READER COMMENTS ON

"U.S. Postal Service Victimized by GOP Privatization Scheme"

(54 Responses so far...)





COMMENT #1 [Permalink]

... Davey Crocket said on 2/8/2013 @ 12:57 pm PT...





Wow, you scooped this story for sure...and got it right. I will go on record here at the Bradblog that ultra right-wing Davey hates the post office. Davey breeds dogs and trains them to chase postmen (oops...postpersons). It took years to develop this breed...I call them postmenaniens. They are small but they sure can bark...and scare the hell out of the postman (dangit...postperson).

COMMENT #2 [Permalink]

... Davey Crocket said on 2/8/2013 @ 2:38 pm PT...





Brad, I realize you are having a migraine over the us post office thing and I understand that...I really do. Is that why you are silent about Dorner? This guy is in your own backyard. I read his manifesto this morning...it is quite interesting. He listed a boatload of people he loved and respected--almost all of them left-wing (well, his second favorite president behind Obama is GHW Bush) types. He also is PRO GUN CONTROL which is right up your alley. He also hates LaPierre which, again, puts him square in the camp of BradBloggians. I just dont understand it. He is black, loves liberals, hates conservatives, hates Christians, hates the NRA, is PRO GUN CONTROL. THIS IS STORY IS A GODSEND FOR THE BRADBLOG but you are not covering it. I understand though, I really do. Those damn rethuglicans f^king with the us post office...that is the real story of the day. Yup...sure is.

COMMENT #3 [Permalink]

... Diana Dem said on 2/8/2013 @ 3:09 pm PT...





Randi Rhodes was just talking about this as you posted this on FB. "Pre-fund 75 years worth of pensions..." We live in two worlds: Too big to jail/fail and set up to fail. The post office is the latter.

COMMENT #4 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 2/8/2013 @ 3:17 pm PT...





Davey Crocket @ 2 said: I just dont understand it. He is black, loves liberals, hates conservatives, hates Christians, hates the NRA, is PRO GUN CONTROL. THIS IS STORY IS A GODSEND FOR THE BRADBLOG but you are not covering it. Wow. Seems not only can you not get enough of being wrong, but you feel it necessary to be both wrong and delusional and obnoxious. Well done! Most remarkable, is that you actually seem to be proud of your wrong and delusional and obnoxious positions. Yup, I guess I'd cower behind a pseudonym in that case too!

COMMENT #5 [Permalink]

... FayPax said on 2/9/2013 @ 1:34 am PT...





The hijacking of the post office evidences how far the Republicans will go to privatize everything...which is nothing but a way to convert taxpayer monies to corporations. All I can say is thanks for writing the story.

COMMENT #6 [Permalink]

... Irwin Mainway said on 2/9/2013 @ 7:28 am PT...





NO budget was passed at all in Dec. 2010 and on the Federal government is limping along on extensions. The Postmaster General is claiming the authority to act since Congress has not passed a budget regulating the USPS in years. What would it be worth to private companies to be able to charge $4 to mail a letter across the country, $1 locally and reset wages to $10- $14/hour max with all seniority gone? Enough to buy an office building filled with lobbyists.

COMMENT #7 [Permalink]

... Irwin Mainway said on 2/9/2013 @ 7:49 am PT...





More from 'The Shock Doctrine': Privatized WAR for profit in Iraq. Vietnam was war for profit with the carnage of draftees an annoying hindrance. She didn't go into 'what if's'.

What IF the 4th plane had slammed into the U.S. Capitol at 500 mph on live international television courtesy of CNN and Fox?

Hundreds would have been killed, the building would have been destroyed, the business of the House and Senate and possibly the Supreme Court unfortunately would have to be temporarily suspended. There is your SHOCK and your Doctrine via the Commander in Chief Dick Cheney.

COMMENT #8 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 2/9/2013 @ 8:06 am PT...





Davey Crocket(whoever you are), I don't know that you care in the slightest but just thought I'd let you know that when you write obnoxious, weird, baiting comments like 1 & 2 above, you just come off sounding like an ass. I realize this is sort of a sport with you, so maybe according to the game your playing you're scoring high, but to those of us not in your little self-indulgent, self-appreciation nest the impression you give is one of foolishness and meanness of spirit. If that's your goal, you're doing great. But there's very little in there to take seriously.

