic policy as well as on Iraq policy won't make one bit of difference to Chris Matthews, who will continue to refer to McCain as a maverick. After all, true love of the kind Tweety has for John McCain is always delusional.

But if you had any doubts that McCain's campaign slogan should be "If you enjoyed the Bush years, you'll LOVE a McCain administration", his economic policy speech yesterday erased them:

Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, spoke at length about those economic hardships and suggested he might well break with the economic policies of President Bush and former President Ronald Reagan. “It will not be enough to simply dust off the economic policies of four, eight or 28 years ago,” he said in the speech, at Carnegie Mellon University. “We have our own work to do.”

But a major component of his economic plan — like those of Presidents Bush and Reagan — centered on tax cuts. Besides making the Bush income tax cuts permanent and reducing corporate taxes to 25 percent from 35 percent, Mr. McCain called for eliminating the alternative minimum tax and doubling the value of exemptions for dependents to $7,000 from $3,500, among other recommendations. He also proposed giving taxpayers the option of filing a simpler, shorter tax form each year than is available now.

Mr. McCain even called for cutting one tax before the Republican National Convention, let alone the election: he urged Congress to suspend the 18.4-cent-a-gallon federal gas tax from this Memorial Day until Labor Day. He said doing so would provide “an immediate economic stimulus,” but such plans have gained little traction recently in Congress, and some environmentalists fear such a cut would encourage more people to use their cars at a time when Mr. McCain has made combating global warming a central theme of his campaign.

The McCain campaign put the cost of his tax cuts at roughly $200 billion a year, but its estimate did not include the cost of making the Bush tax cuts permanent, which would more than double that figure.

The campaign said it would offset the lost $200 billion by eliminating from the federal budget earmarked pork-barrel projects; putting a one-year freeze on discretionary spending in most federal agencies, later eliminating wasteful programs; broadening the tax base by eliminating loopholes; and spurring economic growth. But its estimate of how much could be saved with such measures was far higher than those of some other independent budget analysts.


Does this sound familiar? It should, because it's the cornerstone of the very Bush policies that have driven us into debt so huge that it's just about beyond our ability to ever pay it back and has driven us into recession. And this is also the president who has promised us that "there will be more wars" and an indefinite stay in Iraq until some undefined notion of "victory" is reached.

So....where you gonna get the money, John? Or are you just going to write more hot checks until your one or two terms are done, at which point your time here in this level of reality will be just about done and it'll be someone else's problem?

Today Maureen Dowd insists on flogging the "Barack Obama is an elitist" meme even though most actual voters don't seem to care (perhaps because they know they've been shafted by politicians and Washington pundits like Dowd). Would that she and the other multimillionaires of the Washington Press corps would stop fanning themselves long enough to point out that whatever George W. Bush hasn't done to wreck everything, the guy who has gained the label of "maverick" because at one time he worked with Russ Feingold to enact the very campaign finance legislation he now feels doesn't apply to him, cements his status as selfish, "I got mine and fuck you" empire-building neocon.

And when the whole house of cards comes down on his watch, not even Tweety's love for John McCain will save us.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share

File this away under "Why Am I Not Surprised"?
Posted by Jill | 5:38 AM
So much for the Foreclosure Prevention Act being about helping homeowners in danger of losing their homes:

In the Senate bill, the nation’s biggest home builders, some now on the verge of bankruptcy, won a provision that would let them claim millions in tax refunds by charging their current losses against the huge profits they made three or four years ago. Other struggling industries would benefit from this provision.

“This is our biggest legislative effort since the Tax Reform Act of 1986,” said Jerry M. Howard, chief executive of the National Association of Home Builders. Hundreds of the association’s members flooded the district offices of representatives and senators while they were home for the spring recess last month.

Supporters of the bill, including Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana and the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, say it represents sound tax policy carefully focused to help stimulate the lagging economy. But the White House opposes the Senate bill, and Democratic leaders in the House not only have promised to provide more relief for individual homeowners, but have also dropped the corporate tax provisions from their version.

Downtrodden automakers — Ford and General Motors — were especially dogged in securing a tax break that would let them collect alternative minimum tax credits, also known as the A.M.T., that would otherwise be out of reach because they did not pay enough taxes in recent years to claim a rebate.

If the provision becomes law, it could mean checks up to $40 million for the car manufacturers, as long as the companies had made investments in plant or equipment in that amount.

A Ford spokesman, Mike Moran, said he was aware that Ford would benefit from the tax credit in the bill passed by the Senate. But Mr. Moran said that the credit applied to a range of industries, not just automakers. A General Motors spokesman could not be reached.

Domestic airlines and manufacturers other than automakers would be eligible to claim the A.M.T. break as well. One lobbyist said that the companies that had sought the tax breaks in meetings with lawmakers included Ford, General Motors, American Airlines, Northwest Airlines and Goodyear Tire and Rubber.

Companies could claim only one of the new tax breaks, which in all, are expected to cost $6 billion through 2018. The jockeying among industry groups, including Realtors, home builders and bankers, is certain to intensify in coming weeks as lawmakers move to reconcile the Senate bill with a more ambitious package of housing legislation now under way in the House.

