http://www.facebook.com/erichaubert

http://erichaubert.com/facebook

My comments on other people's facebook pages,
especially Rachel Maddow

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Twenty years after the Exxon Valdez, a pitiful cleanup effort.
Oil spill chair Reilly: Response is 'primitive',
Friday, June 4, 2010

Eric Haubert

Regarding the comments I made earlier about using explosives to seal
the oil well, the closest thing I heard to a discussion of this was on the
Chris Matthews show, where he was talking to Dwayne Spradlin.
(Wednesday, June 2, 2010).*

This is 20 minutes into the show, and 4:40 into the clip, "How to stop
the oil spill."*

"So, you couldn't just pile a ton, or 20 or 50 thousand or whatever tons
of dirt; you couldn't just explode something next to it, and just pile the
dirt on top of it. That wouldn't stop it."*

"Well, I'll tell you. My first reaction to this personally was, we should
send down some submarines and do that. Because when you look at
the topology of the ocean floor, it almost looks like you could
essentially avalanche material around it, dump it in and cover it."*

But, he goes on to say that the experts warn against it.*

It is said that this would probably make the situation worse, and that it
should only be used as a "last resort."*

Well, my idea was that it could have been done within a few days of
becoming aware of the problem. At this point, it's kind of too late for
that.*

As bad as the damage is so far, most of the damage has not yet been
done. Besides the oil washing up on the beaches, we have basically a
dead ocean all the way down to the sea floor. There is a massive
destruction of habitat, and possibly an extinction of species not yet
discovered.*

In terms of the technical cost-benefit analysis, I would think that
ANYTHING which reduced the flow of oil would be a good thing. A few
days after the gusher begins, a plan is put in place to fill and cover.
The flow of oil is reduced to half, then to a fourth, then to a tenth of
what it was. How could this have been a bad thing to do? Would it not
have saved the ocean and the coastline?*

This is speaking in TECHNICAL terms, not in POLITICAL terms. In
political terms, a quick military action to reduce the flow of oil to ten
percent would have led to a revitalized Tea Party movement, and
possibly Obama's "Waterloo."*

The right wing would slam Barack Obama for "making it worse." They
would have said that BP could have fixed it, if not for this ham-fisted
government intervention.*

Certainly everyone knows that what I say here is true.*

I believe that the whole Tea Party movement would never have got
started, if only Barack Obama would have taken some time to think
about the Bush TARP bank bailout, instead of rushing to get it
passed. The biggest mistake he made in his presidency was during
the 2008 campaign, when he essentially bailed out the Republican
Party.*

When Republican policies cause terrible problems to happen, the
voters have to SEE the link between cause and effect.*

Just imagine if Barack Obama would have rushed in to stop this
gusher, using such radical means, over the objections of the oil
industry and the Republican governors on the coast.*

A problem of only ten percent of what BP caused would have been
Obama's "Waterloo." This is how politics works. You don't get credit
for a crisis averted.*

Of course, the Navy has no "war plan" in place for shutting down a
rogue oil well, and this has never been done before. Nobody at the
time was suggesting that such a thing be tried.*

It surprises me that Russia has used nuclear weapons to shut down
gas wells. I would not put it past Edward Teller to support the "nuclear
option" here. But even if he supported it, that wouldn't made it right.*

During the run-up to the Iraq war, Rich Lowry wrote a column saying
that we needed nuclear weapons to destroy Saddam's alleged
underground bunkers. The right-wing has a fascination with nuclear
weapons, as they do with torture.*

There is no such thing as a perfect solution. There are always trade-
offs. We can see that BP has made the problem worse by dumping
additional poisons into the ocean, called "dispersants." They just
recently INCREASED the flow of oil out of the pipe.*

We have to distinguish between options which will CERTAINLY make
the situation worse, and those which merely "could" make it worse, but
could just as likely make it better.*

I believe that it would not have been POLITICALLY wise to try such an
experiment, (using conventional explosives); even though it might have
left the situation much less bad than it is now. If the flow could have
been reduced to a smaller and smaller amount, and then finally
stopped, we would not now be left with a dead ocean.*

The criticism from Republicans that Barack Obama has NOT DONE
ENOUGH is a sign that our political system is being restored to some
kind of sanity.*

It doesn't seem to make much sense, but they say that when your car
is sliding, you have to steer it into the direction of the slide to regain
control. The direction of our national slide has been the Tea Party
demanding "less government."*

When Michele Bachmann starts complaining about Barack Obama's
"hands-off policy," then he is regaining control of the agenda.*

As Rachel Maddow said in her closing statement on Thursday, "If that
changes because of our national disgust at this disaster—then America
‘s political system in 2010 works."*