COMMENT #9 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 2/9/2013 @ 9:28 am PT...





Re Davey Crocket @2: The topic at hand is privatization. Too bad you had nothing intelligible to add. FYI: I've drafted an article pertaining to the teachable moment that arises from the response to Chris Dorner's murderous rampage. I doubt that you or any of your NRA friends will be pleased. Sometimes truth can be a bitch for those who don't want to be confronted by it.

COMMENT #10 [Permalink]

... WingnutSteve said on 2/9/2013 @ 10:11 am PT...





Yes, that Orwellian right wing effort to privatize the Post Office. Lead (as a co-sponsor) by those noted Orwellian right wing nuts: Danny Davis (D. IL) and Henry Waxman (D. CA). Passed both the house and senate by a mere voice vote because it was apparently a no-brainer for Orwellian Democrats and Republicans alike. No attempt to filibuster, no extended debate of any type. Put some lipstick on this ridiculous left wing hit piece, there's no "there" there... Have a good day ernie

COMMENT #11 [Permalink]

... Ernest Olsen said on 2/9/2013 @ 10:30 am PT...





Davy Crocket: Is that your real name or are you just a paid for con troll. Please extract your head from that other orifice and try breathing oxygen instead of methane.

COMMENT #12 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 2/9/2013 @ 1:10 pm PT...





You are quite correct, WingnutSteve. The bill, HR 6407, which was introduced by Thomas Davis, III (R-IL) had two corporate Dem co-sponsors, Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Danny Davis (D-IL) along with a Republican co-sponsor, John McHugh (R-NY). It passed the House on a voice vote, so we really don't know who voted for or against it. We do know that it passed at a time when the GOP held the majority in both Houses and that when the Democrats gained control of both Houses in 2008 they failed to so much as offer to repeal it. The title of the act is, indeed, Orwellian. And, unlike you, Steve, I'm prepared to make that assessment irrespective of whether it was strictly the product of the GOP or one that was joined by a couple of guys like Davis and Waxman, who affix a "D" at the end of their names. Unlike those who can never criticize a Republican (e.g., Steve), I've repeatedly criticized Democrats on this site, and elsewhere--witness my recent criticism of Obama on drones, etc. Truth is indeed a bitch for partisans who find it inconvenient. And the truth is, Steve, that this act is designed to destroy what was a perfectly solvent U.S. Postal Service. That truth cannot be evaded by the fact that you can find a "D" at the ends of the names of two of its co-sponsors.

COMMENT #13 [Permalink]

... Chris Hooten said on 2/9/2013 @ 2:44 pm PT...





Irwin, you fucking spammer, go away. That has nothing to do with this thread.

COMMENT #14 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 2/9/2013 @ 4:29 pm PT...





Chris, which one is the pseudonym for Irwin?

COMMENT #15 [Permalink]

... WingnutSteve said on 2/9/2013 @ 5:51 pm PT...





Oh I can be very critical of the GOP Ernie and not for the reasons that a close minded person might think. In fact I disagree with the GOP's stereotypical stance on most social issues. Don't let monikers fool ya. But, back to your piece here. Your headline screams GOP. The sub-headline (not sure what it's called so I'll call it that) refers to some "right wing plan". Then, let's look at the truth. It was a bipartisan effort sponsored by two prominent progressives and passed by a voice vote meaning the outcome was never in doubt and was not even close enough for any democrat to ask for a roll call vote. It sailed through the senate in one day even though it could have easily been held up by procedural rules such as the filibuster. It was bipartisan. Your headline and your reference to "a broader right wing plan" is intellectually dishonest.

COMMENT #16 [Permalink]

... Michael G. said on 2/9/2013 @ 7:06 pm PT...





