Re: "There's no right to treason," from the June 27th edition of the Augusta Chronicle editorial page.
This editorial is just so one-sided and extreme that I couldn't let it pass. Mr. Ryan accuses Supreme Court justices who dissented from the majority opinion in Holder, attorney general vs. Humanitarian Law Project of being treasonous. While I agree with the majority opinion in this case, accusing the justices in the minority of being traitors, simply because they hold a different viewpoint, is ridiculous and destroys Mr. Ryan's credibility.
This case is not as clear cut and black and white as Mr. Ryan leads the reader to believe. There is lots of gray area here.
The name of the case as I pointed out earlier is Holder, the attorney general vs. Humanitarian Law Project. Mr. Ryan was either too lazy to even look up the name of the case, so the reader could research it further and know what he was referring to, or he didn't want to give the name for other reasons that I can only guess at. Maybe he didn't want to admit being on the same side of the case as the Attorney General because he's called for his resignation or removal. Maybe he knows supporting a decision against an organization with the name "Humanitarian," looks bad.
In any case here's what this ruling is about: Some charities give non violent aid to organizations that the government has determined have ties to terrorists. In other words they send food and materials for housing, and medicine to poor people around the world. Some of these charities give this aid to organizations that support many different groups which may include some the government deems terrorists. It's difficult for charities to give this aid, if they have to weed out which members of these groups are terrorists and which are not. Most unfair of all is how the government defines terrorism. In this particular case the government declared that the Kurdistan Workers Party was a terrorist organization. The only reason the Kurdistan Workers Party was declared a terrorist organization was to placate Turkey for diplomatic reasons. The Kurdistan Workers Party favors an independent homeland for Kurds, an ethnic group that lives on the border of Iraq and Turkey. They aren't really even a terrorist group.
I agree that terrorists shouldn't be given any kind of aid, even humanitarian. But there are problems with the government defining which organizations are terrorists. And it is kind of an unfair burden on charities to expect them to try to discern exactly which poor people this food, medicine, and money for shelter goes to.
There's also a freedom of speech issue here where individuals may be prosecuted because of guilt by association. They know and politically support charities that are distantly related to organizations that are distantly related to terrorists. They may be afraid to support such causes for fear of being persecuted by the government.
It's a bad law that needs to be fixed legislatively. Mr. Ryan can't seriously consider the Jimmy Carter Foundation, and other charities that filed friends of the court briefs for the Humanitarian Law Project, terrorist support groups and traitors.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
The Free Market's Not Fixing the Mess in the Gulf Either
Re: "Faith-based government," from the June 20th edition of the Augusta Chronicle editorial page.
Michael Ryan unfairly criticizes the concept (supposedly favored by President Obama) that government can help people and solve problems by noting some examples of government inefficiency in its efforts to clean up the oil spill mess in the gulf.
This criticism is asinine. I don't see the free market cleaning up this mess. There's no profit to be made by cleaning up the oil spill, demonstrating a clear example of free market failure.
In fact it was the free market that created this mess. The free market in America which demands lots of cheap energy created the need to drill for oil offshore--a disaster. The cost of the damage from this oil spill probably rivals or surpasses the profits made by all the offshore oil wells in America. Moreover, if it wasn't for the federal government, there would be no clean up effort at all. BP would not face any fines, and they would be doing nothing, other than trying to salvage the operation for their own profits. Even more oil than now would be destroying the environment.
So yes, the federal government may be inefficient, but without it there would be chaotic anarchy, and this kind of situation would be much worse. Without government regulations, the Gulf of Mexico would've become a toxic dead lake decades ago.
Michael Ryan unfairly criticizes the concept (supposedly favored by President Obama) that government can help people and solve problems by noting some examples of government inefficiency in its efforts to clean up the oil spill mess in the gulf.
This criticism is asinine. I don't see the free market cleaning up this mess. There's no profit to be made by cleaning up the oil spill, demonstrating a clear example of free market failure.
In fact it was the free market that created this mess. The free market in America which demands lots of cheap energy created the need to drill for oil offshore--a disaster. The cost of the damage from this oil spill probably rivals or surpasses the profits made by all the offshore oil wells in America. Moreover, if it wasn't for the federal government, there would be no clean up effort at all. BP would not face any fines, and they would be doing nothing, other than trying to salvage the operation for their own profits. Even more oil than now would be destroying the environment.