When BP created this crisis, and somebody in the White House
asked, "Can we fix this?" the sadder but wiser people correctly
answered, "No, we can't."*

Now, when Republicans start slamming Barack Obama for "NOT
going nuclear," they will truly earn their minority status.*

Eric Haubert

June 5, 2010

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Eric Haubert

I don't know whether or not it makes sense to intentionally burn the oil
on the surface to get rid of it. But if it LOOKS like a bad gas station,
and it SMELLS like a bad gas station, I would say that we need to be
very careful about riding out through it in a boat. Bravery in the face of
danger is commendable, but BE PREPARED in case something goes
wrong.*

Eric Haubert

June 5, 2010

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Top kill hits snag, goes on hold
May 27, 2010

Eric Haubert

I have been posting short comments on Twitter @KeithOlbermann,
regarding the PB oil gusher in the Gulf. On the night of May 26th I
wrote, "Ask a physicist." On May 27th, Keith had physicist Michio Kaku
on his show. However, my question was not considered.*

I don't know enough about the underground structure of the well
pipes, but I don't see how this matters. The main consideration, as I
see it, is the depth of the tunnel going down into the rock. If the oil is
very far down, that is a much different situation than if the oil is very
near the surface.*

If the oil is far down, I believe that some use of explosives could have
collapsed the tunnel and sealed it. If this could be done at all, then it
could have been done shortly after the gusher was announced.*

The Air Force talks about "bunker buster" bombs, which will penetrate
far down into the ground to break up an underground structure. I don't
know what the Navy has, or how any of these bombs would work a
mile under the ocean, with the pressure and other conditions. I don't
know what guidance system could be used.*

My suggestion is that a series of "bunker buster" bombs could
collapse this tunnel and stop the gusher. Why couldn't this plan be
made to work?*

In the interview, Michio Kaku said, "If an explosion takes place, we
could be in worse shape than before."

I believe what he means is that it would be harder to use the currently
planned methods to seal it, because there would be more openings.
This objection is directly tied to the kind of solution that the oil
companies want to use. The claim that there would be several
ruptures in the pipe ignores the fact that there is only one tunnel down
into the rock. Again, the question is: How deep is the oil?*

If that one tunnel could be sealed, then that should stop the flow,
shouldn't it? Bombs are good at destroying things. If we want to
destroy a narrow and deep shaft, then bombs should be capable of
destroying it.*

There is a lot of talk about a series of pipes. What are these pipes?
What is their function? If their function is to extract oil and direct its
flow, then they are redundant. We are not trying to extract it, and we
want its flow to be zero. If there is a single deep shaft, then closing
this should fix the problem.*

If the oil is close to the surface so that there is no deep shaft, then of
course it could not be shut down with explosives. I want to hear how
deep the shaft is, because nobody has seen fit to include this
information in any of the reporting I have seen.*

The interview ends by discussing military options. "Obama may have
to call out the military at some point." But WHAT, specifically, could
the military DO about it? If it is not to seal the well with explosives,
then WHAT? And if there is something that the military could do, why
should that be a last resort? Why shouldn't that have been the FIRST
resort? When an airplane is hijacked, they can send up interceptors to
force its path, or even possibly shoot it down. Is there, or is there not,
a similar military option in this case?*

Besides the possibility of collapsing the well with explosives, what
about the possibility of dumping fill dirt on top of it? Dump as much as
we can, using dirt, sand, gravel, stones, brick and cement chips, and
so on. Slow the flow down to a trickle, and eventually stop it
altogether. Why couldn't this have been done?*

The object of the oil company is to use this well to produce oil, which
they can sell. The object of the rest of us is to prevent oil companies
from destroying the ocean. All of the "solutions" are oil company
solutions, based on controlling the flow of oil through oil company
pipes. If the "collapse the well with explosives" solution wouldn't work,
then surely the "bury it under a pile of dirt" solution WOULD work. But
these are not "oil company solutions." Since the oil company would
not use them, everyone acts as if they are "unthinkable." But these
solutions are "unthinkable" only to the profitability of the oil company,
not to the destructibility of the well.*

Here are some of my recent Twitter comments, in "reverse" order,
which is to say, in "correct" order.*

@KeithOlbermann,
BP never wanted to STOP the gusher in the Gulf.
All they want to do is TAP it.
They are totally without a conscience.
5:19 PM May 24th via web

@KeithOlbermann,
On day 1,Navy could have dropped bombs on well,
closed the opening & saved the ocean.
Very simple,but politically impossible.
9:57 PM May 24th via web

@KeithOlbermann,
Specially shaped explosive charges
could push oil back down the pipe with high pressure.
Other explosives could seal pipe.
8:59 PM May 25th via web