@Ernest A. Canning "That truth cannot be evaded by the fact that you can find a 'D' at the ends of the names of two of its co-sponsors." I have to agree with Wingnut Steve on this one. The title screams a bias that is unnecessary and inaccurate. As a lifelong active Dem myself, I have become quite disgusted at the inaction against the rightwing nuts. Although there is some rare criticism of Dems on certain blogs, it seems to come from trying to balance the aggressive attacks from the wingnut machine but it is still disingenuous. Maybe there's no winning when a progressive base doesn't as militantly- and blindly- march in lockstep to a bunch of think tank/corporate-derived talking points. Doesn't make it right and doesn't make it credible.

COMMENT #17 [Permalink]

... Doug Baney said on 2/9/2013 @ 7:27 pm PT...





Did any one else notice what the Postmaster General actually said that

the Postal Service is unable to make a scheduled $5.6 billion payment to the U.S. Treasury. One has to ask why if this is to pre-fund their healthcare and retirement costs for the next 75 years, they are giving it to the U.S. Treasury. But why give it to the U.S. Treasury? If done this way the problem becomes, when the money is actually needed for funding the healthcare and retirement costs, the U.S. Treasury must give the money back to the Postal Service, and last I checked they weren't exactly rolling is cash. So to pay the money back to the Postal Service taxes will have to be raised or more debt must be issued by the U.S. Treasury.

COMMENT #18 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 2/9/2013 @ 7:47 pm PT...





Michael G @16 wrote: Although there is some rare criticism of Dems on certain blogs, it seems to come from trying to balance the aggressive attacks from the wingnut machine but it is still disingenuous. I suspect, Michael, that you are unfamiliar with the body of my work. Try reading, e.g.: ObamaCare: Right Diagnosis, Wrong Prescription Obama's Continuing 'Terror War' Policies, Failure to Deal with Torturers Raise Growing Concerns Beyond Afghanistan A Thoughtful Response to Robert Gibbs from the 'Educated Left'... After doing so, please explain to me and to other readers, which, if any of those blistering critiques of the incumbent Democratic administration amounted to a "disingenuous" effort to "balance the aggressive attacks from the wingnut machine." Fact is, those critiques have nothing to do with the charade of fair and balanced. They are critiques that emanate from the left, period! Finally, if you truly believe that the title "screams of bias," I suspect that you are unfamiliar with the core libertarian, right-wing doctrine which calls for privatization and rejects the very concept of res publica. Privatization is a core element of right wing ideology. The fact that there are corporate Democrats who go along with particular instances in which it is applied does not change that.

COMMENT #19 [Permalink]

... Irwin Mainway said on 2/9/2013 @ 8:01 pm PT...





Irwin, you fucking spammer, go away. Blow me than. It is obvious the Capitol was the 4th target with hijackers looking for very large targets with clear flight paths. FACTS - CNN had a live feed at the Capitol.

Fox routinely used a live shot of the Capitol as their backdrop. Have fun digesting the meaning of a series of attacks allowed to happen, by either impeachable incompetence or deliberate, that would have ended with the total destruction of the home of the Senate and House as well as colleral damage.

COMMENT #20 [Permalink]

... WingnutSteve said on 2/9/2013 @ 8:07 pm PT...





I think Ernie misunderstood Michael G's criticism of the blogosphere as a personal attack... Just my $.02

COMMENT #21 [Permalink]

... diane said on 2/10/2013 @ 11:40 am PT...





