Disqus - Latest Comments for babyfatt

Re: They always sacrifice the bottom-dwellers

babyfatt — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:20:13 -0000

I've spent more time in church than most who profess themselves to be believers. Even planned to enter the ministry at one point--why I've even read the bible (in English and Latin). Also been on the receiving end of "christian values" (ever been 'fag-bashed' by a bunch of christians? I have). I know better than most that what most religionists refer to as "values" are code words for exclusion, divisiveness, elitism, and hate.

It is those who profess faith in the supernatural who have the burden of proof; not those of us in the reality-based community.

Re: They always sacrifice the bottom-dwellers

babyfatt — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:49:02 -0000

When times are good we cut taxes (i.e., give money) to the rich; when times are bad we cut services to the poor. This is what conservatives call "Judeo-Christian values". If, as the religionists insist, there is a heaven, then we should all be very, very afraid (especially the religious).

Re: More medical marijuana non-profits are imminent for New Mexico

babyfatt — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 21:16:59 -0000

Time to end all this idiocy and allow marijuana to be grown locally and sold locally to anyone who needs it for whatever reason. Where are the right-wing big gu'vment hating libertarians when we need them? Time to stand up to the feds and let them know that in New Mexico they need to keep their old tired marijuana laws off our bodies.

Re: Shame is dead

babyfatt — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 19:55:20 -0000

Shamelessness knows no party. The recent mayoral election in Albuquerque showed, however, how to make entrenched political interests--of whatever persuasion--accountable: public financing of political campaigns. Level the money field, and suddenly citizens get to vote whomever they want into office. Public financing of political campaigns has been to date an issue of the left (the right hates any mention of any phenomenon that includes the word 'public'). But one wonders in a predominately Democratic state if the wing nuts might begin to rethink their position given that the only recent victory for the Party of No was a direct result of public campaign financing.

Politicians have no shame (that's their nature). Public campaign financing might teach them a bit of humility, and that would be a very good thing.

Re: Albuquerque: You Have a New Mayor

babyfatt — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 20:54:43 -0000

Trip has it wrong once again: the big story is the victory of public financing for campaigns. This campaign showed that with public financing even an entrenched local political machine like the Chavez coalition of developers and cronies can be driven from office. Although I'm far from a Party of No (i.e., 'Republican') kind of person, one can only hope that Berry allows not a single one of Chavez' political hangers-on to remain at city hall. Berry's going to need an awfully big shovel to muck out city hall after lo these many years of Chavez arrogance-corruption.

Re: What Sarah Palin and the Albuquerque Journal have in common

babyfatt — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 20:21:01 -0000

Bravo AA! See my reply to Mr. Olson below for why apologists for the Journal are so off-base. Newspapers are dying, and mostly for self-inflicted reasons (best account as to why I've read recently is by Bill Wyman: http://www.splicetoday.com/politics-and-media/f...). As far as the Journal is concerned, so be it. While there are aspects of a daily paper that can be valuable to a community--and while one feels for what will happen to the writers and workers who had not say in managerial decisions--the Journal by and large has abrogated its responsibility by choosing instead to become the house organ of the Republican party and the Chamber of Commerce.

Re: What Sarah Palin and the Albuquerque Journal have in common

babyfatt — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 20:10:58 -0000

You could not be more wrong, Olson. The Journal spins every political story to softball the Republican party line and hardball the Democrats. Look at the recent Rove/Wilson coverage, in which the Journal trumpeted the possibility of an FBI investigation into Patsy Madrid (you know, where there's smoke....) while giving little credence at all to the possibility that Wilson (who's been propped up and supported at every step in her checkered political career) is facing the possibility of indictment for obstruction of justice in the attorney firings scandal (the alleged investigation into Madrid has never been officially confirmed, but the investigation by a Special Prosecutor into the attorney firings is ongoing)l. How is an objective observer to interpret this? If it were up to the Journal New Mexican would know little of the inside skinny of the Rove-Wilson-Domenici group sellout of the DOJ of petty partisan politics.

I will never buy another copy of the Journal. What tore it for me was when in 2008--the most important election of our time--the Journal endorsed John McCain and Darren White! Here's a little thought experiment for the right wing crew that publishes and edits the Journal: what if McCain/Palin controlled the executive branch, and McConnel/Boehner the legislative branch (along with Roberts controlling the judiciary)--do you think we would be better off? Think the recession would be losing steam? Like hell!