So yes, the federal government may be inefficient, but without it there would be chaotic anarchy, and this kind of situation would be much worse. Without government regulations, the Gulf of Mexico would've become a toxic dead lake decades ago.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Mike Booth Writes in Defense of Greed
Mike Booth wrote a letter to the editor in today's Augusta Chronicle editorial page in rebuttal to the one I wrote that they published on May 30th.
I will respond to his rebuttal point by point.
In the opening paragraph, Mr. Booth wrote, "I think he has missed a couple of critical points."
Mr. Booth apparently missed the entire point of my letter as evidenced by the following paragraph.
"The utility companies have to go begging to government regulators for rate increases. This involves opening their books and operations to government bureaucrats who do not have a clue about how the utility industry works."
Does anybody besides Mr. Booth actually believe a person appointed to be a regulator for a certain industry has no clue as to how that industry works? The point of my letter that Mr. Booth completely missed was that, in most cases, government regulators of the coal and oil industry are now business cronies who formerly worked within the energy industry. Of course, they know how the industry works, and they help write regulations that are, in most cases, too lax.
Mr. Booth then makes an astonishingly stupid claim when he writes, "Few people are aware that they can purchase power from any other provider of the power, not just the local utility. That's called competition."
What world does this guy live in? He obviously flunks Economics 101. All utilities are monopolies. A monopoly means there is no competition. I get my power from Planters Electric. I can't just go and cancel my service from Planters Electric and ask for Georgia Power to be my utility server. On this point Mr. Booth demonstrates absolute and unbelievable ignorance.
Next, Mr. Booth shows that he misses another point of my letter. He writes, "So is Mr. Gelbart going to manufacture his own solar panels, not state-of-the-art ones from a "greedy corporation? I would hope that he would hire a "greedy" contractor to install his panels. I hope he has an engineering study done by a "greedy" corporation to design the system properly."
Here, Mr. Booth seems to be equating profit with greed. I never wrote that profit should be outlawed. Furthermore, I never wrote a word opposed to capitalism. What I wrote was that corporations should not be allowed to maximize profits by cutting corners that endanger consumers, workers, and the environment. I don't understand why this upset him enough to write his letter. Is Mr. Booth in favor of oil spills, coal mining disasters, and nuclear meltdowns? I looked in the Thesaurus: Greed is not a synonym for profit. Synonyms for greed include such words as avarice, selfishness, miserliness, gluttony, stinginess, and meanness. Apparently, Mr. Booth confuses greed and profit. Clearly, they are two different things, and most people would agree that greed is bad.
Mr. Booth writes "Corporations are not all greedy, and if he doesn't like them, he should buy someplace else. I would suggest buying two sticks to rub together to make a fire for his energy needs."
This kind of simplistic analogy reminds me of something Austin Rhodes would say. He's attempting to make his point by using an extreme, unrealistic example that doesn't really have anything to do with what I wrote. This proves that Mike Booth is just a stupid jerk.
*******************************************************************************
It was a slow week--Mr. Ryan didn't really write anything particularly stupid lately. I do disagree with his editorial "Let's go to the replay," from the June 5th edition.
I think instant replay is ruining sports. Half the time the officials uphold bad calls; the other half of the time they reverse good calls. Even with instant replay, they don't always get it right. Instead, they slow the action down, so that now I can hardly stand to watch an NFL game because the refs are constantly interrupting the action with stupid replays that take forever to resolve.
I also disagree with "A lack of book sense," from the June 6th edition of the Augusta Chronicle editorial page.
For 13 years students are forced to go through the formality and rules of school. I think the Glenn Hills 2010 yearbook was hilarious.
Mr. Ryan and all those fuddy duds need to lighten up.
I will respond to his rebuttal point by point.
In the opening paragraph, Mr. Booth wrote, "I think he has missed a couple of critical points."
Mr. Booth apparently missed the entire point of my letter as evidenced by the following paragraph.
"The utility companies have to go begging to government regulators for rate increases. This involves opening their books and operations to government bureaucrats who do not have a clue about how the utility industry works."