Like some others, I also can’t help but come to the conclusion that the privatization of the Post Office has become a bipartisan affair, and in that regard, I was also disappointed at the title. As someone implied above, Waxman has never been declared as far as I’ve seen - particularly by ‘mainstream’ California Democratic Party websites - as anything other than a Progressive. Indeed, California is loaded to the gills with Democratic Voter Betrayer, Corrupt Politicians. If it weren’t, perhaps there wouldn’t be so much misery going on in the state for the written off populace; perhaps one wouldn’t find that so many trillions of tax dollars hoarded by Silicon Valley domiciled multinational corporations have been omitted from US coffers while Austerity ™, rampant unemployment and non-liveable wages have been fully prescribed for the populace while deliberately pitting: race against race; gender against gender; age against age, and citizen against non-citizen. Further, especially since both the author and the blog owner reside in California, it’s disturbing that Dianne Feinstein’s husband, Dick Blum’s Comany’s Congressionally? [Certainly Secretly] Gifted Exclusive Role in selling off our Post Offices is hugely disappointing. Perhaps it’s noted elsewhere on this site, but I see no tag for ‘Post Office’ or anything similar, not even on this post (looking under Article Categories), at the least, betrayer Californian, Waxman’s name should be included as a tag there if one is truly interested in going beyond ‘parties’ and sincerely trying to address such a betrayal of the populace. Anyone who is actually deeply disturbed about the issue may want to frequent Save The Post Office and, for one piece regarding Blum, check out this February 6th post there, which also has a tear inducing list of Historic Post Offices across the country which Dick Blum’s CB Richard Ellis, the world’s largest commercial real estate company, has been given the sole contract to auction off: A Bronx Cheer for the Postal Service: The Fire Sale of Historic Post Offices Continues Today, the 10th, the site has a list of radio shows on the subject.

COMMENT #22 [Permalink]

... diane said on 2/10/2013 @ 11:50 am PT...





(sorry for any confusion in that second paragraph, I had ultimately intended to write: is hugely missing from this piece. (not: is hugely disappointing. ))

COMMENT #23 [Permalink]

... Kim Kaufman said on 2/10/2013 @ 6:20 pm PT...





Henry Waxman is still on the bandwagon --- I went to a Town Hall last year and he said publicly that the post office was going broke. I didn't know his history with this issue at the time. I wish someone would primary that old gasbag.

COMMENT #24 [Permalink]

... Michael G. said on 2/10/2013 @ 7:27 pm PT...





@Ernest A. Canning- I am certainly familiar with your excellent and well-researched articles(including this one) and with the Republican Party's drive to privatization. In this instance, however, the title is inaccurate and biased. USPS is equally- if not as blatantly- being victimized by the silence of and the mimicked rightwingnut corporatewhore talking points by the left. Even if there wasn't an opportunity to overturn or stop this wrong, there's been 7 years to make statements about it- 4 years by a Democratic President. Obviously this issue is not a priority- for whatever reason- for the Democrats, but that does not warrant disregarding their fairly equal part in it.

COMMENT #25 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 2/11/2013 @ 1:39 am PT...





Thanks, Michael G for your thoughtful response @24. I think, however, that the use of "inaccurate and biased" is a bit overblown. Most progressives look at the Iraq war as a product of the Bush/Cheney regime. But the fact is that there were a good number of Democrats who went along with it. Likewise, the PAEA is the product of a Republican controlled Congress. Here too, a good number of Democrats went along with it; then failed to do anything about it after they regained control of both Houses in 2008. Certainly those who supported this abomination, like Waxman, should, as Kim Kaufman suggests @23, be held accountable. But, none of that alters the fact that the GOP and the hard right are the central driving force behind privatization. So, no, I disagree that the title was either inaccurate or biased.

COMMENT #26 [Permalink]

... lmk said on 2/11/2013 @ 5:19 am PT...





Lets try to clear things up, because the GOP is often, but not always, a mere stand-in or subsidiary for the predatory corporatist vampires. We forget this important distinction at our peril. A more accurate statement would be this: "But, none of that alters the fact that the predatory corporatist vampires, often using the Rand nuts in the GOP as well as "fiscal conservative" Dems, are the central driving force behind privatization."

COMMENT #27 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 2/11/2013 @ 10:08 am PT...





As an addendum to my comment @25, I would add that, in the article itself, I included this question: Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress from 2008 to 2010. Why were there no efforts to repeal the PAEA during that session? It was never my intent to absolve any Democrat who has failed or will not now come forward to eliminate the abomination that is the PAEA.

COMMENT #28 [Permalink]

... diane said on 2/11/2013 @ 1:00 pm PT...





Though you won't, Ernest, you truly do need to update your tags to include USPS and Waxman, at the least, since you clearly do not want to address the fact that a Democrat Senator's [Dianne Feinstein] husband's company is in charge, and largely profiting off of selling off Post Offices across the country, WITH NO OUTRAGE FROM HER FELLOW DEMOCRATS. Your Semantics Game is despicable, we all know it's Republican Ideology, the fact of the matter appears to be that "Democratic Party" politicians support Republican Ideology, almost to a person, particularly in the Senate.