Newspapers have never been about reporting the news--they have always been an advertising medium for which the news accounted for a small portion of the overall product. Now you've lost the advertisers to the internet, where it's much easier to reach customers. The amount of news in the Journal shrinks daily, and more and more you are relying on pundits and readers to fill your copy (the page one opinion columnists, the page after page of letters to the editors). In other words, you are now little more than a printed out copy of a blog: obsolete before a copy hits the first subscriber's driveway with a thud.

There may have been a time when the Journal could have salvaged its reputation and its relevance. That time is past. Good riddance.

Re: Iglesias, Wilson disagree over whether FBI probe happened

babyfatt — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 19:47:48 -0000

Yet more evidence of the Wilson-Domenici axis of corruption. Good thing for Josh Marhall and TPM because we sure wouldn't have heard anything about had the Journal been left to its own devices. Notice how the Journal today played up the angle of the possible FBI investigation into Madrid, and played down the role Wilson-Domenici played in getting a US attorney fired for petty partisan political reasons (corruption exemplified). We all know that had there ever been one iota of a problem with Madrid's ethics it would have been splashed all over the front page of the Journal, all the while Wilson would have continued to have been lauded, and Domenici lionized.

By the way, I didn't buy the Journal--I never, ever buy the Journal (it only encourages them). I fished it out of the trash, and otherwise would have gone without. I understand why some bemoan the fate of news dailies like the Journal (i.e., purveyors of yesterday's news) but this incident shows why the Journal should not be mourned when it passes, inevitably, from the scene: a massive local corruption scandal with national implications and our best source of information is a blog from NYC.

Go ahead Heather, and run for governor. Let's give your ethical challenges a full airing.

Re: Reading between the lines

babyfatt — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 21:46:51 -0000

TJ (below) wants to know about the media's treatment of the president. Well, TJ, the media consistently point out everything negative about the president, and rarely talks about all that he has done which is right and good. How much have you read lately about the so-called "birther" issue? Every media outlet has given time and credence to the racist idiots who want to make like the president is somehow illegitimate because he is not a rich white frat boy like Incurious George who came before him. This is another illustration of the media's class and race bias--Democrats (Clinton, Obama) are illegitimate presidents; incompetent rich white frat boys are lovable patriots, even if they stole their way into office.

The Albuquerque Journal is a purveyor of yesterday's news. Occasionally it will invest some time and money into investigative journalism, but only if the target is a Democrat--R's like Heather Wilson and old Pete Domenici get the softball treatment, despite the evidence of their ongoing corruption.

More and more, however, there is no journalism at all contained in the Journal, just opinion pieces (e.g. its front page columnists, its multiple pages of letters to the editor); therefore, the Journal has opted out of journalism and these days is mostly just a printed copy of blogs.

Never, ever pay for a copy of the Albuquerque Journal. Luckily for the people of Albuquerque, fewer and fewer people are.

Re: For N.M. GOP, all eyes are on Heather Wilson

babyfatt — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 19:44:53 -0000

The R's will try to run on a negative platform--attacking the ethics of Denish via her association with Richardson. Problem is Heather has ethical challenges of her own, and one wonders just how willing she is at this point in her life to shine a bright light into the dark recesses of her own personal and political life (and have no doubt if you're going to win as a wingnut both your political and personal life had better be beyond reproach--see Sanford, Mark; Gingrich, Newt; Ensign, John; Limbaugh, Rush; etc., etc.,).

Heather's greatest gift as a politician (and have no doubt that's what she is) has always been her ability to affect a faux sincerity--she's able to make people think she cares by shedding the occasional croc tear (remember how she teared up on the floor of the House of Reps when painfully--more in sorrow than in anger--discussing Bill Clinton's sexual transgressions, all the while consorting with Gingrich--who was cheating on his wife at the time--Craig, Vitter, et al.) and making like she's the patriot-matriarch par excellence--all the while marching in lockstep to the wingnut cause.

Heather is the anti-feminist feminist: she got where she is today through feminism and affirmative action, and yet has worked since to pull the ladder up behind her. Heather wants to live her life according to the dictates of her own heart and intellect, but wants to deny the same right to everyone else.

The problem for the rest of us is that unctuousness sells, and Heather can sell it by the bushel basket. That's bad for working people. That's bad for America.

