Friday Talking Points [57] -- End Of Prohibition 75th Anniversary Edition

Brian Williams, NBC's talking head extraordinaire, is probably a decent guy, a guy with whom you could sit down and have a beer. [More on the alcohol subject at the end, I promise.] But that doesn't excuse something he said last night on Jay Leno's show.

And no, I'm not referring to his faulty math. If my ears didn't deceive me, I heard him say Obama won the election with a vote of 53 percent to 49 percent. Um... OK... "six out of five doctors" may recommend you think about those numbers a bit, Brian, before you quote them again.

While that was amusing, BriWi's other comment was not. He suggested -- not joking around, but with a straight face -- that we call our current economic crisis a name the Irish have used for decades to describe the Northern Ireland standoff: "The Troubles." This is incredibly insensitive and outrageous, because Williams is suggesting that we equate bailing out Wall Street and the car companies with a conflict which has, to date, cost about as many lives as 9/11. Since BriWi's not a Democrat, I can't give him a "Most Disappointing" award, so instead I will just award him a gigantic dunce cap. Instructions: put on head, sit in corner, and think hard about what you just said.

Sheesh.

Speaking of bailing out Detroit, though (for the uninitiated, this is known as a "segue")...

It seems to me that, while more complex than one issue, there is a golden opportunity in the automakers' crisis. Part of the problem, all agree, is what is known as "legacy costs." These are (for those of you who are too young to realize that "401K" and "pension" are not the same things) costs for retired autoworkers -- for health care and pensions. Now, these things were promised to these workers by these companies, and were in fact hard-fought concessions the unions won decades ago. But now health care costs a fortune (it didn't, back then) and the car companies are screaming that they're going bankrupt (in part) because of them.

Well, what I say is: what better "test case" could we have for Obama's new health care plan? The automakers could be told "before Congress does anything else, we will put together a plan to move those legacy workers over to 'the same health care Congress gets' (as was promised in the campaign), thus freeing you of those costs." It wouldn't completely solve the problem, but it would be a good way to test out Obama's grand scheme on health care. The workers would get as good (or better) health care than they receive now, the government would take over the obligation, and the automakers could pay off this obligation to the government spread out over decades, if need be, rather than having to pay for it now. I can't accurately predict all the details of how they could work this out, but I do think the basic idea is sound, and Obama could use feedback from the people involved to make the sweeping health care plan even better, when it is finalized.

But then, this idea probably makes too much sense for the politicians to take it seriously.

Sigh.

OK, enough of that. Let's get on with the show, here, starting with this week's awards.

 

The Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week last week was Hillary Clinton, who will be our new Secretary of State.

Love her or hate her, you've got to admit that Hillary has risen from the ashes of her campaign to a prominent power position in Washington -- more prominent than she would have had if she had just returned to the Senate.

OK, to be fully honest, I got this massively wrong a few weeks ago in a column I wrote about how the Clinton nomination wasn't a done deal, and may not actually happen. So I am eating a full plate of crow this week, and the dessert is to award Hillary Clinton the MIDOTW award for her phoenix-like rise in power.

I think Hillary has the capacity to be an absolutely great Secretary of State. I also think she has the capacity to royally screw up somehow. But then, I could say that about most politicians, so it's not exactly an attack against Clinton. Time will tell whether she shines or not as our country's chief foreign diplomat, and further MIDOTW or MDDOTW awards will be handed out accordingly. For now, though, she hasn't even started the job, so I refuse to speculate further.

But I have to say that in the past week, Hillary Clinton's appointment more than qualifies her as this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week.

[Congratulate Senator Hillary Clinton on her Senate contact page to let her know you appreciate her efforts.]

 

The Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week, if you listen to some segments of the blogosphere, was Dianne Feinstein. Now, I'm not exactly a fan of DiFi, but I had to disagree with this in yesterday's column. I take her at her word, for now, on the question of torture and the Army Field Manual.

Instead, we have a tie this week. One of our recipients earned his MDDOTW award for a gaffe, and one earned his for grandstanding just for the sake of grandstanding.

