Go Home

Nicole Belle's blog

This Week: In Memoriam

Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (411)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (201)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed
(h/t Heather)

This Week with George Stephanopoulos marks the passings of three service members, killed in Afghanistan.

US Marines Sgt William C Stacey, 23, Redding, CA
US Marines LCpl Edward J Dycus, 22, Greenville, MS
US Army BG Terence J Hildner, 49, Fairfax, VA

In addition, we note the passings of artist Mike Kelley, boxing trainer Angelo Dundee, impressario Don Cornelius, actor Ben Gazzara and businessman Steve Appleton.

According to iCasualties, the total number of allied service members killed in Afghanistan is now 2,883.



This Week: In Memoriam

This Week with Christiane Amanpour notes the passings of John K. Beling and Liang Congjie. In addition, the Pentagon has released the names of eighteen service members killed in Afghanistan.

US Air Force SrA Andrew S Bubacz, 23, Dalzell, SC
US Army CPL Shawn D Fannin, 32, Wheelersberg, OH
US Army SGT Edward H Bolen, 25, Chittenango, NY
US Army SPC Shannon Chihuahua, 25, Thomasville, GA
US Army SPC David C Lutes, 28, Frostberg, MD
US Army SSG Juan L Rivadeneira, 27, Davie, FL
US Army CPL Jacob R Carver, 20, Freeman, MO
US Army SPC Jacob C Carroll, 20, Clemmons, NC
US Army SSG Kevin M Pape, 30, Fort Wayne, IN
US Marines SSgt Javier O Ortiz Rivera, 26, Rochester, NY
US Army SPC Shane H Ahmed, 31, Chesterfield, MI
US Army SPC Nathan E Lillard, 26, Knoxville, TN
US Army SPC Scott T Nagorski, 27, Greenfield, WI
US Army SPC Jesse A Snow, 25, Fairborn, OH
US Army PFC Christian M Warriner, 19, Mills River, NC
US Army SSG David P Senft, 27, Grass Valley, CA
US Army PFC Kyle M Holder, 18, Conroe, TX
US Army SPC Justin E Culbreth, 26, Colorado Springs, CO

According to iCasualties, the total number of allied service members killed in Iraq is 4,747; in Afghanistan, 2,225, of which, 152 are Canadian. During this same week, Iraq Body Count lists 33 Iraqi civilians killed.



Chris Matthews Show Panel Ponders Palin or Jeb Bush Run for 2012

Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (400)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (1953)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed
(h/t Heather)

Chris Matthews loves him some political presidential predicting. We are more than two years away from the 2012 presidential election, facing a huge number of issues and challenges to the country immediately, but Tweety declares that we are close to the 'fish or cut bait' time for all Republicans to decide whether or not to challenge Obama for the presidency.

Hooookay. I guess he'd rather we didn't remember that back in 2007 (mind you, only a year from the election), Matthews had decided for all of us that Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton would be the Republican and Democratic nominees for president. How'd that work out for you, Chris?

So it is with a rather large grain of salt that we look at the bobbleheads' choices at the top of the Republican slate, tellingly segregated into the non-secular and Christian Conservative brands. On the non-secular side, we have Mitt Romney (huh?), Tim Pawlenty, Haley Barbour and Jeb Bush. On the Christian Conservative side, there's Mike Huckabee and the one who sucks the oxygen away from all the others: Sarah Palin.

The general consensus appears to be that if Palin does decide to run, then it's clear that she'll win the nomination. I'm really not sure why these bobbleheads are so convinced of that. Sure, she's good fodder for the 24 hour cable news channels right now, but it's because she doesn't have to be accountable to anything. Despite what Howard Fineman would have you believe, a Twitter account is hardly the benchmark of a good candidate. How well will she fare when she has to give concrete answers to issues and explain exactly what policies she will pursue beyond the jingoistic vagaries she now offers up. "Restoring honor" to America may be good at a tea party rally, but will not sell to a majority of Americans who want to know how you'll bring back jobs. Personally, I think Palin will make all the moves to appear to run for President just to build momentum to keep her at the top of the influential list and keep the money flowing into her coffers. But I can't believe that Palin has any interest in the actual mundane realities of holding office. It's far easier and more lucrative to opine from the sidelines. Watch as she makes motions to run--saying God is calling her to the office, making appearances in Iowa, scaring away some potential rivals with the cult-like adoration of the tea partiers--and then bows out, blaming the "lamestream media" or some other entity, who dare to ask questions or hold her accountable to you know, presidential requirements.

The other potential candidate that tickles Tweety's fancy is Jeb Bush, belying again his inability to consider politics in context. GWB wasn't even out of office yet and historians had already placed his presidency in bottom five of worst presidencies this country has ever seen, and GHWB fared only slightly better, offering up a single undistinguished term. And yet, from this pedigree we're supposed to believe that Americans would embrace a Bush dynasty in office, even though the other media narrative they've been propagating is that Americans are in an anti-incumbent mood and are gravitating to political outsiders? Cognitive dissonance much, Chris?

Bottom line for anyone who actually cares about being accountable for being correct instead of pulling opinions from their posterior, it's much too early to know much less predict the 2012 primary outcome. There are so many possible factors that could or will change.