Lawmakers on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee have omitted the corporate tax cuts from their version of the bill in favor of tax breaks for first-time home buyers and developers of low-income rental housing, and more aid for owners facing foreclosure.

Congressional Democrats are also hearing from consumer advocates and other groups who say that the Senate bill does little to help Americans in danger of losing their homes to foreclosure.

“The Senate legislation gave corporations and Wall Street billions in tax breaks,” Terence M. O’Sullivan, the president of the Laborers International Union of North America, said at a news conference on Tuesday to denounce the bill.

“Tax breaks for corporate home builders won’t help stabilize the housing market, won’t create jobs and won’t prevent a single foreclosure,” he continued. “If anything, this multibillion-dollar windfall will make things worse.”


This is why, when those envelopes from the DNC, DSCC, and DCCC come in the mail, I throw them away, and why I will only support certain specific individual candidates, most of whom are "insurgent" candidates who seek to throw these bums out. It's because I am tired of supporting a party apparatus that claims to be the "about the people" party and then does its corporate masters' bidding when legislation time rolls around. Piss, leg, raining, etc.

Frankly, I'm not in favor of bailing out people who were too stupid or too careless to understand what they were signing when they agreed to borrow hundreds of thousands of dollars, let alone the flippers and speculators. [curmudgeon on] I didn't have a house until I was 40 because we just plain couldn't afford the down payment. And I made damn sure to crunch the numbers, make sure we could make the payments, and understand exactly what we were signing when we finally bought the house we live in now. [curmudgeon off] There's a legitimate fear that if millions of people are foreclosed out of their homes, the ripple effect, not just to home values (which really DO need to come down; there is no reason why a POS cape cod like mine should sell for almost a half-million dollars), but to entire neighborhoods in danger of becoming a haven for squatters and plunderers, will cause the economy to collapse, at least as much as allowing Bear Stearns to fail would have.

There's no legitimate way to help the person who bought an $800,000 home on a $60,000 income. That person is going to have to learn a very hard lesson. But there has to be a way to craft legislation to truly help those who were baited-and-switched by mortgage lenders who showed up at closing with a different mortgage than the one agreed to, and those who are being foreclosed because they lost their job or are faced with impossible medical bills. The Senate should take the time to craft legislation to do that, not to use American homeowners as cover to shovel yet more taxpayer cash into the pockets of their campaign contributors.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
Tuesday, April 15, 2008

The Never-Ending Post, or, Government and Business Leaders Work 24/7 To Keep Americans Away From High Tech Jobs
I'm the first to admit that this post is ridiculous! Do you think I enjoyed sitting in front of my PC off and on for almost a full week doing this update? Can I help it if our political and business leaders have been working non-stop during the course of just one month to make sure Americans are completely shut out of high tech jobs? Every time I thought I was just about ready to start proofing my work, I'd find out that some other group had just published a press release announcing yet one more creative way to pound more nails into our cubicle-coffins.

So, without further stalling, here is the Month That Was.

As reported earlier, Microsoft's Bill Gates testified in front of Congress on March 12, 2008 by reading off his list of demands for the high tech industry. The crux of his speech is that he claims that we are not graduating enough students with STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) skills, and businesses are forced to hire workers from overseas to fill all of the job openings. (And, oh, by the way, the tech industry can pay these foreign workers less money.)

On March 13, 2008, Gabrielle Giffords (D-Arizona) dutifully introduced the Innovation Employment Act which would double the number of H-1B visas issued per year from 65,000 to 130,000.

Also on March 13, 2008, Patrick Kennedy (D-Rhode Island) and Michael McCaul (R-Texas) held hands across the aisle and introduced the New American Innovators Act that would exempt foreign guest workers holding Ph.D.'s from any annual numerical caps, provided the person received the Ph.D. within three years prior to applying for immigrant status.

On March 14, 2008, Lamar Smith (R-Texas) introduced the Strengthening United States Technology And Innovation Now (or Sustain) Act, which would triple the number of H-1B visas issued per year from 65,000 to 195,000.

(Please note. Technically, the Gifford and Smith bills would not double or triple the number of H-1B visas being issued. As it stands right now, there is a base number of 65,000 H-1B visas that are issued per year, plus an additional 20,000 visas for workers with advanced degrees. Finally, an unlimited number of H-1B visas can be issued to workers who are employed by non-profit entities, e.g., local schools, colleges and universities. Sound confusing? It's meant to be confusing, in order to discourage bloggers from spending an adequate amount of time writing comprehensive stories about the H-1B visa limits.)

On March 19, 2008, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued interim rules that ".....prohibits employers from filing multiple H-1B petitions for the same employee. These changes will ensure that companies filing H-1B petitions subject to congressionally mandated numerical limits have an equal chance to employ an H-1B worker."

The rules also clarified that "....once USCIS receives 20,000 petitions for aliens with a U.S. master’s degree or higher, all other cases requesting the educational exemption are counted toward the 65,000 cap. Once the 65,000 cap is reached for a fiscal year, USCIS will announce that the cap has been filled and reject further petitions subject to the cap."