@KeithOlbermann,
They say nothing works a mile down.
Gravity still works.
Can't enough tons of gravel and dirt be found to stop the gusher?
9:10 PM May 25th via web

@KeithOlbermann,
An oil well is a tunnel going miles down into rock.
Please explain why explosives cannot collapse and stop.
Ask a physicist.
10:48 PM May 26th via web

I don't see how anyone can justify ignoring these questions.*

Eric Haubert

May 30, 2010

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

maddow: Here's @ScottBrownMA saying Democrats must have written
my I'm-not-running ad
Saturday, March 27, 2010

My comment here, and all those above it, have been deleted.
Was it really that bad?
The link to past comments is broken, because the number it gives is
far greater than the number of comments shown.
Of course, my comment was off the topic, but I couldn't find a better
topic to put it on at the time.*

LATER NOTE:
Many of these articles seem to have the EARLY comments cut.
Fortunately for me, my comments tend to come LATER. Since my
comments are near the end, they are saved on the Facebook page.*

Eric Haubert
Regarding the Coffee Party concept, March 28, 2010*

I saw a report about the Coffee Party on the Rachel Maddow show,
and I decided to join the facebook group. I haven’t gotten involved
other than this. I just saw a report on the local news which mentioned
a Coffee Party gathering. I was left wondering what the Coffee Party
actually represents. It is said that the Coffee Party "wants the same
things," as the Tea Party, such as "limited government" and "fiscal
responsibility." The idea is that nobody WANTS unlimited
government or wasteful spending. But the claim that you "want the
same things" makes it sound like a right-wing organization.*

Beyond this confusion, some are attempting to usurp the name for a
clearly right-wing agenda. Of course, there are many different Tea
Party organizations, which are competing against each other.*

There is a tendency for liberal Democrats to want to avoid labels like
"socialist" or "far left." As for myself, I would rather see a "Socialist Far
Left Democrats Tea Party" than a "Coffee Party" whose positions I
can't be sure of.*

If it was called something that no right-winger would want to be called,
then THE NAME of the organization would at least not be
compromised by right-wingers trying to take it for themselves. The
agenda of the organization could actually be quite "moderate," but it
would be moderate among liberal Democrats, or independents leaning
that way.*

I would define a TRULY "moderate" Democrat as being one who is
PRACTICAL, such as Barack Obama or Nancy Pelosi. The name of
the "moderate" has been usurped by those who agree with
Republicans 45 percent of the time. I don't consider it
"moderate" to be a Democrat In Name Only. These are the
"dinosaurs," or DINOs, not the wave of the future.*

A TRUE "moderate Democrat" should be one who is both progressive
and practical, not one who is acting like a Republican.*

The point here is that the TERM of "moderate Democrat" has been
usurped by conservatives. We could BE moderates, but CALL
OURSELVES "Far Left Socialists," just to avoid the confusion. Since
we are going to be called that ANYHOW, we may as well use it, since
it's the only name that right-wingers won't want to call THEMSELVES.
After we have a name that no right-winger would want, then we can
define what we mean by that name.*

I am a "Far Left Socialist Liberal Democrat," by which I mean a
"Moderate and Practical Progressive," and by which I distinguish
myself from those DINO Democrats who have stolen the name of
"moderate."*

Eric Haubert

March 28, 2010
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Talking Coffee Party on the show tonight? Maybe.
March 12, 2010

Eric Haubert

Coffee Party and Primary challenges, March 14, 2010*

Actually, I believe that the original "Boston Tea Party" was a group that
refused to drink tea, and started drinking coffee instead. So the "Tea
Party" people should be expected to actually drink coffee, at least the
cheap kind. This means that the "Coffee Party" people can drink tea if
they want to.*
--*
My message to Democrats who vote against the health care bills: We
will try to organize "in moderation," and see how that goes. But
Democrats and liberals are getting more and more radicalized as this
goes on.*
--*
Regarding primary challenges, I am referring to the race two years
from now, assuming you win re-election this time. I am sure there are
many Democrats who are thinking in terms of a "go-for-broke"
strategy. If Democrats can't run the government with 59 senators, then
we will try to run the government with 41 senators. If the Republican
methods work for Republicans, then Democrats will have to adopt the
same methods. The "Coffee Party" groups, or somebody else, will be
promoting primary challenges two years from now.*

I believe that there is a militant leftist movement brewing. There will be
fighting in the streets between the Tea Party people and the Coffee
Party people, if Democrats currently in office don't stick together as a
block to push the party agenda. Either you show us that "the system"
WORKS, by fully supporting your party's agenda, or you will show us
that the system DOESN'T WORK, thereby creating the need for a
radical leftist response.*

