Last week, a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi came forward to announce the speaker's perspective on the manifest problems at Walter Reed: "The American people spoke clearly in the November elections that they wanted accountability and oversight. Under the Republican Congress it has been almost nonexistent, and you can certainly see that with what occurred at Walter Reed." No, you cannot see that. Rep. John Tierney, a Massachusetts Democrat, added that "we should have known all this before."
But all this was known before, though not by Reps. Pelosi and Tierney.
On
Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, described the problems at Walter Reed in words that should be inscribed on portals across every bridge leading into
[…]
Into this collapsing "morass" the Army six months ago dropped Maj. Gen. George Weightman, M.D. No ordinary desk-bound doc, George Weightman spent five years in the infantry after graduating in 1973 from
Mr. Henninger calls for Gen. Weightman’s reinstatement, and based on the facts presented, I agree. All that’s been done so far by DoD, the Army, and our oh-so-concerned congresscritters (particularly those with a “D” after their name) is to validate the ol’ saw that says “no good deed goes unpunished.” Read the whole thing.
More from the WSJ, this time on that one billion dollar lawsuit Viacom filed against Google and YouTube:
There is undoubtedly some truth to the preceding--hey, free advertising is always nice--but so what? The Jon Stewart clips, as well as the other clips in its complaint, are Viacom's property, not Google's. The former company is entirely entitled to dictate when, where, and under what terms its property be used--and who gets to make money from it in the process. While Viacom is getting free advertising, as a property-owner it gets to choose what free advertising it wants, not have a choice foisted on it.
So, that's it then, right? A property owner has its rights infringed, sues, and sets things straight? Well, not really. Because the real issue here has nothing to do with YouTube.
Consumers have spoken, and they don't like the way that electronic media--whether music, television or movies--is being packaged and sold to them. A decade ago they rebelled against being forced to buy entire CDs when they only wanted the few good tracks, and thus spawned Napster. Today, using YouTube, they are rebelling against being forced to watch entire programs when they only really want the 20-second part of American Idol last night where the contestant forgot the song lyrics and broke down in tears. Or a hockey fight. Or whatever.
I’m a pro-business kinda guy, but in so being I draw the line at stupidity and arrogance on the part of businesses that can’t recognize a trend when it smacks them in the face and—what’s worse— refuse to adapt to change and seek remedies from the courts to protect their old, outdated business models. It appears some CEOs and their management teams think it’s simpler to just lawyer-up, rather than give people what they want. In the immortal words of Robert Zimmerman: “Because something is happening here/ But you don't know what it is/ Do you, Mister Jones?”
This applies to internet radio, too. (Especially internet radio…which leads me to ask: You have signed the petition, haven’t you?)
Scott Ott does it again…
Clinton: Gen. Pace Owes Apology to Adulterers
by Scott Ott
(2007-03-14) — Former President Bill Clinton today added his voice to the chorus calling for Gen. Peter Pace to apologize for remarks in a recent interview in which he branded some kinds of behavior as “immoral“, and said the military should not condone immorality of any kind.
[…]
Mr. Clinton noted that if the nation had Gen. Pace’s attitude toward adultery just a few years ago, “we would have lost the valiant service of one of history’s greatest commanders in chief.”
“The military desperately needs brave men and women with the character, integrity and dignity that their colleagues can count on in times of war,” said Mr. Clinton, “But Gen. Pace essentially hung out a sign that says, ‘adulterers, homosexuals and liars need not apply.’”
“Essentially?” Howzabout specifically? Just sayin’.
Mr. Ott was good yesterday, too. To wit:
Pelosi War Plan Guards Against Risk of Victory
by Scott Ott
(2007-03-13) — The Democrat timeline for pulling
The
“A major triumph in the war on terror in
“…immeasurable political upheaval in the
I’m sorry, but you ARE high:
The Colorado General Assembly wants to be quite clear on this point: When the singer-songwriter John Denver praised the joys of
[…]
“A lot of people probably think it’s already the state song,” said Richard Grant, a spokesman for the Denver Metro Convention and Visitors Bureau.
[…]
“It’s certainly going to appeal to a lot of young people,” Mr. Grant said. “It’s just a cool thing to take a rock song and make it the official song.”
Deutschendorf Denver’s whiny voice singing anything. Anything at all. Gah!
Today’s Pic: Another series of Mom pics from the digital archive. This time it looks like the top two photos were taken at the same time as yesterday’s “Mom and Me” pics, as she’s wearing the same outfit. I think the third pic was taken at the Mather AFB (or perhaps McClellan AFB, Dad was stationed at both places) Officers Club pool, circa 1952. I know the bottom photo was taken in
As always, click for larger.
The WSJ article is pretty interesting. I like your take on the "oh-so-concerned congresscritters".
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree on John Denver. Yeah, he is mushy and has a whiney voice, but I grew up on JD. My kids roll their eyes when I get out my JD CD. Sometimes listening to JD just takes me home:)
Your mom has great legs - something I would love to have. My mom has long "skinny" legs that she said she prayed that I would not have. Geez, Mom, what were you thinking?
Lou said: My kids roll their eyes when I get out my JD CD.
ReplyDeleteI'd do that, too. And get out my ear plugs. :-)
Your mom has great legs - something I would love to have.
She did have great legs, true! I went back and forth several times about posting that picture, but thought "What the Hell! Why not?" and posted it.
re: "skinny legs:" We all have to play the hand we're dealt, and some of us are luckier in that respect than others. I was dealt skinny legs and as a result don't have any shorts...none at all...in my wardrobe! :-)
Mr. Clinton noted that if the nation had Gen. Pace’s attitude toward adultery just a few years ago, “we would have lost the valiant service of one of history’s greatest commanders in chief.”
ReplyDelete“The military desperately needs brave men and women with the character, integrity and dignity that their colleagues can count on in times of war,” said Mr. Clinton, “But Gen. Pace essentially hung out a sign that says, ‘adulterers, homosexuals and liars need not apply.’”
“Essentially?” Howzabout specifically? Just sayin’.
____________________________
Just sayin' what, Buck? I'm curious. Do you think the military should boot out all the adulterers? That'd be okay with me, but I think troop strength would suffer BADLY. ; )
My "specifically" remark I was just sayin' about meant Pace was unequivocal in his personal views on immorality. He (Pace) didn't say "essentially" in his remarks, he said...
ReplyDelete"I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts," Pace said in the audio recording of the interview posted on the Tribune's Web site. "I do not believe that the armed forces of the United States are well served by a saying through our policies that it's OK to be immoral in any way."
Emphasis mine, of course. And you're right about troop strength suffering badly if all the adulterers were thrown out. I'd have never made it to retirement if every case of adultery were prosecuted. (I did get much, much better in my later years, of course.) :-)