Finally, the USCIS stated that, "This rule also stipulates that if USCIS determines the number of H-1B petitions received meets the cap within the first five business days of accepting applications for the coming fiscal year, USCIS will apply a random selection process among all H-1B petitions received during this time period."

On April 1, 2008, the USCIS started accepting applications from companies for H-1B visas for Fiscal Year 2009, with a starting date of October 1, 2008.

Also on April 1, 2008, Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) and his cohorts from the Republican High Tech Task Force (HTTF) sent a shamefully unpublicized letter to the Department of Homeland Security urging the DHS to extend the Optional Practical Training period for F-1 student visa holders enrolled in STEM programs (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) from 12 months to 29 months. Specter, along with way too many of our Congressmen, have fallen for the line of the "high tech skills shortage" myth hook, line, and sinker, and wanted to give employers an unlimited supply of lower-paid foreign tech workers while giving the STEM graduates an additional 17 months to remain in the US. What a nice way to make sure the students get an extra shot at obtaining their much coveted H-1B visas.

Why would the Department of Homeland Security be involved in this program? This would be the quickest way to give employers additional foreign workers without having to deal with the dreadful time-consuming tasks of debating a bill in Congress and allowing the American public a chance to comment on the proposed changes.

(Thanks to Rob Sanchez' Newsletters and Bob Oak's No Slaves site for providing much of the information regarding the OPT extension period.)

Google added their voice on April 1, 2008 stating that they are perfectly entitled to as many H-1B visas as they want. (By the way, I wonder who is ultimately more entitled to the world's "best and brightest"? Google or Microsoft?)

Finally, on April 1, 2008 (what a busy day!), Senators Richard Durbin (D-Illinois) and Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) sent a letter to the top 25 companies who received approvals for H-1B (specialty workers) and L-1 (intra-company) visas for 2007, asking for detailed information on how the visas are being used. The purpose of the letter is to determine if "....these programs, as currently structured, are facilitating the outsourcing of American jobs."

The letter is five pages long and asks 11 questions, with each question subdivided into multiple parts. Here are sample questions (#7, page 3):
  • For each of the last five fiscal years, how many employees have you terminated outside of the United States?
  • For each of the last five fiscal years, how many employees have you terminated inside of the United States?
  • How many of these employees were U.S. citizens?
  • Did H-1B visa holders replace or take over the job responsibilities of any of these terminated employees?
  • Would you support legislation prohibiting all employers from displacing an American worker with a H-1B visa holder? Please explain.

Why would Senators Durbin and Grassley feel the need to send out these letters?

I'll break my timeline a bit and mention the April 4, 2008 article written by intrepid reporter Jennifer Bjorhus from the TwinCities Pioneer Press. (As of today, I could find the article by typing in "H-1B" in the online paper's internal search engine, but I couldn't find a permanent link. Norman Matloff reprinted the entire article in his H-1B/L-1 Offshoring e-Newsletter #113.) Bjorhus, one of the few newspaper reporters I'm aware of that is doing any real digging into this topic, has been following H-1B/L-1 visa issues since her days at the San Jose Mercury News (the official mouthpiece for Corporate Silicon Valley).

Outside of Ron Hira's 2005 book, Outsourcing America, this is one of the better write-ups I've seen on the difficulties of obtaining the necessary facts, figures and statistics in order to get a true picture of what is going on with the H-1B/L-1 visa programs.

Industry has long argued that the temporary work visas are necessary to stay competitive by attracting the world's best and brightest workers. Many employers, most recently Bill Gates, argue there's a critical shortage of skilled U.S. workers.

snip

Critics charge there's no shortage but too many over-specific job descriptions and overly picky employers. The guest worker program cheats U.S. workers by importing younger workers who are often less well paid, they charge. Laid-off U.S. tech workers have testified on Capitol Hill of being forced to train their H-1B replacements. What's missing from the decade-old debate is solid information about how the program actually functions. Exactly which white-collar jobs go begging for lack of qualified U.S. workers? What are specific workers being paid? How are specific employers in various parts of the country using the program? Are there patterns to their particular hiring?

snip

Companies won't discuss specifics. [Note from Carrie. Vague notices like the recent Chrysler announcement to outsource their Information Technology functions to Indian bodyshop Tata Consulting Services are the norm.] U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will not release detailed information it keeps on the thousands of worker-specific visas it approves each year to be issued by the State Department.

"It's a huge hole," said Ron Hira, assistant professor of public policy at the Rochester Institute of Technology and co-author of "Outsourcing America." "Why would you expand a program without knowing what its impacts are? [Emphasis mine.] It's very bizarre to me."

Hira has company. Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, on Tuesday [April 1, 2008] mailed 25 letters to the country's top H-1B employers asking for detailed information on how they use the program.

The Pioneer Press in 2004 filed a Freedom of Information Act request to immigration services for basic information on each H-1B and related L-1 visa it approved for employers since 2000. L-1 visas, which have no cap, are increasingly used by employers to bring their own foreign employees to the U.S. to work.

The newspaper's request remains unfilled. In January, immigration officials mailed a disk that doesn't contain records of any H-1B visas, and with tens of thousands of blank fields where job codes should be, and more than 400,000 blank fields where the worker's education level should be recorded. [Emphasis mine.]