I, for one, am ready to give up on this whole "moderation" nonsense,
and start supporting those whom I would have rejected for being too
radical only a short time ago.*

Eric Haubert

March 14, 2010

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Maddow calls it: Republicans cannot stop health reform.
'Health reform is going to happen'
March 2, 2010

Eric Haubert

Regarding the so-called ''nuclear option'':*

All of this argument over the true meaning of the term "nuclear option"
is pointless. "Methinks thou dost protest too much."*

The "true" meaning of the "nuclear option" is the use of a "Bomb,"
which a mechanical device involving radioactive materials or the nuclei
of atoms. ANY OTHER USAGE of that term is purely
METAPHORICAL. So in this case, it means whatever people SAY it
means.*

If Republicans want to call Reconciliation the "nuclear option" then
they can call it that if they want to. If you want to complain about a bad
choice of words, you should complain about something which has
literal meaning. For example, when a bomber kills himself, Fox News
call him a "homicide" bomber instead of a "suicide" bomber. That is
something to complain about. But the "nuclear option" is whatever
they SAY it is, since it is meaningless to begin with.*

So now the Republicans are "going ballistic" in the way they are
accusing Democrats of using the "nuclear option," and Democrats are
"going ballistic" in their denial.*

Up until a few days ago, I thought Rachel Maddow wanted to end the
filibuster. Now I see that she is easily manipulated into vehemently
denying her own beliefs. I guess that's all to be expected from
somebody who has "no agenda."*

Eric Haubert

March 2, 2010

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Rep. Anthony Weiner goes to 11 on the House floor:
"Deal with it."
Ever Met a Republican Not Owned by the Insurance Industry?
February 24, 2010

Eric Haubert

While "Weiner goes to 11 on the House floor," the Senate is going
"negative."*

After all of this talk about "The Tarantino," I didn't hear it mentioned
ONCE on Wednesday's show. You say you want to end the filibuster.
But as soon as the Republicans NOTICE what you are up to, you back
down?*

You make it look as though the Republicans "called your bluff."*

The only reason "Reconciliation" exists is because the minority
ALLOWS it to exist. When Republicans passed laws with
"Reconciliation," NOBODY CHALLENGED IT! The whole concept of
"Reconciliation" is just a way to PRETEND that the filibuster doesn't
matter, without saying so in clear language. That is all that
"Reconciliation" EVER WAS. Nothing has changed.*

As much as I hate quoting myself, I must repeat what I wrote on
Newsvine almost a week ago, in the filibuster challenge.*
--*

I have changed my opinion on the “Reconciliation” process. Not too
long ago I thought that “if the rules don’t allow such-and-such to be
done under reconciliation then we can’t do it.” But this is a
meaningless restriction.*

No matter what anybody says, the Senate is ruled by 51 senators, or
by 50 senators plus the vice-president. If they want to call majority rule
“an end to the filibuster,” they can call it that. But if they want to call it
“reconciliation,” then that should be good enough.*

No matter what they choose to call it, 51 votes is 51 votes, and that is
what it takes to rule the Senate. Just CALL it “reconciliation,” and pass
any law you wish to pass. If that word makes it easier to do, then we
can use that word just as well as any other.*

#4845 - Fri Feb 19, 2010 4:29 AM EST

Eric Haubert

February 25, 2010

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Down to the wire in our Filibuster Challenge.
"The Tarantino," anyone?
Who's taking a stand on the filibuster?
February 18, 2010

Eric Haubert

Regarding "The Tarantino," maybe I missed the whole point of the
contest. I thought it was supposed to be something to use in a
campaign, not just something to please fans of the show.*

Since the prize could only go to one person, the one who first
suggested "The Tarantino" gets credit for originality. You can use this
on the show as much as you want to, but I don't think it will affect our
political system. You may as well call it "The Colbert," if all you wanted
to do was to make a joke.*

Also, Rachel is pronouncing "Minority Rule" incorrectly. She says
"THE Minority Rule." Why was this bill killed? Because of "THE
Minority Rule."*

It isn't "THE Minority Rule." It is just "MINORITY RULE." What is it
about the Senate that we want to change? We want to put an end to
"Minority Rule." The Tarantino is something that people LIKE. We want
to call it something that people can OPPOSE. I'm pretty sure you
won't rally a million people to carry signs saying, "Put an end to the
Tarantino." But you might possibly rally a million people to carry signs
saying, "Put an end to Minority Rule."*

You certainly don't want to insult the director by saying "Tarantino is
un-American," but you could easily say that "Minority Rule is un-
American." It has the advantage of saying what you are actually
AGAINST, and it has the advantage that the average person in the
street will understand what you are talking about.*

Eric Haubert

February 21, 2010

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

This is the segment Jon Stewart criticized Rachel for on The Daily
Show last night.
Rachel will be address it on tonight's show.

