Sunday, May 20, 2007

On Monday




A couple of fresh, just pic'd yesterday pics, top is French Meadows reservoir, my personal hangout when separation from society is needed, and after dealing with idiots all week, it was severely needed.

Note the beam of wisdom entering my head the very moment the picture snapped, co-incidence? not likely. It is a spiritual place.

Nuff about me, hope your seatbelts are fastened because Monica Goodthang will spill her guts before those judiciary boys, more twists and turns in the gonzo saga.


.

27 comments:

DEN said...

222 posts since DWF started, jeez.

I woke up at 4:44AM.

Next sequence of numbers?

666?

888?

161616?

Gawd I hate math!

micki said...

222 posts since DWF started, jeez.

Den, are you sure about that? That number seems low to me...

micki said...

Al Fredo is going to leave...as I said before, my timing was wrong, but he's going to make his long, over due departure.

Can't be soon enough....

DEN said...

222 is what Google sez, seems like there have been more to me too.

micki said...

..as I was saying yesterday about food safety....


May 21, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
Fear of Eating

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Yesterday I did something risky: I ate a salad.

These are anxious days at the lunch table. For all you know, there may be E. coli on your spinach, salmonella in your peanut butter and melamine in your pet’s food and, because it was in the feed, in your chicken sandwich.

Who’s responsible for the new fear of eating? Some blame globalization; some blame food-producing corporations; some blame the Bush administration. But I blame Milton Friedman.

Now, those who blame globalization do have a point. U.S. officials can’t inspect overseas food-processing plants without the permission of foreign governments — and since the Food and Drug Administration has limited funds and manpower, it can inspect only a small percentage of imports. This leaves American consumers effectively dependent on the quality of foreign food-safety enforcement. And that’s not a healthy place to be, especially when it comes to imports from China, where the state of food safety is roughly what it was in this country before the Progressive movement.

The Washington Post, reviewing F.D.A. documents, found that last month the agency detained shipments from China that included dried apples treated with carcinogenic chemicals and seafood “coated with putrefying bacteria.” You can be sure that a lot of similarly unsafe and disgusting food ends up in American stomachs.

Those who blame corporations also have a point. In 2005, the F.D.A. suspected that peanut butter produced by ConAgra, which sells the product under multiple brand names, might be contaminated with salmonella. According to The New York Times, “when agency inspectors went to the plant that made the peanut butter, the company acknowledged it had destroyed some product but declined to say why,” and refused to let the inspectors examine its records without a written authorization.

According to the company, the agency never followed through. This brings us to our third villain, the Bush administration.

Without question, America’s food safety system has degenerated over the past six years. We don’t know how many times concerns raised by F.D.A. employees were ignored or soft-pedaled by their superiors. What we do know is that since 2001 the F.D.A. has introduced no significant new food safety regulations except those mandated by Congress.

This isn’t simply a matter of caving in to industry pressure. The Bush administration won’t issue food safety regulations even when the private sector wants them. The president of the United Fresh Produce Association says that the industry’s problems “can’t be solved without strong mandatory federal regulations”: without such regulations, scrupulous growers and processors risk being undercut by competitors more willing to cut corners on food safety. Yet the administration refuses to do more than issue nonbinding guidelines.

Why would the administration refuse to regulate an industry that actually wants to be regulated? Officials may fear that they would create a precedent for public-interest regulation of other industries. But they are also influenced by an ideology that says business should never be regulated, no matter what.

The economic case for having the government enforce rules on food safety seems overwhelming. Consumers have no way of knowing whether the food they eat is contaminated, and in this case what you don’t know can hurt or even kill you. But there are some people who refuse to accept that case, because it’s ideologically inconvenient.

That’s why I blame the food safety crisis on Milton Friedman, who called for the abolition of both the food and the drug sides of the F.D.A. What would protect the public from dangerous or ineffective drugs? “It’s in the self-interest of pharmaceutical companies not to have these bad things,” he insisted in a 1999 interview. He would presumably have applied the same logic to food safety (as he did to airline safety): regardless of circumstances, you can always trust the private sector to police itself.

O.K., I’m not saying that Mr. Friedman directly caused tainted spinach and poisonous peanut butter. But he did help to make our food less safe, by legitimizing what the historian Rick Perlstein calls “E. coli conservatives”: ideologues who won’t accept even the most compelling case for government regulation.

Earlier this month the administration named, you guessed it, a “food safety czar.” But the food safety crisis isn’t caused by the arrangement of the boxes on the organization chart. It’s caused by the dominance within our government of a literally sickening ideology.


Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

micki said...

Well, Den, I think Google is full of baloney.

I mean you've had over 70 posts in one day!