COMMENT #29 [Permalink]

... diane said on 2/11/2013 @ 1:18 pm PT...





In case I need to further clarify, there is only One Party Governing at this point, not two separate "parties," and while Grand Ole Party certainly bleakly describes it, you are being semantically disingenuous and I suspect you know it on some level though are uncomfortable being honest about it, because you, personally, aren't (yet) being thoroughly traumatized by it.

COMMENT #30 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 2/11/2013 @ 3:31 pm PT...





Re Diane @28 & 29: Here's an idea. Instead of accusing people who don't write precisely what you would like to read of engaging in "despicable Semantic Games," why don't you write and publish the article you would like to see?

COMMENT #31 [Permalink]

... diane said on 2/11/2013 @ 5:29 pm PT...





That is a stunningly pathetic response to all four of the comment 'posts' I've made above, and I believe you are well aware of it.

COMMENT #32 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 2/11/2013 @ 7:00 pm PT...





With all due respect, Diane, your comments are over the top. When you state "there is only One Party Governing," you are stating that there is no difference whatsoever between the Democratic and Republican Parties. With all due respect, you are flat out wrong! I can cite numerous specific issues in which there are fundamental differences, e.g. the Republicans have actively engaged in voter suppression via, for example, the ALEC model Photo ID legislation. The Democrats, with rare exceptions, have not. The same would be true with respect to union-busting. In fact, if you take the time to examine ALEC Exposed, you will find that ALEC is almost exclusively Republican. I could go on, issue after issue, but I really don't have the time for it. If you want to muddle through life with ideological blinders in which you lump both parties together and fail to recognize fundamental differences, that's your prerogative. But when you accuse others who disagree with your myopic worldview of engaging in a "Semantic Game," you only expose the inflexibility of a narrow mind.

COMMENT #33 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 2/11/2013 @ 7:33 pm PT...





Diane, While I agree with a lot of what you say about the state of our politics, your aggressiveness here towards Ernie reads as ugly, inappropriately placed anger. Repeatedly. Just in case your interested in a third party's take on the interaction above.

COMMENT #34 [Permalink]

... diane said on 2/11/2013 @ 11:00 pm PT...





Interesting Ernest (and are you really paying close attention Mr. Lasagna?): first you insult me by totally disregarding my rather polite commentary, as if it were totally invisible ...and then, when I realize you have blatantly dismissed my rather substantive, yet polite, commentary ... and call you on it, you are outraged. Once again, why is Richard Blum's (“Democratic Party!” Senator Dianne Feinstein’$ Ob$cenely Voraciou$ Husband) name missing from your commentary on the United States Postal Service? And why, if you are truly concerned with such a massive public betrayal as privatizing the United States Postal Service, haven't you at least added a 'tag' (easy link), to ease access to your commentary regarding such a major issue? While, during my life, even at a time when I had little remaining faith left, I always voted Democratic Party, I don’t see that happening again after witnessing what has gone on directly around me - and worse, what is going on all around the world – decade after decade. I will always see myself as a human being versus someone else’s beholden and loyal tool.

COMMENT #35 [Permalink]

... diane said on 2/11/2013 @ 11:04 pm PT...





And for those Republican Partiers out there who may be insane enough to think I'd ever vote Republican, or Libertarian: stick it where the sun never shines, and kiss my ass.

COMMENT #36 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 2/12/2013 @ 7:41 am PT...





My dearest Diane: If you actually believe that what you posted was "polite commentary," you should seriously consider getting some therapy.

COMMENT #37 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 2/12/2013 @ 8:28 am PT...





Diane @ 34, When you write-"and are you really paying close attention Mr. Lasagna?"- you are sounding like a person who may have difficulty acknowledging their own part in a conflict. No, I wasn't paying any attention at all. I was playing video games and eating popcorn when I clicked on over to bradblog with my buttery hands for a giggle saw the name Diane which I've always had a problem with and decided to make a completely random critical observation out my ass. If YOU are paying attention you'll see from your comments that you accelerate from moderate tone in the first two to blistering attack mode in those that followed. 0-60 instantaneously. This makes an outside observer(that'd be me) suspect that your gun was probably already loaded and ready to explode. Can't really blame you on that as these are maddening times. At the same time I don't appreciate you acting out against my friend, Ernie.