USAID, America's non-military muscle
Steve Clemons,
publisher of The Washington Note,
talks with Rachel Maddow about the value of the USAID
in responding to international disasters.

January 15, 2010

Eric Haubert

Jonah Goldberg wrote a column on Haiti which I read in a local
newspaper. The article is called "Tough Love Needed for Haiti."*

He quotes a recent book saying that people from poor countries
"become 10 to 20 times more productive, simply by crossing the
border into the United States."*

"Why? Because American culture not only expects hard work, but
teaches the unskilled how to work hard."*

This interpretation is not only ridiculous on the face of it, but the
opposite is usually taken for granted by conservatives.*

Thomas Sowell, who is a black conservative, wrote a book called
"Ethnic America," published in 1981. The whole point of the book was
to compare the success of immigrants from different races and
cultures. Black people from just about anyplace else seem to do better
than black people who were descendants of slaves in the United
States. This is despite the fact that they have the same skin color, or
even darker, and therefore face the same kind of racial prejudices.*

The immigrants come here with a "work ethic" from their impoverished
countries of origin. The only effect of "American culture" is to strip
away the work ethic that they arrived with.*

Somehow, the poor of Emma Lazarus are transformed into successful
Americans. Nobody seems to know why this happens. Not only do
they do better than they did in the "old country," but they do better
than many who were already here for several generations.*

Conservative ideology contradicts itself on several points. First of all, if
poor immigrants are so successful after coming here, then we should
favor immigration. But conservative ideology says that immigrants are
a drain on our resources, and must be kept out.*

Jonah Goldberg uses the conservative "boilerplate" accusations
against helping the poor. He talks about "the damage done by the
foreign-aid industry." Supposedly, poverty did not exist until people set
about trying to relieve it.*

Concepts of charity in the Jewish tradition are not so different from the
words of Jesus or John the Baptist, who came out of that Jewish
tradition. Modern Atheism is more favorable to helping the poor than is
the "religious-right," whose ideology comes from some source other
than the red letters in their Bibles. The doctrines of the "religious-right"
seem to have more in common with Ayn Rand, when it comes to their
attitudes toward the less fortunate.*

Conservatives can accept a TRILLION dollars dumped into Iraq, and
even a BILLION dollars of paper money which gets loaded off of
forklifts and simply vanishes. But they worry that a neighboring
country might get a few crumbs out of that.*

The operation in Haiti could be compared to the Berlin Airlift. In any
case, military invasions take months of planning, and there are "foul-
ups" under the best of circumstances. We need a rapid response
capability to deal with disasters, whether natural or man-made. We
need that capability if a disaster strikes in our own country, or in a
country we care about as if it were our own. If nothing else, the Haiti
operation is good practice for that.*

Much of the world's poverty can be attributed to protectionist farm
policies. In a "free-market" system, these countries could raise their
standard of living by selling agricultural products. It is understandable
that we (in all of the rich countries) want to protect our farmers, our
farming capabilities, and our food inspection systems. But it has to be
recognized that these anti-trade policies are a leading cause of world
poverty.*

So, let Jonah Goldberg practice his "tough love" on his fellow
conservatives, whose ideology comes more from Ayn Rand than from
Adam Smith.*

Eric Haubert

January 25, 2010

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

First the healthy insurance lobby tempted you with virtual cash for
FarmVille and Mafia Wars.
Now, it's gift certificates for Hooters.
Seriously.
Health reform opponents resort to digital dirty tricks.
December 17, 2009

Eric Haubert

HOW TO WIN ON HEALTH CARE, Dec 18, 2009

It is time to change the Senate rules permanently, so that the filibuster
cannot be used. What we need to do is to amend the Constitution.
First of all, we should point out that it isn't in the Constitution in the
first place, and that Republicans recently threatened Democrats with
the "Constitutional option."*

Democrats should simply demand an end to the filibuster. The House
should vote to declare it "un-Constitutional." State legislatures should
vote to support a future amendment.*

How many senators does it take to block war funding? I say it takes
41. Can 41 senators agree to "hold hostage" the war funding, until we
get our way on health care? Demand 67 votes to end the practice of
the filibuster entirely, and the 41 blocking war spending will also vote
to end all filibusters.*

Short of that, just LINK the health care proposal of 51 senators to the
war funding, whatever it takes to do that. Either we get what we
demand in health care, or the troops come home THIS YEAR.*

The recent story about military drone communications being
intercepted has changed my view of the war. Maybe the Pentagon and
the CIA don't really want to win this war. Maybe they are providing "aid
and comfort to the enemy," because their cronies are profiting
financially, and they simply WANT to keep these wars going
FOREVER, by any means necessary.*