First, from the "And we were worried about Biden making gaffes?!?" file comes Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Congress just finished and just opened their new "visitors' center," which (being a government project) was years late and cost more than twice what they said it would. Ahem. In any case, Reid's remarks on the impact of the new visitors' center were, shall we say, a wee bit inelegant.

Here are Reid's remarks, courtesy of Fox News.

"My staff has always said, 'Don't say this,' but I'm going to say it again because it's so descriptive because it's true," Reid said.

He referenced House Minority Leader John Boehner's comments about the long lines of tourists that stream into the Capitol complex, and said: "In the summertime, because (of) the high humidity and how hot it gets here, you could literally smell the tourists coming into the Capitol."

As the crowd laughed, Reid said, "And that may be descriptive but it's true. Well, that is no longer going to be necessary."

C'mon, Harry, tell us how you really feel! I guess that now he's secured his leadership position for another year, Majority Leader Reid feels safe to let us know what he really thinks of the public. I have news for you, Harry. It's called "The People's House." You may work there, but you do not own it. We do.

Reid's comments prompted this reply from the letters section of the Las Vegas Review Journal, which also sums it up well.

Sen. Reid, as a visitor to the Senate and a history buff, I am insulted by your remarks. They clearly show you are not worthy of your position. Under your leadership, the Senate has been a farce, and when I am lucky enough to take my children on a tour of the Capitol someday, I will tell them the story of the ignorant Democratic leader who was happy that American taxpayers touring the Capitol finally could be walled off from senators by a new Visitor Center.

So much for government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Maybe if Sen. Reid was capable of doing any real work he might smell a little. It would be good for him.

You, Sen. Reid, are the one who stinks.

For this insulting remark, Harry Reid wins Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week. For shame, Harry!

But we've got more silliness from Washington this week, so Harry will have to share the award. Because Democratic Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York has come up with the brilliant idea of getting a Constitutional Amendment passed so that Bush cannot pardon anyone he feels like in his waning days in office.

Now, this might sound like a good idea. But it's not. Not because of how it is written (it could be changed to say something like "presidents can't pardon between the election and the inauguration of the next president" and it would still be a bad idea). The pardon power is just about absolute, and is in the original text of the Constitution (which is why it needs an amendment to change). All presidents abuse it in their lame duck periods. Remember Marc Rich?

Nadler knows there isn't a snowball's chance in "how hot it gets here" (thank you, Senator Reid) that this has any hope of passing in time to achieve his goal of tying Bush's hands. A Constitutional Amendment, for those who need a refresher, needs to be passed by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, and then ratified by three-fourths of the states' legislatures. Does Nadler seriously think this is going to happen in the next few weeks (not even mentioning that the Christmas/New Year's break is in there)?

No, he does not. He knows it'll never pass, at least not in time to tie Bush's hands. Which means he is doing nothing but grandstanding. If he truly believes the Constitution needs amending for this purpose, he will wait until next year, and introduce it then, to tie the hands of his own party's Barack Obama. Because it is just not realistically possible to get it done to stop what Bush is about to do. So, for using this political stunt to get himself some media attention, Nadler earns his own Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award.

[Contact Senator Harry Reid on his Senate contact page and Representative Jerrold Nadler on his House contact page to let them know what you think of their actions.]

 

Volume 57 (12/5/08)

No matter when it gets done, I could support a new law (or a new amendment) which stripped presidents from having the power to issue "midnight regulations," though. This practice is an ugly one, and one (of course) that Bush is using to the fullest extent. How about an amendment which stated that any rule or regulation issued after Election Day could be overturned by the incoming President with a stroke of the pen in his first week in office? That would seem to fit the bill.

 

   Bush's legacy

Because currently, the only pressure which exists to stop presidents from acting in this fashion is shame. That, and judicious use of the word "legacy," which is about all they worry about at this point. It probably won't work, but it's worth a try.

"President Bush seems intent on proving that his legacy will be as not just the worst president on the environment, not just the friendliest president Big Oil and Big Coal have ever had, not just the worst on imposing his religion on a woman's right to choose, but actually as the worst president in all of American history. Bush could have used the time he has left to make amends and provide an easy transition to President Obama's term, but instead he is governing as he has all along -- in the most partisan and corrupt way possible. His presidential 'legacy' is already six feet deep, and Bush is still shoveling like mad to make the hole deeper. January 20th can't come soon enough for me."