COMMENT #38 [Permalink]

... WingnutSteve said on 2/12/2013 @ 10:33 am PT...





Diane had a completely valid point, which she nicely made as she typically does, and which was completely ignored by Ernie because it doesn't fit into his agenda. Of course she got a little peeved, she makes very valid points which are completely ignored?? Ernie writes pieces pushing his agenda, and either ignores or lashes out with anger at anyone who disagrees. His title and the tone of his piece is intellectually dishonest at best. The fact is that the effort Ernie blames the GOP for was bipartisan. The GOP needed Democratic support and they got it in droves. The passing mention Ernie makes of the Democratic controlled congress not fixing it, one sentence so he can say he "blisteringly" attacked both sides, is ridiculous. The Democrats could have easily fixed this problem without any GOP support. It could have been pushed through in hours and any GOP opposition would have been inconsequential. Diane got it right. Ernie is way wrong. And David should try to be nicer.

COMMENT #39 [Permalink]

... diane said on 2/12/2013 @ 11:47 am PT...





Priceless and substantive: Go take your meds little emotional lady (you can be seen and insulted, but not heard), I don't appreciate looking like I'm covering up a glaring and personal profit oriented attack by Senator Feinstein and cronies, no less, on the United States Postal Service. This is a Cali Meritocracy! that’s over your stupid emotional head. Thanks for the kind words Steve, I've actually never posted here before, and this USPS post will be both my first and last visit. It is horrifying beyond words to realize that so many frequently traveled Dem blawwwwgs are so willing to favor Party over real human beings, I expect it from Republican blawwwgs. I don't know a person among my loved ones who's not a near microscopic filament away from living in total misery. Almost all, if not all, of them live in locales which have been repeatedly betrayed by the Dem Politicians they repeatedly voted for, at the end of the day no better than their Republican counterparts.

COMMENT #40 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 2/12/2013 @ 11:56 am PT...





WNS @ 38--vintage Steve. 1. Misrepresents the opposing side--ie.-Claiming Ernie completely ignored Diane's point. Ernie did acknowledge she her point in suggesting she write the piece she'd like to see instead of just hauling off and slugging him. Where is it written that every article author here(or anywhere) HAS to include every facet of a multi-faceted equation that every commenter insists upon? 2. Continues to misrepresent and ignore the opposing argument-ie.-You'd never guess from Steve's retelling that Ernie repeatedly acknowledges the dems are often complicit in aiding and abetting republican schemes(thus, yes, making them bipartisan schemes) but makes the point that, nevertheless, privatization is Core Republican Curriculum and as such places more of the blame on the republicans. Neither Steve nor Diane address this primary assertion, preferring to lambast Ernie for not doing exactly what she(and now Bandwagon Steve) want him to do. 3. Continues to misrepresent what Ernie said--ie.-"so he can say he "blisteringly" attacked both sides..."--Here Steve takes the word "blistering" which Ernie used in reference to other articles of his which WERE blistering and applies it as a modifier where it doesn't belong, in essence misattributing/misquoting Ernie and then giving Ernie shit for stuff Steve just now made up himself and attributed to Ernie. That shit is weak and always has been. 4. Bases his argument, in part, on a reality that is not real. The idea that even if the hapless democrats did attempt to repeal this hateful law, Republicans wouldn't filibuster corrective legislation???? What planet are you living on? 5. Completely, and I mean completely, ignores the substance of my remarks and instead of responding to the points I make, prescribes attitude adjustment for yours truly, widely regarded(by those in complete agreement with me) as the nicest guy on earth. Vintage Steve.

COMMENT #41 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 2/12/2013 @ 12:06 pm PT...





This is internet magic. Wingnutsteve holding ethernet hands with a flaming liberal. The narrow-minded righty and the just-stopping-by-for-a-quick-shitfit, hothead, narrow-minded lefty embracing. Bradblog--the internet's hottest political dating site. Where James Carville first romanced Mary Matalin.