The Pioneer Press filed an appeal with immigration services, which recently informed the newspaper that the appeal is No. 2,771 in a backlog of 2,845 appeals. Chris Rhatigan, an immigration services spokeswoman, said her agency considers the newspaper's request filled, noting the "appeal is still pending a final decision."

snip

As for immigration services, it does publish a yearly report,"Characteristics of Specialty Occupation Workers," showing aggregate totals at the national level — such as that 50 percent of the H-1B visas in fiscal year 2005 were for people from India, half were issued to people in their 20s, 5 percent of the workers held doctorate degrees and about half the jobs were computer-related.The report doesn't provide employer-specific or job-specific information.The agency is also two years behind on its reports.

On April 2, 2008, Michael Chertoff from the Department of Homeland Security signed an interim final rule with a request for comments (that was nice of him) to extend the Optional Practical Training program for F-1 STEM visa holders from 12 months to 29 months. Chertoff's document claims that:

The inability of U.S. employers, in particular in the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics, to obtain H-1B status for highly skilled foreign students and foreign nonimmigrant workers has adversely affected the ability of U.S. employers to remit and retain skilled workers and creates a competitive disadvantage for U.S. companies.

Again, this was shamefully unpublicized in an obvious ploy to sneak through a de facto increase in the number of foreign worker visa holders without input from the American public.

The rule further stipulates that students must be enrolled in Optional Practical Training programs that relate to their college majors, and that employers must be enrolled in the USCIS E-Verify Employment Verification Progam.

How does the Department of Homeland Security feel they are able to shove through a ruling without prior public comment? Per page 23 of the .pdf file:

To avoid a loss of skilled students through the next round of H-1B filings in April 2008, DHS is implementing this initiative as an interim final rule without first providing notice and the opportunity for public comment under the "good cause" exception found under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)). The APA provides that an agency may dispense with notice and comment rulemaking procedures when an agency, for "good cause," finds that those procedures are "impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest." See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). The exception excuses notice and comment, however, in emergency situations, or where "the delay created by the notice and comment requirements would result in serious damage to important interests. [Emphasis mine.]

In other words, if Bill Gates says this is a national emergency, then this is a national emergency!

One thing that held me up on this blog post was the fact that I really had no idea what was meant by "Optional Practical Training." I had read discussions that the training could occur while the student was in school, after graduation, or a combination of the two. It wasn't until I heard Rob Sanchez' podcast on the George Putnam show that I found out what was really going on.

DOH! (Carrie slaps hand to forehead.)

The Optional Practical Training program means internships! Unlimited numbers of foreign STEM graduates can now take up internships and effectively shut out American-born STEM graduates from future technical careers! Despite the rhetoric from the likes of Microsoft and Oracle, competition for job openings in the tech industry is fierce. Having a high quality internship on your resume is crucial to landing that important first real job. The ability to land an internship means the difference between either starting a career in your chosen technical field or ending up in law school after spending two years of sending out resumes while working at Burger King.

I wrote a post last month about how graduates of the University of Michigan School of Engineering are having a difficult time landing jobs within their career fields, both inside and outside of the state of Michigan. As Bob Oak points out in his No Slaves blog, "Students graduating in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics majors are about three times the total number of new jobs created in the United States for these majors." Studies by Vivek Wadhwa et al from Harvard University, the RAND Corporation, Michael Teitelbaum on behalf of the Sloan Corporation (per his testimony before the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation on November 6, 2007), the Urban Institute, and Norman Matloff from UC-Davis, all confirm in varying degrees the myth of the high tech skills shortage.

On April 4, 2008, the world finally found out about the extension of the Optional Practical Training program from 12 months to 29 months from this announcement from the Department of Homeland Security. The interim final rule was entered into the Federal Register on April 8, 2008, which marked the start of the 60-day limit for public comments on this policy.

The No Slaves blog lists a few ways you can officially voice your outrage at this stealth change in policy. Pages 2 and 3 of the DHS interim rules .pdf file also gives details on how you can submit public comments.

Also, on April 4, 2008, Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) and the Republican High Tech Task Force (HTTF) finally admitted that they were the force behind the Department of Homeland Security's decision to extend the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program for F-1 non-immigrant students.

On April 8, 2008, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced ".... that it has received enough H-1B petitions to meet the congressionally mandated cap for fiscal year 2009. "

On April 9, 2008, the Daily Princetonian reported that some foreign students are not happy that the Department of Homeland Security's ruling for the expanded OPT program does not apply to non-STEM majors.

Many current international students are upset with the academic restrictions.

“I don’t think it’s fair that not everyone is eligible for the extension, because we all face the same problems in obtaining work visas upon graduation,” Megan Chiao ’09, former president of the International Students Association, said in an e-mail. Chiao, an ORFE [Operations Research and Financial Engineering] concentrator, is from Singapore.

snip

[Assistant Dean of Undergraduate Students Rachel] Baldwin fears that the selectively granted extension — instituted because of the demand for foreign students in technical fields — will drive international students away from non-STEM majors because of the relative post-graduation disadvantage.

“Some international students may stray away from the Woodrow Wilson School, Romance Languages and other fields that do not qualify for the extension,” Baldwin explained.

