Sunday :: Sep 10, 2006

Pessimist's Mailbox - Post Responses

by pessimist

While I posted concerning my shutting down comments in my last Maibox report, I wasn't intending on making it a regular feature. As you will see, one reader took me to task for it, and would like to see it stop. I happen to agree with him. We have other things to discuss.

These emailed comments concern the various posts I have written since I shut down comments on my posts. I noted Anjha's request in the open comments, and I hope my solution is acceptible.

And now - to the Voices of the Readers.

Concern over no comments:

I have been reading The Left Coaster for a couple of years now and quite frankly it is rare to even skim over the comment sections. That's not why most people read your blog. Give it a rest. Please. - Ken

I only posted this so that you would know that I heard your complaint. I'm sorry if my responding to the wishes of other readers bothers you. You will note that yours is the only comment today on that topic (opposed to my reporting the comments I received). You might want to read this next comment, which has another view of the problem:

I'm concerned that the rhetoric messengers, who have been generally annoying, face an impending election where their masters will task them with more and more noise attacks beyond what we've all experienced to date.

I want to focus more and more on topics and actions so every distraction, my own included, will be more unwelcomed. We can babble and get into pissing matches after a November success.
- mainsailset

These opinions are as valid as yours, Ken. I would much rather cover the issues than allow juvenile pissing matches.

I hope that this has been enough discussion for everyone on my not allowing comments. We have other topics of more importance to discuss.

Regarding Bu$hCo's Oil War turning off Southern female supporters:

You missed one very important factor...Cindy [Sheehan]

....mommys watched on their tvs as bush ingnored this greeving mother and saw them selves. Most cannot understand why bush refused to speak with this mother. This non action of bush put a fear in all mommies. Not the fear bush and the repugs sell but mothers see they are at risk of losing their children, grandchildren, and they will never see great grands. bush [h]as threatened their families.
- Jerri I McNair

Good points! Now - if only KKKarl doesn't frighten them back into line!

About the EPA not protecting the workers at Ground Zero from dangerously contaninated air:

Choices, like money are always telling.

I've lived the 2 months in the crosshairs of the largest wildfire burning in the US. FYI, these fires start small but there is [no] mechanism in place to throw manpower or equipment at them until they literally explode. The one to my right, the most recent, started 7/24 by lightning, was 90 acres at first but we were told there was no helicopter available or suppressant plane for drops to put it out. Today, it is 37,360 acres, 0% contained and 2 miles into Canada where they are now taking the battle on.

Getting back to your article. Throughout this, the EPA monitors have [been] less than accessible to the public, when one digs, one finds that the smoke particulates are more than double, sometimes triple the max EPA says human beings should tolerate. Yet there's no mention on the website, instead it starts its daily briefting with "The town of ___ is open for business, come on over" Secondly, we had to borrow manpower from New Zealand, Mexico & Australia as well as a battallion from Ft. Lewis.

Here's the kicker. The Ft Lewis guys were everything and more America could want in an armed force. We lost them, however, because they were called back to base to get ready to deploy to Iraq.

Choices, Mr. Bush makes choices.
- mainsailset

Indeed! And the choices he makes are: that we all will make sacrifices - even of our homes - for his Oil Wars.

In response to the poll which showed a significant number of Americans believe that Bu$hCo was involved in some way with the 9/11 attacks:

Why is it that the only two alternatives people can conceive are that the attacks happened exactly the way Bushco says they did (essentially that Al Qaeda was the "lone gunman") or that there was some vast conspiracy involving hundreds, mostly members of our government, and blowing up the Twin Towers with bombs and the Pentagon with cruise missiles?

Maybe there's a simpler explanation: just as Richard Mellon Scaife financed and drove the Clinton impeachment, someone (or a few someones) of enormous wealth (Bandar Bush, anyone?) financed bin Laden (under cover of being devoutly Islamist, of course), supplied him with the plan and had a few well-placed operatives (Cheney and one or two folks at the FBI and CIA) who made sure the plan reached fruition and America got its new Pearl Harbor.

Besides Bush, who else gained?

* The Saudi royal family got a bonus from the Iraq war that nobody ever talks about: all American troops were removed from their soil two months after the Iraq invasion, eliminating a major rallying point for the imams who oppose their rule. The Saudis are well known for bankrolling terrorists, though the mainstream media refuses to say so, apparently out of deference to the Bush family's close and long-standing friendship with... the Saudi royal family.

* Oil companies have tripled their profits. The oil companies desperately wanted more American troops in the Middle East, to protect their profit centers. And, of course, war is instability, which is a gold-plated excuse to quadruple oil prices.

Why couldn't a few of those folks have set all this in motion? Is it really that hard to believe?