 

   Good one, Barney!

This really isn't even a talking point, so I hope you'll forgive me. But Barney Frank got off such a funny line the other day that I had to highlight it here. Frank is one of the few people who realize that when Obama and the media talk about "post-partisan" what they really sometimes mean is "watering down the Democratic position." But it wasn't so much what he said as how he put it to the Associated Press:

"It is a grave mistake to assume that parties are irrelevant to this process. My one difference with the president-elect, about whom I am very enthusiastic, is when he talks about being post-partisan. Having lived with this very right wing Republican group that runs the House most of the time, the notion of trying to deal with them as if we could be post-partisan gives me post-partisan depression."

 

   George Bush lies, media yawns

George Bush gave an interview to ABC's Charlie Gibson, who allowed him to (once again) tell an enormous whopper of a lie about how we came to be at war with Iraq. Bush has told this lie so many times that he has probably convinced himself it's true, but it really is the job of the media to point stuff like this out. I'm just saying, Charlie.

"President Bush continues to lie about how he went to war against Saddam Hussein. Just this past week he told Charlie Gibson, in response to being asked whether if the intelligence on Iraq had been correct on WMDs whether there would have been an Iraq war, and I quote: Yes, because Saddam Hussein was unwilling to let the inspectors go in to determine whether or not the U.N. resolutions were being upheld, unquote. This is just flat-out false. Gibson ignored this monstrous lie, but I did not. George Bush will exit his presidency the same way he began it -- by lying to himself, and lying to the American people."

 

   Maybe he didn't drink his Kool Aid that morning...

This one just writes itself. Check out the article if you don't believe me -- it's a positively jaw-dropping read.

"One of the leading voices on right-wing talk radio, Michael Medved, just wrote a stunning indictment of his own industry and conservatism. In it are such lines as, quote, a conservatism that connects with only a disgruntled, paranoid five percent of the public will wither and die, unquote; and where he warns those on the right that it is idiotic to wish that, quote, the GOP could become the first party in history to expand an already shrunken base by purging its membership, unquote. While this would be an enormous sea change if Republicans took him seriously, I think I'm going to bet that they don't, and that they continue to play to their disappearing base. I think it's a pretty safe bet, from what I've heard on right-wing talk radio."

 

   Al's chances

If Al Franken's team is correct in their assertion that after all votes are counted and the dust settles, that they will win the election by four votes out of around three million cast, this could be one for the record books.

"The Minnesota election between Al Franken and Norm Coleman could wind up being the closest election in Senate history. The current record, from the 1974 New Hampshire race between John Durkin and Louis Wyman came down to a difference (depending on which recount you believe) of ten votes, or just two votes. The Senate itself intervened, and a special election had to be called to sort it out. I'm not saying that's what is going to happen to the Franken/Coleman race, but I am saying we may not know who won for a while yet."

 

   For Christmas, I want...

From the intrepid Huffington Post reporters comes the story (complete with image of the invitation) of the Treasury Department holding its holiday party in... wait for it... the "Cash Room." Did somebody hire Marie Antoinette for "imagemaker" over at Treasury?

"I see that the Treasury Department is holding its holiday festivities in the 'Cash Room.' I guess Santa will show up with a gigantic bag of goodies. If you sit on his lap and tell him, 'I'm too big to fail,' then I guess he'll give you billions of dollars in your stocking. And don't worry, Santa will conveniently forget to check (once or twice) his Naughty/Nice List. Thanks for rubbing it in, Secretary Paulson."

 

   Altered states?

Or maybe I should call this one "holiday cheer." Ahem.

On this, the 75th anniversary of the end of Prohibition (the Twenty-First Amendment was ratified today, in 1933 -- the only amendment to have been ratified through state conventions rather than state legislatures), let us all thank Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Utah (!), the final three states necessary, who all ratified it on the same date. So here's to... um... Utah, for preserving the right to drink?

Something just doesn't sound right about that, but I checked the history books, and that's what it says....