It's sad that someone who could be an effective politician works so diligently against the interests of working people. Heather sold out to the radical right long ago. As governor she would cut services (want that highway or bridge repaired? so sorry; how about that portable classroom your children attend classes in? We'd love to build a nice little school for your rugrats, but so sorry, the wealthy need taxes cut and we need more prisons to house everyone else--maybe your kids could go to school there!). New Mexico needs just the opposite of everything Heather Wilson has to offer.

Heather Wilson: she worked against us at the federal level, imagine what she would do in charge of state government. The horror, the horror.

Re: Head of ABQ blue collar union won’t certify endorsement vote

babyfatt — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 19:46:04 -0000

I was in a union, and unions are true democracies: every member gets a vote, and if you don't like what the leadership is doing you get a bunch of your buddies to show up on election day and vote yourselves into power (then you really do own all the problems). I think the decision to endorse Chavez was smart politically, but can understand why many brothers and sisters do not agree because Mayor Marty often went out of his way to be ugly to city workers, especially blue-collar city workers.

It's interesting to me how the right wing love to refer to progressives as if we were some monolithic, well organized, top-down bunch of brown-shirted thugs. Anyone who thinks this has never been to a meeting of progressives--when I was in a union we considered a good Local meeting to be any meeting in which there wasn't a fistfight.

Progressives do not think alike, and seldom agree. What unites us is a general consensus to a few, over-arching principles: that government is and should be an effective means of making life better for working people; that society should be governed from the bottom up, and not the top down; that the wealthy and powerful should contribute their fair share to the system that allowed them to attain wealth and power; that we should preserve and conserve (great word, in the right context) our natural environment for the benefit of generations to follow; that people should be free to associate with and even marry whomever their heart directs--stuff like that.

With regard to our current politics, one will find few more critical of Obama and the Democratic leadership in congress than progressives, which belies the whole concept of progressives as conformist "thugs" awaiting direction from Washington. Interesting thought experiment though: think things are bad now? Imagine if McCain-Palin-Boehner were running our government.

Yikes!

Re: ValueOptions cut services to kids after losing contract, lawsuit alleges

babyfatt — Fri, 29 May 2009 22:19:04 -0000

This is a scandal that reaches back into the Gary Johnson administration. The decision was made to give over Medicaid dollars to a "managed care" system of care rationing, with the "managing" to be done by private companies. All the data collected since show that managed care companies spend an inordinate amount of money on administrative and overhead costs--it takes a lot of overhead to deny care to people who need it. The result was fewer dollars spent on treatment for patients who needed it, and more cash for the company who managed the system (not to mention the politicos who supported that company).

This is why only government can efficiently manage our healthcare system. Only government can maximize care while minimizing costs. Let's break away from the old tired paradigm that only the market can allocate resources efficiently. ValueOptions proves exactly the opposite.

Meanwhile, ValueOptions, and its relationship to HSD and our state's political leaders, is a scandal awaiting investigation. Where's a federal grand jury when you need one? Oh wait, there's one already investigating all manner of state shenanigans--hello, HSD!

Re: Who speaks for justice?

babyfatt — Fri, 29 May 2009 20:17:05 -0000

When the media assert (as they have done nonstop recently) that we are a "center-right" nation, what they really mean is that they are a center-right media. They mistake what they see in the mirror for "the people."

The radical right wing has been enormously successful in "gaming the refs" (Eric Alterman's term) for the last thirty years, and forcing the media to spin right in order to correct for their own alleged liberal bias. They have allowed themselves to be put on the defensive by the radical right wing of the Republican party, for which cowardice I personally can never forgive them.

Today, the media is fundamentally right wing, even alleged centrists like Broder or liberals like Dionne. Issues are always framed in Reaganesque terms, thus government is by its very nature clumsy and ineffective, while the market is always fundamentally efficient (except when corrupted by a few 'bad apples'); regulation always hampers creativity; deficits are always bad; Social Security is forever in crisis; and other nations respect us only when they fear us.

This right wing frame for every issue is the secret--the Rosetta Stone of our idiocracy--to deciphering everything from Albuquerque Journal headlines to Associated Press "analyses", and 95% of what the punditocracy writes. It is also one of the reasons why the newspaper and magazine industry is dying: it is suffering the death of its own credibility.