We can out-hawk the "hawks." Just say that if we become convinced
that Iran is "going Nazi," then we will "go FDR" on them. But let's
remember that the Pentagon and the CIA had 8 years of Bush-Cheney
to deal with all of these problems, and they have only gotten worse. If
they really WANTED to end these threats to our security, I think they
could have found the means to do so. But instead, they SUPPORTED
the weakness in AfPak, and the diversion in Iraq.*

They say, "Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good." But I say,
"Don't make perfect RESPONSIBILITY the enemy of good
STRATEGY."*

Would it be "irresponsible" to suddenly cut war funding? Maybe. But
war funding WON'T get cut, because 41 Democrats will GET WHAT
THEY DEMAND in exchange for it.*

I think the greatest mistake of Democrats in general, and Barack
Obama in particular, is the way they fell "hook, line and sinker" for
Bush's TARP bank bailout plan.*

They say that if they didn't act quickly, we would have another Great
Depression. This is ridiculous. If they didn't act quickly, here's what
would have happened: Republicans would have to support it, instead
of opposing it. A lot of crooked corporations would go out of business.
The American people would have a chance to smell the stench of
Republican economics. The election results would be the same.
Barack Obama would inherit an unemployment rate of 20 percent,
which would by now be down to 10 percent. Barack Obama and the
Democrats would take control of economic policy, and be seen as
having saved the economy. There would be no "Tea Party" movement
today.*

They say, "Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good." But I say,
"Don't make perfect RESPONSIBILITY the enemy of good
STRATEGY."*

Eric Haubert

December 18, 2009

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Eric Haubert

END THE FILIBUSTER, BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY

I made a comment on December 18th, saying that Democrats should
block military spending to force Republicans to accept health care. I
was not aware that at the very moment I was writing this comment, the
exact opposite was happening. Republicans were blocking military
spending as part of their obstructionist agenda. Since I only watch
about 4 or 5 hours of news a day, I had no way of knowing about this
upcoming vote, or the political atmosphere surrounding it. So, MSNBC
has made me look like a fool, by not keeping me fully informed.*

Nevertheless, the main point is valid. The problem here is NOT Joe
Lieberman or Ben Nelson, or Barack Obama’s leadership style, or
Howard Dean’s choice of words. The problem here is the FILIBUSTER.
The filibuster must be ended, now and forever, by any means
necessary.*

Suppose that a health care bill is passed. We still have the filibuster in
place, to obstruct all government business for the foreseeable future.
If Republicans were to get the majority AND the White House, I would
recommend that Democrats do everything in their power to obstruct
the Republican agenda, just as the Republicans are doing today. I
would also recommend that the Republicans break the filibuster, by
invoking the "Constitutional option," as they have threatened to do
previously.*

Howard Dean has said that Democrats need to be "tough, without
being mean." This is ridiculous. It just isn't possible to be "tough"
without being "mean," or "reckless," or some other thing that can be
called "bad." So then what Democrats have to do is to be "badder"
than the Republicans. Barack Obama has to show that he is "stronger
that Michael Steele."*

Here is what should happen. Get at least 51 senators together, and
call them the "Gang of 51." Have them meet with the President, along
with the House leadership. The 51 senators SIGN the House bill, and
then the President signs it. Make it a big news event. Declare officially
that the "filibuster" is un-Constitutional, and we will not recognize it.*

Then it goes to the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court gives you
any trouble, then just revive FDR's "court-packing scheme."*

They will call it a "coup." But it is simply "majority rule," and it is totally
within the framework of the Constitution.*

Democrats will say, "we'll need the filibuster ourselves, when we are
again the minority party." This is short-sighted. If we would simply let
Democrats be Democrats and let Republicans be Republicans, the
Democrats will be in charge more often than not.*

Who is "on the wrong side of history," and who is on the "right" side?
The so-called "right" is WRONG, and the so-called "left" is RIGHT. If
you don't believe that, then you have no business holding the office in
the first place.*

After what I have seen this past year, IF Republicans should return to
the kind of power they had, I would urge THEM to break the filibuster,
as I am now urging Democrats to do. I believe that Republicans ARE
tough enough to follow my advice, and they WILL do it. And then
when Democrats are again in charge after that, we will FINALLY get
"change we can believe in."*

Eric Haubert

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr


December 20, 2009·

Eric Haubert
correcting typo:

Barack Obama has to show that he is "stronger than Michael Steele."*

Eric Haubert
December 20, 2009

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

If POTUS this week talked you out of using the Vietnam analogy for
AfPak, how 'bout this one instead?
http://is.gd/5cqdtShare
Friday, December 4, 2009