“I think it will be frustrating for non-STEM majors, and it is unfair that the decision was not made to support all F-1 students, despite their chosen major,” Baldwin said.

Economics major Cee-Kay Ying ’08, who is from Australia, disagreed with the STEM requirement, noting that humanities concentrators are no less skilled than students in other majors.

“Some majors between engineering and humanities have lots of overlap, such as ORFE and Econ,” she said in an e-mail. ORFE but not economics concentrators qualify for extension.

“Depending on what track you take, you could pretty much have the same coursework [except for] the independent work,” Ying explained. “Does this mean ORFE [concentrators are] more qualified to work in the US than econ majors? This perhaps could be a deciding factor among internationals wanting to maximize their opportunities to work in the US after graduation.”

Earth to Ying! Do you really believe that our economists are going to allow an unlimited number of foreign students to take away their jobs?

Americans are told every day by economists, business leaders and politicians that we need to lose our sense of entitlement to education, health care, job security, Social Security and old age pensions. I would find it quite refreshing if someone would stand up and tell these foreign students that they need to give up their sense of entitlement to college educations funded by American taxpayers and guaranteed job offers from American companies upon graduation!

On April 10, 2008, per an update to an April 8, 2008 article written by Patrick Thibodeau at ComputerWorld, the USCIS announced they received 163,000 requests for H-1B visas, along with 31,200 applications for foreign nationals holding advanced degrees.

Also on April 10, 2008, Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) introduced the "Global Competitiveness Act of 2008". Among other things, the bill (S. 2839) would:

  • Recapture 150,000 supposedly unused visas and dole them out over a 3-year period.
  • Raise the main numerical cap on visas from 65,000 to 115,000 per fiscal year
  • Raise the numerical cap on advanced degree holders (masters degrees and above) from 20,000 to 30,000 per fiscal year.

Rob Sanchez noted in his Job Destruction Newsletter:

Have any of you noticed that so many of the proposed visa increases lately are now being called national emergencies? First, we had the massive defacto H-1B increase that the DHS approved to extend the Optional Practical Training time period. Now we have a bill introduced by Sen. Cornyn that he says is "emergency relief" for employers. Why doesn't Cornyn feel that his constituents need emergency job creation?

As of this writing, the complete text of the bill has yet to be released. However, according to the outline in the press release, the wording includes the obligatory "we'll outlaw all visa abuses" language. Rob Sanchez further pointed out:

The Cornyn bill contains what may appear to be a restriction on how bodyshops use H-1B visas. Don't be fooled -- bodyshops aren't the most important issue -- the number of visas available is far more important. Cornyn was very clever to insert this provision into the bill in order to split the opposition. It won't stop bodyshops from operating in the U.S. but it might inconvenience them a little since they will have to change how they bill their work.

Cornyn's bill also has some verbiage to enforce the law against fraud. As I have explained before, fraud isn't a major problem in the H-1B visa program, so the provisions he is offering will do nothing to help American workers against the huge onslaught of foreigners he wants to import.

USCIS conducted their random selection process on April 14, 2008 for their H-1B lottery, per this update.

April 15, 2008. I'm sure I've missed something. Please feel free to comment if you noticed any glaring omissions.

April 16, 2008. [Fill in the blank. I'm sure something momentous will happen that will make my article obsolete as soon as I hit the "Publish Post" button.]

Anyone can tell that the High and the Mighty are hell-bent on getting their visa limit increases. There seems to be growing consensus that at least one of these measures will be passed this year despite the fact unemployment rates are so high even the figures provided by the Bush administration are showing that the jobless rate is increasing.

I've been learning about these issues for a little over a year now. I've seen the same unoriginal arguments over and over and over again that we need a limitless supply of foreign tech workers because we are not producing enough of the best and brightest to fill all of these mysterious job openings that are supposedly open to everyone. Every once in a while the high tech lobby does something that jolts me awake again. This year, so far, it's the possibly unconstitutional fiat from the Department of Homeland Security to deal with this "national crisis" by increasing the Optional Practical Training program time limit for F-1 STEM student visa holders.

I wonder what the next surprise will be?

(Cross-posted at Carrie's Nation.)

Labels: , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share

So, George, how's that relationship with oil-producing nations working for ya?
Posted by Jill | 7:29 AM
2000:

Mr. Bush and Republicans on Capitol Hill blame the gas-price increase on the Clinton administration, saying the administration has had no coherent domestic energy policy and, in imposing regulations to meet clean air standards, had allowed prices to drift as high as $2.39 a gallon in the Midwest. Mr. Bush also said the administration had failed to persuade the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries to ''open the spigots'' to increase the supply. (source)


Gov. George W. Bush of Texas said today that if he was president, he would bring down gasoline prices through sheer force of personality, by creating enough political good will with oil-producing nations that they would increase their supply of crude.

''I would work with our friends in OPEC to convince them to open up the spigot, to increase the supply,'' Mr. Bush, the presumptive Republican candidate for president, told reporters here today. ''Use the capital that my administration will earn, with the Kuwaitis or the Saudis, and convince them to open up the spigot.''