The radical right wing of American politics has been shattered by reality. From Iraq, to Katrina, to Wall Street, the philosophy that has guided government and media for the last 30 years has been proven conclusively to be a lie and a sham (and ineffective to boot). That the media have yet to apprehend this reality is the most damning fact of all.

Re: Seeking answers on finders fee windfalls

babyfatt — Wed, 13 May 2009 20:58:02 -0000

I seldom agree with John Arthur Smith--though I am always (if reluctantly) grateful for the countervailing influence he provides with regard to state finances--but in this instance he's exactly correct. One hopes that our legislators will use the opportunity provided by the Bush recession (not to mention the Richardson scandals) to shine some light on how state investment funds are managed. The real problem is that in some ways New Mexicans have grown so inured to corruption from both parties and at all levels of our politics (from Domenici to Richardson, Wilson to Aragon) that corruption has lost its shock value. To paraphrase Simon and Garfunkle: God bless you please John Arthur Smith, our state turns its lonely eyes to you...coo coo choo.

Re: Correra made $3M more in deals with Education Investment Bd

babyfatt — Fri, 08 May 2009 20:31:13 -0000

By the way, speaking of corruption at the highest levels, have you seen the video of Bill Richardson doing the "stank leg"?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vO2YYxL8J7M&feat...

Re: Louis Caldera resigns

babyfatt — Fri, 08 May 2009 19:27:13 -0000

No, his failure as president at UNM was that he failed at the number one job of all university presidents: he demonstrated an utter inability to bring in money by the barrel full. He was lousy at all the political aspects of the job, but that failure would have been easily forgiven had he been able to grow the endowment significantly. His problem is not that he is a bureaucrat, it is that he is not a skilled bureaucrat. So of course he comes back to the elephant graveyard of politics: New Mexico. He and Richardson can hang out at the Rio Chama together talking about what they coulda/shoulda/woulda done back in DC, while watching the real players on basic cable. Oh, the humanity....

Re: Louis Caldera resigns

babyfatt — Fri, 08 May 2009 19:22:26 -0000

Great, now he's gonna come back here to screw something else up.

Re: Obama proposes end to abstinence-only sex ed

babyfatt — Fri, 08 May 2009 16:05:42 -0000

The religious fundamentalists who argue for these abstinence only sex ed programs desperately hope that somehow moral philosophy can overcome teenage hormones. The data so far suggest this not to be the case (hello Bristol Palin).

Re: I want punditry that challenges my bias

babyfatt — Fri, 08 May 2009 15:59:26 -0000

I agree that we need a full spectrum of thoughtful political debate. The problem with the right wing, however, is not that it lacks skillful, literate advocates for its positions; rather, the problem is the inherent contradiction, the cancerous flaw at the heart of modern conservatism: the tension between libertarianism (the belief that government governs best when it governs least) and authoritarian interventionism (the belief that 'judeo-christian' values should be imposed militarily throughout the world and socially--think doctors' offices, bedrooms, and schools--throughout America). Until conservatives come to grips with these contradictory impulses, ain't no amount of fancy writin' gonna do 'em any good.

Of the two tendencies--libertarianism versus authoritarianism--the most attractive for progressives (listen carefully Republicans who want to expand your tent) is libertarianism. Although progressives believe in effective, activist government, we've learned the hard way (three decades of Reaganism will do this to you) to be wary of institutional authority, which can work just as easily for ill as for good. Libertarianism thus becomes attractive to those of us who have experienced institutional oppression firsthand (for instance, the USA has the highest rate of imprisonment per capita in all the world, many for drug crimes; also, those who advocate for marriage equality for gays are labeled 'extremists', as I have been in the NMI by Trip J.).

As for authoritarianism this argument has already been lost to demographics. Its basis in 'judeo-christian' values (code words for racism, homophobia, and intolerance of 'the other') is in the process of being overwhelmed by a new, multicultural, multiracial, tolerant world (ask a group of twenty-somethings what they think of gay marriage--most couldn't care less either way: battle lost for the fundamentalists).

If the Republican party wanted to emerge as something more than a regional (southern), mostly white party of (aging) christian fundamentalists, it would become more actively libertarian and argue against institutional authority per se (think Gary Johnson). This is unlikely to happen though, because the right wing seems firmly in thrall its most small-minded, mean-spirited elements (Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh).