Anyway, other intoxicating news this week came from the world of anthropology. Scientists found (or admitted they had found, who knows if a little more was... um... "experimentally destroyed" in the process) 789 grams of marijuana (that's one and three-quarters pounds, folks) in a burial site in the Gobi Desert. Seems like a fine time to bring up the subject of medical marijuana to me.

"Mankind has been using marijuana since before the Hippocratic Oath existed. More and more states are changing their laws to allow for medical use of marijuana. The biggest obstacle to these experiments in democracy is now the federal government. Seventy-five years ago, America threw out Prohibition. Today, I will strongly urge President Obama to consider supporting changing the designation of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II, which will legally allow these states to regulate marijuana just like any other prescription medicine."

 

Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com

Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

 

Comments

[TommyMcCarthy]

IRISH LESSONS

Chris,

In Irish-American "Nadler" is used as both a noun and a verb.........with roughly equivalent meanings.

As a verb, to "Nadler" is to disingenuously insert one's self into a question or controversy for opportunistic self-aggrandizing motives.

Most members of congress are genetically hard-wired to "Nadler" when in the presence of cameras and/or microphones.

Of course, as a noun,... one's "Nadler" is the pious, pompous face one is required to display while committing a "Nadler".

There are numerous examples of "Nadlers" on display DAILY on the hill, of course.

Most recently, a classic "Nadler" can be seen anytime the union-bustin', land-swappin, tax-abating Senator from Honda/Toyota/Alabama;......DICK Shelby....
...asserts that his zeal to see the Detroit auto companies in forclosure, and a couple of million MORE Americans out of work,... is based on his deep concern for the interests of the U.S. taxpayer.

In the New York City area such a "Nadler" is also known as a.... "s**t eating grin" .

Which reminds me:...... While it is understandably used in MANY unflattering contexts,.....
In proper Irish-American.... a "HarryReid" remains a noun......
meaning simply.... "something that stinks".

As you may remember, very shortly, Sen. Reid will celebrate 100 consecutive weeks as my OWN personal MDDOTW.
We seem to agree in this regard of late.

Kudos on another fine "FTP"
Wouldn't miss one for all the Nadlers on "K" St.
tm

[jhNY]

For a guy like Williams, that term he proposes, 'the Troubles', is perfect. He works for GE, which derives much of its profit from its financial arm, or did, until lately. If they haven't gotten a big taste already, GE will no doubt soon be angling for part of the bail-out money burning a hole in Paulson's pocket. And 'the Troubles' sounds bad and serious, so nobody can accuse its coiner of flippancy, but sounds kind of like 'monsoon season', as if it were a kind of natural catastrophe for which nobody, especially nobody presently powerful, like his bosses, should be blamed.

The worst thing about Williams is he's brighter and deeper than he lets on during his newscasts, but willingly subsumes his intelligence for the checks GE writes him. He knows better than the things he reads out loud, but he won't tell you.

[Jim281]

Great column!

The subject that raised my ire is Senator Reed! How dare he insinuate that "the visitors stink"! It's Harry Reed who stinks!

Flash back two years. By the 'o6 elections, Americans were so fed up with Bush, Rummy, the Iraq war, and the Right wing, that we sent a clear message to Washington - by changing the majorities in both Houses. Anyhow, we won! And thought (at least, I did) that finally things would turn around.

Sen Reed, and his counterpart Rep Pelosi have led a congress whose performance has been BEYOND DISAPOINTING!! We learned to expect failure and incompetence from the Bush administration. But who could have imagined that Reed and Pelosi would become the Bush Administration's "enablers"!?? These houses don't have a ball between them! In the dubious name of "bipartisanship", the 110th has continuously "bent over" for Bush, and rewarded their political contributors. (Telecoms, anyone? How' bout pharmaceuticals!!?)

Our new government will be a real game-changer! No more excuses, Sen Reed (and Rep Pelosi) for complete and utter NONPERFORMANCE! Your performance will no longer be compared to a lackluster, incompetent Executive branch, but to a stunning, shining, brilliant leader! You better be prepared to work your butts off, or we will forever be done with you both!

[LewDan]

I don't know why everybody is dumping on Treasury. After 8 years of the Bush Administration the Cash Room is probably the largest empty space they've got. In fact, we should consider renting it out to conventions. Its not like we've got anything ELSE to keep in it.