But that won't stop Tweety & Pals.



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (358)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (1015)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed
(h/t Heather)

I admit, I bypassed my college commencement exercises. Norman Schwarzkopf was the speaker, can you blame me? I was a massively neo-hippie liberal square peg during the yuppie "greed is good" '80s in you-can-never-be-too-rich-or-too-thin plastic Southern California. I was chomping at the bit to start my adult life and couldn't imagine what relevant advice the war-mongering Stormin' Norman could offer. So I skipped graduation and trusted my own counsel. However, I have to admit that this particular piece of commencement advice given to the class of 2010 is one that I have embraced and carried with me for these 20+ years since my college days.

Respect others. Know, that they are most likely afraid, just like you. In fact, the more arrogant and the more forceful they become, I have found the more afraid they really are.

Now can I tell you that it just kills me--KILLS me--that this is a quote from Glenn Beck to the 2010 graduates of Liberty University? A less self-aware speaker to a less actualized audience I cannot conceive.

But the irony of that statement is lost upon the channel that gives Glenn Beck a platform for his disrespectful, arrogant and fear-based crap daily. They even feature Beck before the President--but tellingly, after the actress talking about how much she loves money.

Ah, the priorities of Fox News. I think the best advice I could offer today's graduate is to stay as far away from Fox News as possible. I guarantee you'll know more.



GOP Senator: DeMint's heath care remarks 'unfortunate'

Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (1327)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (5698)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

(h/t David)

Senate Minority Whip Sen. John Kyl expressed "regret" for remarks made by a fellow Republican senator on health care reform Sunday. Sen. Jim DeMint was quote by Politico as saying "If we are able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo. It will break him."

Sen. John Kyl told Fox News' Brett Baier that those remarks were "unfortunate." "I don't agree with that language," he said. But, tellingly, he didn't disagree with the sentiments, his weasel words trying to deflect the political calculus of it all:

BAIER: Senator, your colleague from South Carolina, Jim DeMint said this this week: “If we’re able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.”

Your colleague from Oklahoma, Sen. Jim Inhofe said this: “We can stall the Democratic effort on health reform. We can stall it. And that’s going to be a huge gain for those of us who want to turn this thing over in the 2010 election.”

Senator Kyl, do you agree with them?

KYL: I don’t agree with that kind of language. I know what Jim DeMint has said is he wanted to break the momentum of the inevitability of passing these liberal health care bills. They said we had to pass stimulus and do it immediately or else the economy would see 10% or 8% unemployment, it’s now gone to 10%. And what we’re saying is slow this down, so that we don’t do…we don’t make another bad mistake here. But I do think that because the language has political implications, it’s unfortunate. Both sides talk about the politics of these issues. I don’t think we ought to be focused on that.

Kyl is nothing but a big, fat liar. OF COURSE they're speaking of political implications, because that's their focus. They don't care about the 76% of Americans who want health care reform. They don't care about the 145,000 Americans who will lose their health insurance over the month of August alone. Plain and simple: They don't care about Americans.

What they DO care about is regaining a majority again to stymie any success Obama might have in his first term in office, much like Newt Gingrich and his Contract On For America did in 1994. This is ALL about politics for the republicans and Kyl knows it. At least DeMint and Inhofe have the intellectual honesty to admit it.



Barney Frank vs Eric Cantor on the Auto Bailout

DOWNLOAD (151)
WMV QuickTime
PLAY (218)
WMV QuickTime

A telling segment from Wolf Blitzer on Late Edition, although his motivations are a little murky for me. Inviting on House Minority Whip Eric Cantor to be the GOP balance to discuss the auto bailout, Blitzer actually gives Cantor a second chance to distance himself away from George Bush's bridge loan and then reiterates later in the segment that the Democrats are siding with Bush and the GOP are not. THAT's the fact that Wolfie wants all his viewers to be clear on...not the half dozen "Everybody knows" made-up facts that Cantor is left to spew without interruption.

Curious, isn't it, that Blitzer doesn't ask why Cantor suddenly has interest in accountability for a successful business model for the taxpayers' sakes? After all, when AIG and BearStearns got their money, no one asked their CEOs which mode of transportation they took, nor whether they would cut salaries, and their loss was due to unregulated credit swaps--basically a new turn on junk bonds.

And on that salary question...out of curiosity, while GM CEO Rick Wagoner agreed to a token $1 salary as part of his bailout, his salary rose in 2007 by 64% to $15.7 million, significantly higher than his Toyota counterpart. I'd hazard a guess that the rest of GM's officers are similarly compensated, but Cantor is more worried about the guys on the line making $30/hour.

Hey Wolf, I hate having to do your job for you, but let's do some basic math, shall we? Rick Wagoner's salary is FOURTEEN times more than his Toyota counterpart. $30 an hour equates to roughly $62,400 a year. That means that the CEO of GM earned the equivalent of more than 251 employees last year. Is it really so hard for you to bring up these facts, Wolf? C'mon, I dare you to ask Cantor where's his concern for the taxpayers when it comes to executive compensation.

If you do that, maybe I'll forgive you for forgetting that none of this concern even crossed through Cantor's mind when he happily handed out no-strings-attached money to financial industries. Maybe.

Transcripts below the fold

Continue reading »