DEN said...

October 5 2006 was the first one and Erling was the first commenter.

Hey Erling!!You still out there??

He was dealing with the North Sea diver issue at last contact.

Hope he's OK.

DEN said...

Micki, posts, not comments.

Sitemeter sez 6235 visits and 15373 page views, not sure what the difference is tho.

micki said...

Oh...........

Duh!

micki said...

The New York Times

May 21, 2007
Editorial
Why This Scandal Matters

As Monica Goodling, a key player in the United States attorney scandal, prepares to testify before Congress on Wednesday, the administration’s strategy is clear. It has offered up implausible excuses, hidden the most damaging evidence and feigned memory lapses, while hoping that the public’s attention moves on. But this scandal is too important for the public or Congress to move on. This story should not end until Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is gone, and the serious damage that has been done to the Justice Department is repaired.

The Justice Department is no ordinary agency. Its 93 United States attorney offices, scattered across the country, prosecute federal crimes ranging from public corruption to terrorism. These prosecutors have enormous power: they can wiretap people’s homes, seize property and put people in jail for life. They can destroy businesses, and affect the outcomes of elections. It has always been understood that although they are appointed by a president, usually from his own party, once in office they must operate in a nonpartisan way, and be insulated from outside pressures.

This understanding has badly broken down. It is now clear that United States attorneys were pressured to act in the interests of the Republican Party, and lost their job if they failed to do so. The firing offenses of the nine prosecutors who were purged last year were that they would not indict Democrats, they investigated important Republicans, or they would not try to suppress the votes of Democratic-leaning groups with baseless election fraud cases.

The degree of partisanship in the department is shocking. A study by two professors, Donald Shields of the University of Missouri at St. Louis and John Cragan of Illinois State University, found that the Bush Justice Department has investigated Democratic officeholders and office seekers about four times as often as Republican ones.

It is hard not to see the fingerprints of Karl Rove. A disproportionate number of the prosecutors pushed out, or considered for dismissal, were in swing states. The main reason for the purge — apart from hobbling a California investigation that has already put one Republican congressman in jail — appears to have been an attempt to tip states like Missouri and Washington to Republican candidates for House, Senate, governor and president.

Justice Department headquarters has become deeply partisan. Young operatives like Ms. Goodling were apparently allowed to hire and promote based on party membership. Political appointees cleared the way for laws designed to disenfranchise minority voters, and brought litigation to remove Democratic-leaning voters from the rolls.

The department’s integrity lies in tatters. As a result of the purge, Tim Griffin, a Republican operative and Karl Rove protégé, was installed as the top federal prosecutor in eastern Arkansas. Rachel Paulose, a 33-year-old Republican activist with thin prosecutorial experience, was assigned to Minnesota. If either indicted a prominent Democrat tomorrow, everyone would believe it was a political hit.

Congress has to save the Justice Department, something President Bush shows no interest in doing. It should pass a resolution of “no confidence” in Mr. Gonzales, and push for his removal. But it also needs to insist on new leadership that will restore the department’s traditions of professionalism and impartiality, and re-establish that in the United States, the legal system does not work to advance the interests of a political party.

micki said...

I had a delicious thought....

Jimmy Carter serves as the CHIEF JUDGE of the court that tries bush and his boyfriends as war criminals and for crimes against humanity.


I know, I know...that's a fantasy.

micki said...

Now, he's backing off somewhat....WTF?

Jimmy Carter Says Anti-Bush Remarks to Newspaper Were 'Careless' or 'Misinterpreted'

Published: May 21, 2007 10:25 AM ET

ATLANTA Former President Jimmy Carter said Monday his remarks were "careless or misinterpreted" when he said the Bush administration has been the "worst in history" for its impact around the world.

Speaking on NBC's "Today," Carter appeared to retreat from a statement he made to Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in which he said: "I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history." The comment was in a story published in the newspaper Saturday.

Carter said Monday that when he made the comment, he was responding to a question comparing the Bush administration's foreign policy to that of Richard Nixon.

"I think this administration's foreign policy compared to president Nixon's was much worse," Carter said. But he said he did not mean to call it the worst in history.

"No, that's not what I wanted to say. I wasn't comparing this administration with other administrations back through history but just with President Nixon."

The White House on Sunday dismissed Carter as "increasingly irrelevant" after his harsh criticism. In response, Carter said: "Well, I don't claim to have any relevancy. I have a completely unofficial capacity. The only thing I lead is the Carter Center."

After the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette story appeared, Carter spokeswoman Deanna Congileo had confirmed his comments to The Associated Press.

"The overt reversal of America's basic values as expressed by previous administrations, including those of George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon and others, has been the most disturbing to me," the newspaper quoted Carter as saying.