[BlueBoomer]

Another idea that occurred to me (but which I admittedly haven't thought thru, is that in an effort to streamline production lines, perhaps the big three could each specialize in different vehicle types, like one for sedans/coupes, one for mini-vans/SUVs, and one for pick-ups, "convertible" or "transformer" vehicles, that can serve as utility vehicles AND passenger vehicles (GM came out with some a few years ago, but at that time at least they didn't catch on...don't know why, since it seemed like a good idea).

So, for example, GM could do passenger sedans/coups... Chrysler could do SUVs and mini-vans... and Ford could do pick-up trucks/"transformers".

Is there some glaring reason that has escaped me why that couldn't make sense?...These are all vehicle types that have a NEED-BASED market, so ...

[BlueBoomer]

I have been of the opinion since the auto part of this crisis became evident that the health-care of retirees is the first place that should be looked for $... It was those contracts that contributed to the current problems and those retirees should expect to AND be expected to share the burden now... Not eliminating them, but certainly reducing them... the idea presented in the article is an interesting one.

[LewDan]

Why should retirees "be expected to share the burden," what about other creditors? Retirees earned their money. They worked, and a portion of their salary was deferred in favor of retirement payments. Big Auto bet investing the cash, making payments on retirement, would be more profitable. Employees bet differing salary for retirement guarantees would be more profitable. Employees won their bet.

You don't seem to think other creditors should "be expected to share the burden." Why's that? Why's it taken for granted contracts with businesses must be honored, contracts with workers -- not so much. PEOPLE don't have the same rights as business to expect contracts be honored, to be paid?

No one's suggesting Wall Street "be expected to share the burden," reducing interest and principle on mortgages, even though THEY LOST their bets on infinitely increasing home prices. No, WE must subsidize them, ensure THEY don't lose money because THEY made BAD BETS but THEIR shareholders "have a right to make a profit."

Government, the United States, exists to provide for THE PEOPLE. The REASON we're in this mess, the REASON we're bleeding jobs, losing the middle-class is because PEOPLE are second-class citizens and businesses feudal Lords. Businesses have rights -- employees? -- not so much.

It isn't enough retirees' taxes, go to a bailout? They should contribute more? You think like a CEO, no respect for workers and you're awfully free with other people's money.

[bogues]

Why are you giving Harry Reid the "Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week" award for simply repeating a comment that Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner made. Did you give Mr. Boehner a "Most disappointing Republican" award for having said it in the first place?

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

bogues -

I looked, but couldn't find the exact Boehner quote. It was referred to, though, as saying something about the long lines of tourists to get into the Capitol, and how they sometimes had to wait in bad weather.

Reid didn't repeat Boehner's line, he said the part about stinky tourists all on his own.

Also, I don't hand out "Most Disappointing Republican" awards, since I'm universally disappointed that anyone would be a Republican. It's hard to pick just one, in other words.

-CW

[Emlyn]

Find some.

[HoraceOvidson]

Obviously, prohibition was a failure. It just meant huge profits for the Mob, and bootlegging industry, and even some "respectable" politicians. Here's to you Joseph Kennedy. But to conclude that consuming alcohol is a good, and promoting it's use is a public good would be just as stupid. Alcohol is a dangerous drug. But no-one thinks of regulating it,-- yes, regulating it-- like a dangerous drug. Why would you permit the beer and other alcohol companies to take to the airwaves and encourage people to drink. Yes, drink this beer and you get the girl, or the guy. Got to drink at a social event to have fun. Oh, yeah, lots of money is made. In fact, John McCain's fortune, which he married into, is based on distributing beer in Arizona. But, of course, media of all kinds, rakes in millions and billions of buck in add revenues. Lots of folks are making money capitalizing on other people's misery-- alcoholism, broken families, DUIs, negligent homicide, vehicular manslaughter, spousal abuse, fetal alcohol syndrome and other birth defects, and the list could go in. Show up in any courtroom in the country, and maybe two-thirds of the cases have drug/alcohol issues. . Is it free speech to be able to promote a danger drug? Oh, yeah, definitely when it mean billions of bucks to powerful people.