Eric Haubert

On December 7, 1941, America was attacked. We had a Democrat in
the White House. On September 11, 2001, America was attacked
again, but this time we had a Republican in the White House. I don’t
see this as a question of WHETHER we will have a war or not, but a
question of WHO will be in charge of it. If there has to be a war, I want
Democrats to be in charge. I support Barack Obama, and I support his
plan for Afghanistan. I don’t want to see another Carter, followed by
another Reagan-Bush-Cheney.*

Congressman Eric Massa told Ed Schultz about "Americans who have
seen this movie before, and we know how it is going to end." Yes,
exactly. It ends with a revitalized neo-conservative movement, which
runs our foreign policy for three decades.*

Bill Clinton avoided the weakness of Jimmy Carter, but Clinton made
other mistakes, (of a personal nature). The Hillary Clinton foreign
policy seems no different from the Bill Clinton foreign policy. The
Obama-Gates policy fits in perfectly with what we would have gotten
under the Clintons. (Remember that FDR had Stimson and Knox, as I
learned from an Irving Berlin song).*

Remember also that if Al Gore had been elected, we would still have
had a war in Afghanistan. Because of the Iraq diversion, the AfPak war
was simply "put on hold" for several years.*

Eric Haubert

December 6, 2009

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Eric Haubert

We keep hearing the mantra that "Afghanistan has never been
conquered." There is a wikipedia article debunking this claim, called:*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_conquest_of_Afghanistan

Afghanistan was conquered TWICE. First by the original Islamic
conquest, and second by the cult of Bin Laden.*

Let us try to keep in mind that the "Sharia law in Arabic" is NOT native
to Afghanistan. Let us also try to keep in mind that our "conquest," if
any, would be about promoting American VALUES. We are NOT
annexing a territory to an empire.*

Either you believe in American values or you don't. We are not
"arrogantly" telling people in another country what to do. We are
valiantly trying to free them from an oppressive FOREIGN ideology,
which has already destroyed their native culture.*

Eric Haubert

December 6, 2009

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

WaPo wins best correction of 2009?
http://is.gd/5cBsF Hat tip @Deadspin: http://is.gd/5cBusShare
Friday, December 4, 2009

Eric Haubert

I always assumed that the terrorists specifically chose this date,
because it gave them a good code name to hide their intentions while
they were planning it. They could send messages to each other about
preparations for a "911 emergency," and no one who wasn't in the
conspiracy would guess they were planning a terrorist attack.*

Actually, I heard the song in 1995 from a cover version by Duran
Duran.*

Regarding the grammatical error: Yes, I noticed it too, and it also
makes me cringe. I have noticed that this type of error tends to come
from the sort of people who have a very high education level. It is an
affectation that we might call "too clever by half." The way I was taught
the rule is that the sentence should sound the same if the other
person is left out. "I say this. You and I say this. This is how it sounds
to me. This is how it sounds to you and me."*

Eric Haubert

December 6, 2009

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Last night's highlight:
Rachel Maddow addresses the White House fight with Fox News
(and is joined by colleague Keith Olbermann)

October 23, 2009

Eric Haubert

Comedy Central produces an hour of news analysis, 4 days per week.
Jon Stewart and his news correspondents, along with the great
Stephen Colbert, provide insightful commentary which everyone
acknowledges. But they don't get the full respect they deserve. Fox
News is the "Faux" news on the "right," and Comedy Central is the
"Faux" news on the "left." Only a small-minded person would rate Fox
News as deserving of top news honors, while excluding Comedy
Central. Both "Faux" news formats rely on a false and misleading
approach to their reporting, and one balances out the other.*

Eric Haubert

October 24, 2009

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Eric Haubert

In a recent report it was said that there is "no high tech way" of
detecting enemy fighters, or verifying their identity before striking. This
sounds a bit naïve. Whether we are talking about a firefight in the hills
or a drone strike across the border, cameras would be helpful in
finding out who is where. I would take something like a toy model
airplane, and mount a camera and microphone in it. Then send
swarms of possibly hundreds of these devices into a suspect area to
be our eyes and ears. How hard can this be?*

Some people are comparing General McChrystal to General
MacArthur. This is absurd. MacArthur attempted to start World War
Three with China, and he wanted to use the full arsenal of "atomic"
weapons to defeat China and Russia in the 1950s. No American
President seriously wanted to start a nuclear World War Three, but
General MacArthur DID want that.*

I don't understand why a decision has to be made immediately
regarding the troop levels in Afghanistan. Doesn't everybody know that
Bush and Cheney sent the bulk of our AfPak force into Iraq? The war
in Afghanistan has not seriously even BEGUN until the Iraq force is
made available to fight it.*

Eric Haubert

October 24, 2009

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Other comments to be posted later.