Implicit in his comments was a criticism of the Clinton administration as failing to take advantage of the good will that the United States built with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia during the Persian Gulf war in 1991. Also implicit was that as the son of the president who built the coalition that drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait, Mr. Bush would be able to establish ties on a personal level that would persuade oil-producing nations that they owed the United States something in return.

''Ours is a nation that helped Kuwait and the Saudis, and you'd think we'd have the capital necessary to convince them to increase the crude supplies,'' he said. (source)


And now:

The price of New York crude oil on Tuesday surged to a record high of 112.78 dollars a barrel, boosted by a weak US currency and tightening energy supplies, traders said.

Later Tuesday, New York's main oil contract, light sweet crude for delivery in May, stood at 112.65 dollars a barrel, up 89 cents on Monday's close.

London's Brent North Sea crude for May struck its own record high of 110.91 dollars a barrel on Tuesday. It later stood at 110.85 dollars, up 1.01 dollars.

[snip]

The US dollar dived to a fresh low of 1.5913 to the euro last Wednesday and has only partially regained its ground against the European unit.

Meanwhile US energy stockpiles showed an unexpectedly sharp decline in the week ending April 4, according to the last report from the US Department of Energy. The DoE was to publish its next inventories release on Wednesday.


"Force of personality" indeed.
Bookmark and Share

Someday there will be Wal-Mart....Neiman-Marcus...and that's it
Posted by Jill | 6:44 AM
When you set out to systematically destroy the middle class, you also destroy the retailers at which they shop:

Since last fall, eight mostly midsize chains — as diverse as the furniture store Levitz and the electronics seller Sharper Image — have filed for bankruptcy protection as they staggered under mounting debt and declining sales.

But the troubles are quickly spreading to bigger national companies, like Linens ‘n Things, the bedding and furniture retailer with 500 stores in 47 states. It may file for bankruptcy as early as this week, according to people briefed on the matter.

Even retailers that can avoid bankruptcy are shutting down stores to preserve cash through what could be a long economic downturn. Over the next year, Foot Locker said it would close 140 stores, Ann Taylor will start to shutter 117, and the jeweler Zales will close 100.

The surging cost of necessities has led to a national belt-tightening among consumers. Figures released on Monday showed that spending on food and gasoline is crowding out other purchases, leaving people with less to spend on furniture, clothing and electronics. Consequently, chains specializing in those goods are proving vulnerable.

Retailing is a business with big ups and downs during the year, and retailers rely heavily on borrowed money to finance their purchases of merchandise and even to meet payrolls during slow periods. Yet the nation’s banks, struggling with the growing mortgage crisis, have started to balk at extending new loans, effectively cutting up the retail industry’s collective credit cards.


While it's tempting to me to revel in the image of being actually able to drive around Paramus on a Saturday afternoon, the implications of a large number of retailers going out of business are staggering, not the least of which is the elimination of retail as the Job of Last Resort for laid-off workers. After all, there are only so many people that Wal-Mart can hire.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

If Hillary or Michelle Obama had done this, it would knock "Bitter bitter bitter" right off the airwaves
Posted by Jill | 6:14 AM
In this most petty of election years, when the coverage of election seems to be about Hillary Clinton knocking back a few with the boys, or that girlyman Barack Obama not drinking strong black coffee like a man and instead quaffing that wussyass orange juice, it's really time for some equal pettyplay on the Republican side. I realize that the media don't want to touch their darling Big Strong Daddy McCain, but since he's been known to turn on his wife in public and call her far worse things, let's smack Cindy McCain around as a plagiarist, shall we?

It seems that Cindy McCain, John McCain's perfect, blonde beer-baroness wife is about to find herself painted as the latest example of plagiarism on the campaign trail.

This past Sunday, Lauren Handel, an eagle-eyed attorney from New York, was searching for a specific recipe from Giada DeLaurentis, a chef on the Food Network. Yet whenever she Googled the different ingredients in the recipe, the oddest thing happened: not only did the Food Network's site come up, as expected, but so did John McCain's campaign site.

On a section of McCain's site called "Cindy's Recipes," you can find seven recipes attributed to Cindy McCain, each with the heading "McCain Family Recipe." Ms. Handel quickly realized that some of the "McCain Family Recipes," were in fact, word-for-word copies of recipes on the Food Network site.

At least three of the "McCain Family Recipes" appear to be lifted directly from the Food Network, while at least one is a Rachael Ray recipe with minor changes.

See for yourself... and Bon Appetit...


You can check out the recipes side by side here.

Now I'm willing to cut Cindy McCain a fair amount of slack for her past drug addiction and theft of drugs from her relief organization. After all, if you were married to a guy who flew into a rage at you in public and called you a c--t, wouldn't YOU turn to mind-altering substances? I know I would. But stealing from Emeril and Rachael Ray and Giada DeLaurentiis? THAT, my friends, is beyond the pale.

Besides, what does it say about a manly macho military manly manly man like John McCain that he's sitting down at the family table eating "Ahi tuna with napa cabbage slaw" and "passion fruit mousse"? Shouldn't a real man, a man's man, a Chris Matthews kinda man, sit down to something like wild boar with whole roasted potatoes and eat them with his hands while quaffing tankards of ale?