[hotstuff]

Your wrong! Drinking is up to you! Just like smokeing! Our american rights to freedom!

[HoraceOvidson]

Did you read what I said. I didn't say you can't drink or smoke, or screw yourself up in anyway you say fit? I said: we shouldn't promote it. Would you be shocked if an add urging you snort cocaine appeared on your TV screen? I dare say, yes. What kills more people in our country, coke use, or alcohol use?

[flanardiente]

Utah's a beautiful state, almost surreal in its beauty, and the people are friendly and not preachy at all. It's true I wouldn't try to buy booze there (a lost cause) but the pot is plentiful and pretty good. Plus the Wasatch Mts are full of LA jet-commuters. Deseret is changing, like everywhere else.

[standard]

Chris--

While you've done well to highlight Jerry Nadler's proposed Constitutional amendment, you've put it (and him) in the wrong category: that idea should be seen as impressive.

To deprive Presidents of the power to pardon members of their own administrations for wrongful acts committed in an official capacity is necessary and smart. (Jerry is no dummy: he, like David Axelrod, attended Stuyvesant and, like Barack Obama, is a Columbia grad. Jerry also has a law degree from Fordham, a strongly progressive voting record and led the House in opposing Clinton's impeachment.)

Because it takes a Constitutional amendment to effect this idea, no one--especially Jerry--believes that making that change now will affect GWB. So what? That doesn't mean there's no need for the change.

Nor is introducing the idea now in any way "grandstanding". What better time to introduce any legislation than when the necessity for it is featured in the news and when the votes for it are likely to exist when the bill comes before Congress?

You've mistakenly decided that its inability to curb a lame duck makes this whole idea lame, when it doesn't! Hey: it's the end of a long week. Please reconsider your take on what that amendment could do for all Americans: (dare I call us?) Jerry's kids.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

standard -

While I appreciate the sentiments, and while I just learned that Nadler is in charge of something called the House Subcommittee on Civil Rights (I hope I remembered that correctly, I've been toasting Amendment XXI for awhile now), I still can't believe it's anything more than a cheap (if effective) way to get his name into the news... hence the term "grandstanding."

If he reintroduces this legislation next year, without the "Bush" stigma, then maybe I'll believe he's doing it for the best interests of the country. Until then, his MDDOTW is in the mail.

I am a firm believer in the Pardon Power (I just couldn't help myself, I had to capitalize that... and won't you join me in a toast to the repeal of Prohibition?! heh heh), and although it is frequently and blatantly abused by Presidents from Ford to Clinton to (soon to be) Bush, I still believe in the balance-of-powers issue it is a good thing overall. Any president who truly overreaches in the pardon department is castigated and condemned by History as a result, which sounds kind of wussy, but is a real impediment to presidents contemplating their legacy, at least since Ford pardoned Nixon.

Bush is currently in a trap of his own devising -- if he issues blanket pardons for torture, then he is (in effect) admitting that he did something illegal. Since he is loath to admit such mistakes, I bet he won't issue such blanket pardons before he leaves.

The president's power to pardon is one of his strongest powers against the Judicial Branch and Legislative Branch, and I defend it on principle, no matter what the current occupant is doing with it.

So, sorry, but Nadler still gets his MDDOTW. But thanks for writing and making your case.

-CW

[standard]

Here's to Repeal!

May all attempts by moralists to impose their values on others by law, or to denigrate immigrants (which was part of what Prohibition was all about) meet a similar fate.

Just keep an open mind about Jerry.

[Chris Weigant - Huffpost Blogger]

We interrupt these comments for a public service announcement, and a blatant commercial.

First, I finally went through and answered the comments to my previous post "How Will Obama Enrage The Left?" so if you commented on that, go over and have a look, maybe I answered you.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/how-will-obama-enrage-the_b_148246.html

Second, since I have your attention, I'd just like to plug my 2008 "Help Send Chris To The Inauguration" Pledge Drive going on over on my site.

http://www.chrisweigant.com/index.php/2008-pledge-drive/

Just in case... you know... anyone's got any spare money lying around.

OK, we now return you to your regularly scheduled comments. We apologize for the interruption, and for shamelessly begging.