Meanwhile, I don't have a lot of sympathy for the current, ongoing frustration felt by right-wingers. They've held sway for three decades, and America is the worse for it. It's refreshing to watch our current president (with whom I disagree on many subjects) because it's refreshing to see such an effective spokesman for what the Bushies referred to condescendingly as the "reality-based community."

We have Barack; they have Rush. Cool.

Re: In America (and New Mexico) we are free to criticize our government

babyfatt — Sat, 02 May 2009 12:28:05 -0000

Churches do involve themselves actively--and negatively--in politics, most recently in their extremist opposition to gay civil unions. They too should be taxed and forced to reveal their donors. Good for the goose, good for the gander.

Re: Richardson bans finders’ fees for state investments

babyfatt — Fri, 01 May 2009 19:50:21 -0000

Richardson's action is too little too late. The investment funds managed by the state--including the pension funds of teachers and state employees--have been used as tools for rewarding the politically-connected. The end result has been that the state has lost millions (billions) and the financial portfolio of the state and the financial security of thousands of teachers and state employees is in peril.

Richardson and his cronies don't have to worry about finances--they are wealthy and will always be wealthy. There has to be a way of removing politics from the investment of state-controlled funds. Too bad we do not appear to have any politician in New Mexico both forward-thinking and selfless enough to take this task on. Meanwhile, the public should make maximum noise about this latest travesty.

Re: Specter’s defection from GOP may not lead to drastic change

babyfatt — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 21:21:00 -0000

Specter's defection will not make much difference, but it is another step in the winnowing away of the Republicon party into a niche party. It's also reflective of the totally opposite philosophies of party building manifested by each party: the Democrats, for all the criticism that they are a party of special interests, blah blah blah, are actually a big tent party that works hard to be inclusive (Baby Fatt's a left wing anarchist, but was once represented by Charles Stenholm, and although there are fundamental differences between us, there's room for both conservatives and liberals--in NM John Arthur Smith is an example--in the Democratic party and I would vote for Stenholm--or Smith--today against any Republicon). The challenge for the Dems is to remain inclusive.

The Republicons, by contrast, have decided on a good old fashioned party purge (the Leninists against the Mensheviks). Their tent continues to shrink, and if they don't decide to become more inclusive they are on their way to becoming the 21st century version of the Whigs.

The Republicons made a series of Machiavellian moves in the 70's that served them well for 30 years, but which are now biting them in the ass: they embraced the "Southern strategy" (i.e., an appeal to the racism of southern whites through code words like 'law and order' and 'patriotism'); and they allied themselves with the intolerance and small-mindedness of religious fundamentalists (to whom the concept 'judge not lest ye be judged' is as foreign as April in Paris).

The Republicons dominated politics for 30 years, from Reagan through Bush II, but what finally did them in is simple demographics. Young people have no knowledge of the cold war, are culturally multi-racial, want government to help make things better, and are unmoved by the politics of resentment. As ye sow....

What's really interesting is how the media (including several of the writers of NMI) totally missed out on what was happening around them. The media bought into the Reagan world-view long ago, and even today frames the debate in an effectively right-wing manner (witness all the recent hand-wringing about budget deficits, when they stood by silently when Dick Cheney said 'deficits don't matter'). The media tut-tuts the progressive agenda, like a bunch of school marms decrying the times; meanwhile, the paradigm shifted under their feet. As ye sow....

Re: Domestic partnerships spark debate within Catholic Church

babyfatt — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 20:14:10 -0000

The Church should either keep its nose out of politics, or reveal its donors and follow all other procedures recently passed that apply to non-profit "advocacy" groups. One of these days our nation really will have separation of church and state (for a change).

By the way: the irony of lectures regarding sexuality from priests.

Re: Path of the border wall cuts off land grant heir’s property

babyfatt — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 23:15:03 -0000

Where are those teabaggers when you need them? They love liberty and justice, except when it comes to, you know, those brown people who live a couple of miles away from us. Need a bigger wall for those people (and more soldiers, and more police, and god we hate that big guv'ment, but boy it better give us more police and have we mentioned a bigger wall?).

Teabagging fun, 'specially when done to those brown people.

Re: ‘Tea parties’ come to New Mexico this week

babyfatt — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 23:09:10 -0000

Heath, your "reporting" is so biased that either the refs have worked you (so to speak--Eric Alterman's concept) or you've been a wing nut from the get go (in which case you should just come out of the closet--don't worry, you'll enjoy the light).