Does anybody besides Mr. Booth actually believe a person appointed to be a regulator for a certain industry has no clue as to how that industry works? The point of my letter that Mr. Booth completely missed was that, in most cases, government regulators of the coal and oil industry are now business cronies who formerly worked within the energy industry. Of course, they know how the industry works, and they help write regulations that are, in most cases, too lax.
Mr. Booth then makes an astonishingly stupid claim when he writes, "Few people are aware that they can purchase power from any other provider of the power, not just the local utility. That's called competition."
What world does this guy live in? He obviously flunks Economics 101. All utilities are monopolies. A monopoly means there is no competition. I get my power from Planters Electric. I can't just go and cancel my service from Planters Electric and ask for Georgia Power to be my utility server. On this point Mr. Booth demonstrates absolute and unbelievable ignorance.
Next, Mr. Booth shows that he misses another point of my letter. He writes, "So is Mr. Gelbart going to manufacture his own solar panels, not state-of-the-art ones from a "greedy corporation? I would hope that he would hire a "greedy" contractor to install his panels. I hope he has an engineering study done by a "greedy" corporation to design the system properly."
Here, Mr. Booth seems to be equating profit with greed. I never wrote that profit should be outlawed. Furthermore, I never wrote a word opposed to capitalism. What I wrote was that corporations should not be allowed to maximize profits by cutting corners that endanger consumers, workers, and the environment. I don't understand why this upset him enough to write his letter. Is Mr. Booth in favor of oil spills, coal mining disasters, and nuclear meltdowns? I looked in the Thesaurus: Greed is not a synonym for profit. Synonyms for greed include such words as avarice, selfishness, miserliness, gluttony, stinginess, and meanness. Apparently, Mr. Booth confuses greed and profit. Clearly, they are two different things, and most people would agree that greed is bad.
Mr. Booth writes "Corporations are not all greedy, and if he doesn't like them, he should buy someplace else. I would suggest buying two sticks to rub together to make a fire for his energy needs."
This kind of simplistic analogy reminds me of something Austin Rhodes would say. He's attempting to make his point by using an extreme, unrealistic example that doesn't really have anything to do with what I wrote. This proves that Mike Booth is just a stupid jerk.
*******************************************************************************
It was a slow week--Mr. Ryan didn't really write anything particularly stupid lately. I do disagree with his editorial "Let's go to the replay," from the June 5th edition.
I think instant replay is ruining sports. Half the time the officials uphold bad calls; the other half of the time they reverse good calls. Even with instant replay, they don't always get it right. Instead, they slow the action down, so that now I can hardly stand to watch an NFL game because the refs are constantly interrupting the action with stupid replays that take forever to resolve.
I also disagree with "A lack of book sense," from the June 6th edition of the Augusta Chronicle editorial page.
For 13 years students are forced to go through the formality and rules of school. I think the Glenn Hills 2010 yearbook was hilarious.
Mr. Ryan and all those fuddy duds need to lighten up.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Archie Bunker Strikes Again
A couple of Michael Ryan's columns this week are reminiscent of Archie Bunker, that famous bigoted character from the old television series All In the Family.
Re: "Humanitarians? Really?" from the June 2nd edition of the Augusta Chronicle editorial page, and "Behind the Mosque," from the May 31st edition of this same page.
The latter editorial demonstrates unbelievable bigotry. Conservatives are furious that a mosque will be built near the site of the 9-11 attacks. They make it sound like there's going to be a mosque there and nothing else. Actually, hundreds of other businesses are alreadly located there, including a strip joint. It's not a big deal; it's not a poke in the eye. The controversy just seems like an excuse for conservatives to show how prejudiced they are against the Islamic religion. They are equating all muslims with terrorism and it's disgusting.