In his comments Monday, Carter said he has not been timid about sharing his opinions directly with the president and other world leaders, but said he has been careful not to level personal criticism against Bush.

micki said...

Great.

Now the busheviks will "accept his apology," or some damned thing.

micki said...

I'm going to start reading about real news -- Jimmy Carter has let me down!

Audrey Tautou -- whoever that is -- will play Coco Chanel in a new French movie.

Angelina is really pissed off at Brad for smoking when he promised to quite for the kids' sake.

Britney wanted leather seats on the aeroplane. So she got off.

A fan stalked Sandra Bullock. That's a fan?

Courtney is selling Kirk's (or is it Curt's?) stuff.

Ex-spice girl will hand out awards at some award show.

A papparaz...papparoso...fotographer is suing Lindsey Lohan, whoever that is.

Donald Trump can't be fired because he quits. So there! What he's quitting? I dunno!

Joss needs help!! What color should she dye her hair next? (Who is Joss anyway?)

Well, that's all the news you need to know today that's fit to print. Carol, do you have any reports on American Idol.? Over to you, Carol.......

DEN said...

What is wrong with calling them the worst administration, no truer words have been spoken.

They're fascists dammit!

Alan said...

Who Would Have Thought Iraq Would Go to Hell in a Handbasket?

Who would have thought before the Iraq War started that Iraq would go to hell in a handbasket after the war? Well, evidently some folks did and that info has been kept well under wraps all this time. Surprised? Heck no… Nothing about the liars that gave us the Iraq War is surprising anymore!

Two intelligence assessments from January 2003 predicted that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and subsequent U.S. occupation of Iraq could lead to internal violence and provide a boost to Islamic extremists and terrorists in the region, according to congressional sources and former intelligence officials familiar with the prewar studies.

The two assessments, titled “Principal Challenges in Post-Saddam Iraq” and “Regional Consequences of Regime Change in Iraq,” were produced by the National Intelligence Council (NIC) and will be a major part of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s long-awaited Phase II report on prewar intelligence assessments about Iraq. The assessments were delivered to the White House and to congressional intelligence committees before the war started.
==================
Article goes on to say that they will be de-classified and be a part of the Phase-II report.

DEN said...

The Set Up for Total Control

Read it and move to Canada:

NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51

HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/HSPD-20

Subject: National Continuity Policy

Purpose

(1) This directive establishes a comprehensive national policy on the continuity of Federal Government structures and operations and a single National Continuity Coordinator responsible for coordinating the development and implementation of Federal continuity policies. This policy establishes "National Essential Functions," prescribes continuity requirements for all executive departments and agencies, and provides guidance for State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector organizations in order to ensure a comprehensive and integrated national continuity program that will enhance the credibility of our national security posture and enable a more rapid and effective response to and recovery from a national emergency.

The last line is the kicker:

(24) Security. This directive and the information contained herein shall be protected from unauthorized disclosure, provided that, except for Annex A, the Annexes attached to this directive are classified and shall be accorded appropriate handling, consistent with applicable Executive Orders.

GEORGE "The King" BUSH

ò¿óarol said...

American Idol update:

The best singer ever got the boot last week. Who cares who wins now. That goes to prove that teeny bopper girls do the voting based on anything BUT talent!

Back to you, Micki

DEN said...

5 1/2 hours between Entertainment reports from our reporters, clearly not MSM material! HA!

David B. Benson said...

Bad (but not unexpected) news ---

In 1990s, carbon dioxide in the air was going up by 1.1% per year.

In 2000s (so far), carbon dioxide in the air going up by 3.1% per year.

micki said...

Under the busheviks, everything is bad news.

Not unexpected.

micki said...

What I don't know about what passes for current day ENTERTAINMENT would fill volumes.

Therefore, I may have to retire as an entertainment 'news' reporter.

Alan said...

Should the president be impeached?

Over 430,000 votes so far, with 88% saying YES. hey hey

micki said...

So, somewhere down the road, Mexico and Canada invade the United States to get rid of a rogue leader who has started illegal wars of choice and who also sanctions torture.

The Canadian and Mexican troops get rid of the rogue leader, but then stay and build permanent bases.

MICKI said...

Alan...

Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment? 437762 responses

Holding @ 88% YES

micki said...

Gore told ABC News Monday he’s focused not on running for president but on solving the climate crisis, but “in order to solve the climate crisis, I’m convinced that we’re going to have to address these cracks in the foundation of democracy, these basic problems with the way we’re approaching decision-making.”

Gerald said...

Are posters starting to sense that I am right? THERE WILL BE NO 2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.