-CW

[LizM]

Hey you! I was just about to post this so you wouldn't have to!!!

Oh, well...consider it an endorsement, of sorts...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey everyone!

If you find yourselves just dreaming of attending the events of Inauguration Day (and Week!) because there is no way on God's green earth that you're gonna be able to wrangle a ticket or two, then consider making a generous donation to our mutual pal, Chris, in an effort to send him to the festivities in our place.

I can safely guarantee that reading his personal accounts of the swearing in ceremony and all of the rest of the excitement of the most memorable Inauguration Day ever will be the next best thing to being there ourselves.

So, head on over to www.chrisweigant.com now and do your civic duty to help send our man to DC!

Thank-you...thank-you very much.

[larry278]

The irony of Utah, Ohio & Pennsylvania being the 3 states which put the 21st amendment over the top & ended prohabition, the great experiment, can't be missed. If you want to buy a bottle of hooch in Oh & Pa, you have to buy it from a state liquor store. I have no idea of how to buy hooch in Utah. I've never been there & I have less than no desire to go to Utah. I'll note that Mormons don't use caffeine or booze because they think coffee & whisky are bad for the body. It could have something to do with Mormons seeing each human body as a temple of God. Mormons take a very dim view of desecrating temples. As I understand it only a Mormon may enter a Mormon Temple. If one of us non-Mormons, aka gentiles to Mormons, entered a Mormon Temple, it would be an act of desecration-to a Mormon.
It's an irony that Utah, populated by Mormons who don't drink, Ohio & Pennsylvania which restrict the sale of booze to state stores, ended prohabition in America. I think I'll go to Mo to buy a bottle in a super market to celebrate.
Oh & Pa badly need bootleggers so you can get a bottle of 100 proof when the state stores are closed. Bootleggers are as hard to find as virgins over 18 in Pa & Oh. Bootleggers are essential to civil order unless liquor stores are open 24/7.

[uglicoyote]

You can buy booze in Utah but it has some really strange restrictions and the state controls sales.. Can't get a decent beer in the state as its all 3.2 percent alcohol or less. That leavemicrobrews out of the picture. In Idaho where a lot of Mormons live, the state owns the hard liquor stores although you buy wine and beer most everywhere.

It seems appropriate on this anniversary to note that the distillerof Jack Daniels report a 13% increase in sales for the third quarter. When times get hard, liquor sales go up.

[jbl inAZ]

State control of liquor sales is not that unusual. In New Hampshire, all hard liquor is sold through the state-owned liquor stores (whose convenient locations include the closest freeway exits to the state's borders, since NH taxes tend to be less than neighboring states').
Utah also permits sales only through state-owned stores, as I recall (we left the state decades ago and it was before I was old enough to drink). My parents had stories of the occasional friend who would ask them to go in and buy something for them so he wouldn't have to be seen there and nobody cared if Jews bought liquor.

[TimmySlagle]

"The workers would get as good (or better) health care than they receive now, the government would take over the obligation"

Why is that a good deal for the average American? The auto companies made a deal with the UAW that they couldn't keep. So the taxpayers have to back it up? How is that fair?

If United Artists promises Tom Cruise 100 million dollars for his work on Valkyrie, and the movie tanks, is it up to taxpayers to make up the difference? There is no reason why Americans need to insure a contract we did not sign.

GM should go bankrupt. Anything less is Corporatism.

[jhNY]

But we've already got corporatism. It surrounds us, lately on view as a means of siphoning treasury dollars to the financial industry, an 'industry' that produces nothing real, and writes up that nothing on bad paper. Now we're just arguing about how much corporatism is too much, and evidently, the deal-breaker is union workers, who seem to many to have been yucking it up on the assembly lines for years while they drew big checks they never deserved and got good health care. Strangely, the idea people might be rewarded for doing too little is most important if actual workers are involved, and it's mostly important to folks who wouldn't last one day on a factory floor. But those who shout about money into cellphones for a living seem to be exempt from all the concern, and it wouldn't matter much now anyway, as billions have gone to them already, and nobody actually expects they're going to pay the money back, at least until hyper-inflation sets in.