In the former editorial I agree that the Israelis are justified in preventing aid from reaching a group of people dedicated to killing them. However, Mr. Ryan not so subtly reminds the reader of Barrack Obama's middle name of Hussein, in an attempt of subterfuge to make us think that the president is some nefarious pro-Islamic radical in favor of destroying Israel. I wonder how many of the Chronicle readers forget or refuse to acknowledge that Obama is a catholic, not a muslim? In any case Mr. Ryan falsely accuses the president of having an "acidic posture" toward Israel and also falsely accuses him of treating Netanyahu rudely. Of this the media is also to blame because that incident has been unfairly portrayed. I read an inside account in Time magazine about what happened. Obama and Netanyahu were busy hammering out an agreement, and they did have a two hour discussion. It's not like Obama ignored him. The bigoted part of this editorial is Mr. Ryan's statment that American Jews should be frightened about Obama's policy toward Israel.
Will the use of scare tactics never end? Mr. Ryan makes it sound as if American Jews are Israelis first, and Americans second. That we shouldn't back a president who favors America's interests over those of Israel. This is evidence once more of Mr. Ryan's bigotry...this time with inadvertent anti-semitism.
In any case I'm Jewish and I'm not worried. When push comes to shove, Obama will always back Israel over the Arabs because he knows where his bread is buttered.
**********************************************************************
Re: "A little more dictatorial, please" also from the May 31st.
Mr. Ryan tells an outright lie when he claims Hugo Chavez is a dictator. Chavez has been democratically elected multiple times. I wish the U.S. government would seize a few corporations. There's nothing in the constitution that protects the rights of corporations. The constitution protects individual rights, not groups of criminal syndicates which is what most corporations are.
Mr. Ryan's also wrong when he places Chris Matthews on the left. Matthews is a centrist, not a left winger.
***********************************************************************
Re: "Evidence can't be ignored: It's been a disaster," from the May 30th edition of the Augusta Chronicle editorial page.
Mr. Ryan must have written this half page of horse shit because he has run out of new subjects to write and he wants to stay popular with all the stupid wingnuts who read his editorial page. I'm curious as to why he would write something so unfounded, yet hysterically partisan now, when we're not close to an election.
He doesn't bring up a single fact to support his case that Obama's presidency has been a failure.
Just because Obama's policies don't agree with Ryan's twisted right wing view of the world doesn't mean Obama's a failure.
To start off with, let's look at the economy. Childishly, Mr. Ryan gives Obama a C on the economy but an F on jobs. (It's childish in my opinion to give a complex job such as president a letter grade, but I digress.) Obama inherited this atrocious economy. All economists on the right and the left agree that unemployment will lag behind as the rest of the economy recovers. Eventually, the jobs will come back. What will Ryan's excuse be then?
Mr. Ryan attacks the health care reform act by cherry picking a Rasmussen poll (who knows how old this one is) that seems to show people are opposed to it by a large margin (63%-37%). However, a recent USA Today/Gallup poll shows now that it has passed, the public supports it by a 48%-40% margin. Oops!
The rest of the editorial mostly consists of Ryan's ideological differences with Obama. I can hardly see how this adds up to a disastrous presidency.
The biggest weakness with the Obama presidency in my opinion is his cowtowing to the right and his failure to reverse Bush's failed environmental and warmongering policies.
BTW, they did publish my letter in this edition--"Greedy energy industy hasn't changed." Check it out.
*************************************************
RE: "Two Koreas, one big decision," from the June 1st edition of the Augusta Chronicle editorial page.
I take issue with the simplistic dichotomy Mr. Ryan creates in this editorial. He writes North Korea is a failed state because it's communist/socialist. South Korea is a successful state because it's capitalist.
This is entirely false. South Korea has a free market but it does have socialist programs, such as socialized medicine. North Korea is not communist nor socialist. In a true communist state every individual has equal political power. A true communist state has never existed in history. In North Korea all the political power resides in the hands of one man. I'd hardly call that communist.
In fact, the USA is far more communist than North Korea. Thomas Jefferson declared that all men were created equal. Sounds communistic doesn't it?
Re: "Humanitarians? Really?" from the June 2nd edition of the Augusta Chronicle editorial page, and "Behind the Mosque," from the May 31st edition of this same page.
The latter editorial demonstrates unbelievable bigotry. Conservatives are furious that a mosque will be built near the site of the 9-11 attacks. They make it sound like there's going to be a mosque there and nothing else. Actually, hundreds of other businesses are alreadly located there, including a strip joint. It's not a big deal; it's not a poke in the eye. The controversy just seems like an excuse for conservatives to show how prejudiced they are against the Islamic religion. They are equating all muslims with terrorism and it's disgusting.