I'd also bet my house that a huge number of unrecorded campaign dollars in 2000 and 2004 came from the same source, which means Bush and bin Laden were bankrolled by the same people, for the purpose of gaining control of the American government without appearing to do so.

If you remove the template they want you to see (good vs. evil, the West vs. Islam, us vs. terrorism) and substitute a realistic one, where [economic] interests are aligned or opposed, the above scenario makes a whole lot more sense than a lone Al Qaeda gunman and a series of unbelievable accidental blunders by our government. Who stood to gain and how easy would it have been for them to arrange/buy a spectacular terrorist attack?

Did George let 9/11 happen? Hell, no. I'm sure Dubya wasn't in loop -- someone that stupid could never be trusted. But boy, could he be used!
- Pat Green

I did a little editing of your comments, Pat, in order for the ideas you present to be a bit more coherent. Apologies if I got it wrong.

I believe that your scenario is entirely possible. I've been kicking around the idea that corporate entities may well have been behind all the major wars ever since they arose. Our own Revolution was a response by the British government to protect the monopoly of the nearly-bankrupt British East India Company from Colonial 'entrepreneurs'. I suspect that if one were to dig deep enough, one could find similar economic interests fanning the flames which led to our Civil War. Might information concerning such interests be why twelve pages of Lincoln's diary are 'missing'?

Internationally, colonialism - the granddaddy of George's Oil Wars - was certainly to blame for wars as well. Modern technology makes many things more possible than in the past, and having huge sums of ready cash lubricates the political and governmental machinery necessary to carry out the wishes of the corrupt corporate interests who seek, for example, new sources of cheap raw materials and a captive consumer market for their finished products.

Halliburton, anyone?

Speaking of corrupted corporations, I got a couple of comments concerning Ford's economic dilemmas:

Fix Or Repair Daily - I remember this from the late '40s - early '50s. I never really thought it too accurate, just a way for Chevy lovers to bash Ford products. But I have observed both Ford & GM closely for about 2 decades. At least close enough to realize that they have too many MBAs and bean counters running each company and not enough "car" people. Back in the '50s/'60s, people like Bill Mitchell and Arkus-Duntov knew how to build a car that appealed to the public. - Michaelwynn1

It's been my experience that the cheaper cars in any company's product line are the source of the complaints. I recently drove a new rented mid-size Toyota (less than 10K on the odometer) which I absolutely hated - yet among the vehicles I own is a Toyota which Mrs P just loves! I have never owned Fords, but I know some people who absolutely love their Crown Vics, for instance. I have driven Vics, and they sure aren't Pintos!

To sum it up - if a company cares enough about its products to put in quality design and craftsmanship, it is a good buy if it meets your personal notions of styling, affordability, and quality. Anything else would quickly follow the Yugo into curiosity-collector status.

This next post is in its original state [except for my comments], so don't blame me for the all-lower-case font - the message is what counts:

the seeds of ford's demise were sown back in the late 1950's when the deuce [Ford] bought autolite. this generated the doj suing ford. the deuce burned cash fighting this suit. i think for 15 years the deuce allowed this bit of litigation to suck out ford cash.

i was involved with the ford family back then, and i could never figure out why the deuce persisted [defending against this suit]. the solution was very simple, spin-off the autolite acquisition to a private family entity.

in the late 1970's, i asked ford's general counsel why the deuce refused to be smart in this matter. he had no explanation. he told me that he had counseled that course of action from the get-go, but that the deuce had ignored the advice.

so, i think you saw it accurately. at the family level, there is no [management skill] 'there' there. the man from boeing is a grasp at salvation. the dynamics of demise are too self-propelled now, i think.

on the other hand, the bushits, who may be major stockholders, may have spoken with their saudi, kuwaiti friends so as to ratchet down the price of crude. and spoken with their refining friends so as to rapidly bring down the price of unleaded.

surely this will excite the sales of fomoco's guzzlers.

won't it?
- albertchampion

I'm sure that is the intention, and as our conspiracy commenter above pointed out, the probability of such collusion between economic interests is certainly viable. I agree that it might well be too late for Ford, and that the family's self-delusions of their company's durability has everything to do with it. They [and the other two companies] certainly did everything they could in Congress to make it harder for their foreign competition, which managed to thrive anyway.

The only real losers will be Ford's work force, which trusted that the management wouldn't betray them with bad managing. As a now-deceased coworker of mine used to say: "Too soon old and too late smart." They can't start over now that they are sadder and wiser.

One last point before I close.

I agree with Ken that it is time to move on as far as the current comment situation is concerned. I have read all your comments in the other threads, and I am considering your ideas. I have made no final decisions as to my plans. For now, whether by comment thread or emails to me, let's follow mainsailset's desire to "focus more and more on topics".

I think we'll all be happier.

Have a comment?

pessimist :: 6:32 PM :: Digg It!