I mean, seriously. Turkey sausage? Napa cabbage slaw? Ground up pig and fat and rodent parts stuffed into an intestine and good old fashioned patriotic American coleslaw; that slop drenched in mayonnaise and salt that comes in 3-lb. tubs for four bucks at the Shop-Rite, aren't good enough for this guy?

I don't know, these recipes sound kinda French to me.

(a big tip o'the hat to skippy)

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share
Monday, April 14, 2008

Slip of the tongue? An accident? A coinkydink? I don't think so
Posted by Jill | 9:37 PM
Rupert Murdoch has joined the board of Associated Press:

Rupert Murdoch and Sam Zell, two media figures who led major newspaper acquisitions in recent months, are among four new members joining the board of directors of The Associated Press, it was announced Monday at the news cooperative's annual meeting.

[snip]

Murdoch, chairman and chief executive officer of News Corp., was appointed by the board until the next election of directors to fill the vacancy created by the departure of Jay Smith, who announced earlier this month he was retiring as president of Cox Newspapers.

[snip]

The AP board has 18 directors elected by AP members at their annual meeting, in staggered groups of six each year. These directors are elected to three-year terms and are eligible to serve up to a total of nine years. The board can also appoint up to six additional directors if it chooses. These seats are sometimes filled by former elected directors who first joined the board to fill unexpired terms and end their elected service with one or two years of eligibility remaining.


And then this:

After addressing the journalists gathered at the annual Associated Press luncheon in Washington, D.C., today, Sen. Barack Obama, standing at the podium, took a few questions. The last one from the audience, delivered via AP chairman W. Dean Singleton, was related to Afghanistan, our troops in Iraq and the threat posed by, as Singleton put it, "Obama bin Laden."

Obama quickly corrected Singleton. “That’s Osama bin Laden,” he said. The crowd laughed a bit. "If I did that, I am so sorry," Singleton replied.


Uh, yeah. Right. Whatever.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

Meanwhile, back in REAL Pennsylvania....
Posted by Jill | 6:58 AM
...as opposed to Punditsylvania, which is the place the talking heads of television news are covering, "Bitter"-gate seems to not matter all that much.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

Republican economic policy bets that these guys can keep the whole thing afloat
Posted by Jill | 6:42 AM
Tough economic times? What tough economic times? Not for these guys:

Sometime between the government bailout of Bear Stearns and the Bureau of Labor Statistics report that America lost 80,000 jobs in March, Lee Tachman spent roughly $50,000 last month on a four-day jaunt to Miami for himself and three close friends.

The trip was an exercise in luxuriant male bonding. Mr. Tachman, who is 38, and his friends got around by private jet, helicopter, Hummer limousine, Ferraris and Lamborghinis; stayed in V.I.P. rooms at Casa Casuarina, the South Beach hotel that was formerly Gianni Versace’s mansion; and played “extreme adventure paintball” with former agents of the federal Drug Enforcement Administration.

Mr. Tachman, a manager for a company that executes trades for hedge funds and the owner of “a handful” of buildings in New York, said he has not felt the need to cut back.

“I always feel like there’s a sword of Damocles over my head, like it could all come crashing down at any time,” he said. “But there’s always going to be people who are trading, and there’s always going to be a demand for real estate in New York.”

He is hardly alone in his eagerness to keep spending. Some businesses that cater to the superrich report that clients — many of them traders and private equity investors whose work is tied to Wall Street — are still splurging on multimillion-dollar Manhattan apartments, custom-built yachts, contemporary art and lavish parties.

Buyers this year have already closed on 71 Manhattan apartments that each cost more than $10 million, compared with 17 apartments in that price range during all of 2007. Last week, a New York art dealer paid a record $1.6 million for an Edward Weston photograph at Sotheby’s. And the GoldBar, a downtown lounge, reports that bankers continue to order $3,000 bottles of Rémy Martin Louis XIII Cognac.

“When times get tough, the smart spend money,” said David Monn, an event planner who is organizing a black-tie party on May 10 for dignitaries and recent purchasers of apartments at the Plaza Hotel; the average price there was $7 million. “Short of our country going on food stamps, I don’t think we’re doing anything differently.”

Some extreme spenders say they have not cut back on their impulse Bentley or apartment purchases because they have made so much money in the good times from the Internet, stock market and real estate. Some have been able to move their money into investments like private equity that are available only to those with extensive capital. Some rationalize cars and home renovations as “investments.” And some simply don’t want to skimp on the weddings and anniversary parties that they see as milestone events.

“We’re trying to spend on what we feel is important,” said Victor Self, an executive with a fitness company who, with his partner, is planning to spend $100,000 on a commitment ceremony on St. Barts and a dessert party for 200 to 300 guests at Jeffrey, a clothing store in the meatpacking district.


And this, my friends, is what Barack Obama was getting at. It's the dirty little secret of American economic policy since Ronald Reagan's election in 1980 and the birth of the idea that "trickle-down" economics makes life better for all Americans. Now Republicans who read this blog will chime in about the jobs as chauffeurs and caterers and servers and auctioneers and housekeepers and other home servants that are created by people with this kind of money. But these jobs certainly represent "trickle down", in that only a trickle of real wealth and real income filters down from these people, because there just aren't that many of them.