In the former editorial I agree that the Israelis are justified in preventing aid from reaching a group of people dedicated to killing them. However, Mr. Ryan not so subtly reminds the reader of Barrack Obama's middle name of Hussein, in an attempt of subterfuge to make us think that the president is some nefarious pro-Islamic radical in favor of destroying Israel. I wonder how many of the Chronicle readers forget or refuse to acknowledge that Obama is a catholic, not a muslim? In any case Mr. Ryan falsely accuses the president of having an "acidic posture" toward Israel and also falsely accuses him of treating Netanyahu rudely. Of this the media is also to blame because that incident has been unfairly portrayed. I read an inside account in Time magazine about what happened. Obama and Netanyahu were busy hammering out an agreement, and they did have a two hour discussion. It's not like Obama ignored him. The bigoted part of this editorial is Mr. Ryan's statment that American Jews should be frightened about Obama's policy toward Israel.
Will the use of scare tactics never end? Mr. Ryan makes it sound as if American Jews are Israelis first, and Americans second. That we shouldn't back a president who favors America's interests over those of Israel. This is evidence once more of Mr. Ryan's bigotry...this time with inadvertent anti-semitism.
In any case I'm Jewish and I'm not worried. When push comes to shove, Obama will always back Israel over the Arabs because he knows where his bread is buttered.
**********************************************************************
Re: "A little more dictatorial, please" also from the May 31st.
Mr. Ryan tells an outright lie when he claims Hugo Chavez is a dictator. Chavez has been democratically elected multiple times. I wish the U.S. government would seize a few corporations. There's nothing in the constitution that protects the rights of corporations. The constitution protects individual rights, not groups of criminal syndicates which is what most corporations are.
Mr. Ryan's also wrong when he places Chris Matthews on the left. Matthews is a centrist, not a left winger.
***********************************************************************
Re: "Evidence can't be ignored: It's been a disaster," from the May 30th edition of the Augusta Chronicle editorial page.
Mr. Ryan must have written this half page of horse shit because he has run out of new subjects to write and he wants to stay popular with all the stupid wingnuts who read his editorial page. I'm curious as to why he would write something so unfounded, yet hysterically partisan now, when we're not close to an election.
He doesn't bring up a single fact to support his case that Obama's presidency has been a failure.
Just because Obama's policies don't agree with Ryan's twisted right wing view of the world doesn't mean Obama's a failure.
To start off with, let's look at the economy. Childishly, Mr. Ryan gives Obama a C on the economy but an F on jobs. (It's childish in my opinion to give a complex job such as president a letter grade, but I digress.) Obama inherited this atrocious economy. All economists on the right and the left agree that unemployment will lag behind as the rest of the economy recovers. Eventually, the jobs will come back. What will Ryan's excuse be then?
Mr. Ryan attacks the health care reform act by cherry picking a Rasmussen poll (who knows how old this one is) that seems to show people are opposed to it by a large margin (63%-37%). However, a recent USA Today/Gallup poll shows now that it has passed, the public supports it by a 48%-40% margin. Oops!
The rest of the editorial mostly consists of Ryan's ideological differences with Obama. I can hardly see how this adds up to a disastrous presidency.
The biggest weakness with the Obama presidency in my opinion is his cowtowing to the right and his failure to reverse Bush's failed environmental and warmongering policies.
BTW, they did publish my letter in this edition--"Greedy energy industy hasn't changed." Check it out.
*************************************************
RE: "Two Koreas, one big decision," from the June 1st edition of the Augusta Chronicle editorial page.
I take issue with the simplistic dichotomy Mr. Ryan creates in this editorial. He writes North Korea is a failed state because it's communist/socialist. South Korea is a successful state because it's capitalist.
This is entirely false. South Korea has a free market but it does have socialist programs, such as socialized medicine. North Korea is not communist nor socialist. In a true communist state every individual has equal political power. A true communist state has never existed in history. In North Korea all the political power resides in the hands of one man. I'd hardly call that communist.
In fact, the USA is far more communist than North Korea. Thomas Jefferson declared that all men were created equal. Sounds communistic doesn't it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)