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Eric Haubert

I was having a problem posting comments, but I guess that problem has been
fixed after I complained about it.

July 22, 2009 at 2:51am

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Eric Haubert

I can't leave any comments, because I don't have a cell phone.

July 17, 2009 at 3:32am

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Eric Haubert To Keith Olbermann,

July 9, 2009,
---
Regarding the "6000 year" history of the world,*

Since we have a differentiation of races, there must have been some kind of
evolutionary adaptation. But this differentiation could only have occurred between
the time of Noah and the time that statues were created showing different racial
features. How much time does that leave? The only known way to change racial
characteristics in later generations is through cross-breeding between known
races. White settlers to Africa have not turned black, and white settlers to America
have not become "Indians," merely by occupying the land in a certain region of
the world. So how can the differentiation of races be explained? Even if "God did
it" in some supernatural way, there would be no reason for doing it. And no place
in the Bible does it say that God "created" different racial characteristics.*

Eric Haubert

July 9, 2009 at 2:00am

Eric Haubert To Keith Olbermann,

July 9, 2009,

Again Regarding "6000 year" history of the world,*

Presumably, the dinosaurs were destroyed in Noah's great flood. No reason is
given why they should have been created in the first place, and they are not
mentioned in Genesis. The claim that "This Earth has been here for 6000 years" .
. . "and somehow it hasn't been done away with," seems to ignore the Biblical
catastrophe of Noah's flood.*

The bottom line is that even the "true believers" don't REALLY believe the BS
they are spreading.*

(FACEBOOK will not allow me to comment on the Keith Olbermann page,
because I don't have a mobile phone.)*

Eric Haubert
July 9, 2009 at 2:03am


http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=12768&id=1728740833#!/notes/the-rach
el-maddow-show/maddow-have-caught-all-fish-in-sea-sorry-ready-to-think-
politics-
again-soon-http/122696976037

NOTES: The mobile phone issue was a strange problem, but I guess it was
settled.

Many of these articles seem to have the EARLY comments cut. Fortunately for
me, my comments tend to come LATER. Since my comments are near the end,
they are saved on the Facebook page.*


rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Eric Haubert

The reason why they support this Mousavi, or "Ke-mo_sah-bee," is because he is
the only candidate they were even allowed to vote for, who had any chance of
winning. The Ayatollah chooses who can be on the ballot. So, by definition,
anyone who is not the Ayatollah's FIRST CHOICE is a "radical reformer."*

The Ayatollah's reference to David Koresh was certainly odd. Of course, the name
"Koresh" is a reference to "Cyrus of Persia," so the Ayatollah might identify with
this. Otherwise, his message is that "all U.S. presidents are the same."*

When the Berlin Wall was in the process of falling, H.W. Bush also tried to avoid
saying too much about it. In any case, it was the inspiration provided by Barack
Obama that made the Iranians believe in the possibility of changing their system.*

Eric Haubert

June 22, 2009 at 6:07am

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=12768&id=1728740833#!/posted.php?id
=25987609066&share_id=92613263537&comments=1#s92613263537

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr


Off topic, but not really - -
Sotomayor's controversial comment,
and "thinking like a woman" - -

In the Maxwell Anderson stage play "Elizabeth the Queen," the writer has Lord
Essex challenging Elizabeth by saying, "you fail" . . . "because you cannot act
and think like a man." Then Elizabeth responds, "Why should I think like a man
when a woman's thinking's wiser?"*

The point is that she was criticized for not being smart enough to be in an
important position, BECAUSE she is a woman. Her response was to say that she
could be not only "as good as a man," but "BETTER THAN a man." This is not
about race. It's about gender.*

Ben Franklin wrote that: "The very Tails of the American Sheep are so laden with
Wool, that each has a Car or Waggon on four little Wheels to support and keep it
from trailing on the Ground." In other words, this is an EXAGGERATION, meant
to COUNTER an ad-hominem type argument.*

Eric Haubert

June 9, 2009 at 5:15am

Eric Haubert

Closer to the topic - -

Barbara Eden of "I Dream of Jeannie" has told the story of how she was forced by
her doctor to carry a dead baby inside her for several weeks. Google - - Barbara
Eden stillborn - -. Someone in an interview said that this abortion doctor handled
cases of stillbirth, which would not have been taken care of properly by other
doctors.*

Eric Haubert


http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=12768&id=1728740833#!/notes/the-rach
el-maddow-show/maddow-words-under-portrait-of-dr-
tiller-at-his-funeral-trust-wom
en-httptrimne5s/111955051037