Back in the Gilded Age, there were similar jobs available serving the needs of the preposterously wealthy, but no one claimed that these jobs and the concentration of wealth among the few generated a large middle-class that helped the economy grow. If anything, the limitation of opportunity to JUST jobs in service of the wealthy helped keep the rabble's prospects limited. And a new Gilded Age is exactly the goal of Republican economic policy.

Henry Ford was a nasty piece of work and an anti-Semite to boot, but at least he understood that if his own workers could afford the vehicles his company made, it represented a larger market for his product.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

If you think the U.S. should not torture, please sign on...
Posted by Jill | 6:36 AM
If you're troubled by the fact that the United States under the leadership of George W. Bush and his band of criminal neocons has become an outlaw nations, please sign onto the ACLU's call for an independent prosecutor to investigate possible violations of the War Crimes Act, the federal Anti-Torture Act, and federal assault laws.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

Too bad they didn't think this way when the country was Iraq....or Iran, for that matter
Posted by Jill | 6:12 AM
Stephen Hadley, yesterday, on CNN:

It would be a "cop-out" for countries to skip the opening ceremonies at the Beijing Olympics as a way of protesting China's crackdown in Tibet, President Bush's national security adviser said Sunday.

The kind of "quiet diplomacy" that the U.S. is practicing is a better way to send a message to China's leaders rather than "frontal confrontation," Stephen Hadley said.


Especially when you're talking about the country that owns your sorry ass.

(h/t: -- are you ready for this? -- Princess Sparkle Pony, also known as our latest blogrollee.)

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

No, it's not "hamstringing" McCain, it's about investingating an election law criminal
Posted by Jill | 5:46 AM
The Democratic National Committee has finally found its balls and is filing a lawsuit about John McCain's use of federal election funds as collateral for a campaign loan, and then deciding to opt out of the federal system until he is formally made the nominee after the Republican National Convention:

The lawsuit asks the Court to compel the FEC to conduct an investigation into McCain's decision to unilaterally withdraw from the public financing system, and, should the FEC continue to fail to do so, to allow the DNC to sue McCain directly for disobeying campaign finance laws.

"We believe he's breaking the law every day," said DNC Executive Director Tom McMahon on a conference call Sunday.

The complaint faces some significant hurdles. For one, the FEC is hamstrung from dealing with the complex legal issues by a shortage of commissioners -- four of six seats are vacant pending senate confirmations -- and each additional step in the suit would drag out the process. So long as it remains unresolved, McCain will be able to continue to spend above the primary limits.

Then there is the McCain campaign's argument -- crafted by the candidate's lawyer, a former FEC chairman -- that public financing is voluntary, and McCain had every right to withdraw from the system when it became clear the campaign wouldn't need federal matching money.


This is in addition to the FEC complaints filed by Jane Hamsher and others because McCain has exceeded federal spending limits while participating in the federal election funding program.

Because it doesn't work the way McCain's lawyers claim it does -- at least not if you want to say you are upholding the law. You can't unilaterally just decide to withdraw willy-nilly from the program, particularly after you've used your access to said funds as collateral for a loan. You have to petition the FEC to withdraw.

And here's where it gets sticky:

As you likely know, the FEC is stymied at the moment due to the Bush Administration trying to shove Hans Von Spakovsky and all of his "caging" and other alleged nefarious campaign activities onto the election commission as a GOP dirty tricks ringer. Because the Democratic-led Congress said "no way" to Hans being voted through in a bloc vote, the Administration and their pal, Mitch McConnell, have balked at any FEC commissioner vote in the Senate. Which means that in this very important 2008 election cycle, the FEC is unable to act promptly to enforce the campaign finance laws.


Even so, FEC Chairman David Mason sent McCain's campaign a strongly worded letter (PDF), letting them know that even though McCain didn't consider his word on accepting public financing binding, that the FEC was not about to let him off the legal hook. What did McCain do? He ignored the letter, secured a loan based on representations of obtaining public financing and then blew past the public financing law spending limits...and he's still raising campaign cash, too.




So the FEC Chair has gone on the record, in writing, that the FEC considers him in violation of campaign finance law spending limits, but McCain believes that the laws don't apply to him.

Haven't we seen this before? Like, say, for the last seven years? A president who believes himself to be above the law? Do we really want more of this?

Obviously the talking heads of television news do, or they wouldn't be spending as much air time as they can hammering Barack Obama for speaking the truth about the economic conditions of ordinary Americans -- and how it's making them feel.
Bookmark and Share
Sunday, April 13, 2008

I Love Bill Maher!
This week Bill Maher attacked religion, in more ways than one...I know that some of you out there are not all that fond of Maher, but even the real haters have to admit that he does have his moments. I love him most of the time, if he is doing politics...and boy, did he do politics this week. I only wish that this episode had been longer.

Here Maher interviews Richard Dawkins on his book, the God Delusion (check my Amazon Widget for information on the book):


And a particularly fantastic New Rules:


c/p RIPCoco

Labels:

Bookmark and Share