COMMENT #42 [Permalink]

... WingnutSteve said on 2/12/2013 @ 12:54 pm PT...





It would have been far easier for a filibuster proof congress and Obama to overturn this law than for the GOP in 2006 to push it through David. The headline should rightfully say: "U.S. Postal Service Victimized by Democrat Privatization Scheme". The story is a pig. Several progressive voices on here have agreed with me that it's misleading. But Ernie still applies that lipstick hoping to gloss it up. Guess what? It's still a pig. A dishonest one.... Oh, you don't know anything about my politics David. I get along well with lots of different types of people. You should consider thinking outside the box once or twice...

COMMENT #43 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 2/12/2013 @ 3:14 pm PT...





Fascinating. Diane @28 berates "'Democratic Party' politicians [who] support Republican ideology." @35 she writes: And for those Republican Partiers out there who may be insane enough to think I'd ever vote Republican, or Libertarian: stick it where the sun never shines, and kiss my ass. "Polite" discourse, as Diane sees it. Seizing on the opportunity to give voice to the maxim: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend," shameless WingnutSteve, who is the very definition of the type of Republican ideologue whom Diane claims to despise, ignores Diane's suggestion that he "stick it where the sun doesn't shine." @38 WingutSteve opens up his bedsheets and invites Diane in. Always polite Diane @39, who had previously told the likes of WingnutSteve to "kiss [her] ass," then gushes over WingnutSteve's "kind words." Flushed with that success, WingnutSteve, who had started this whole meaningless charade @10 by taking issue with my attributing to the GOP a bill sponsored by a Republican and passed during a lame duck session of a Republican-controlled Congress --- a bill signed into law by George W. Bush, a Republican. He pointed out then that two Democrats had co-sponsored the bill, so how could it be part of a GOP privatization scheme? How indeed! --- Never mind that "privatization" has been a staple of the GOP for more than a decade! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! Now, my disingenuous wingnut friend attempts @42 to absolve the GOP altogether. The correct title to this piece, WingnutSteve proclaims, should be "U.S. Postal Service Victimized by Democrat Privatization Scheme." Note the surly right wing use of "Democrat" rather than "Democratic." What's next, Steve. Shall we describe the war in Iraq and a war that was started by the Democrat Party? Fascinating, indeed! Not only do we see a case of "politics makes strange bedfellows," but here we find a left wing zealot being snookered by a right wing scam artist. Oh, FWIW Diane. One of the reasons we have a wide open comment section at The BRAD BLOG is that we hope it broadens the range of discourse. You are entitled to voice points you think are important additions to the article. You are entitled to disagree with all or parts of an article. But, as a commenter, you don't have a right to demand that an author revise the article to include something else that you would like covered. Tags are used to reflect the content of an article. They are not something that should be added to reflect the scope of the comments. The fact that I did not respond to your initial comments does not mean that I "ignored" them. Did you ever consider that a non-response reflects the belief that a comment may not be worthy of a repost? Like David Lasagna, I found that I concurred in some of the points you made. I disagreed with others. But, it appears that in your mind anyone who does not agree with everything you say is dishonest, and, it was only after you rudely challenged my integrity that I felt it necessary to respond, as I did, @30 & 32. Your problem; not mine.

COMMENT #44 [Permalink]

... diane said on 2/12/2013 @ 6:07 pm PT...





To really clarify: A USPS tag is the first one that should be included, IF you were really concerned with the matter. Almost impossible to believe you spent much of any time looking into what was going on and didn't find out that Senator Feinstein’s husband's company was given a secret to the public contract to oversee and profit from the sell off of Post Offices Nationwide, especially since you apparently reside in California. Given that - and the fact that you bothered to respond to others but not me - I wasn't of the mind you were so much agreeing, as totally ignoring my first post, #21. I mean, if you weren't aware what was going on, it seems it at least warranted a thanks for the dire info; but if you were aware, where is the revelation? I queried as to whether you had previously covered it, but you remained silent. I visited your site with good intent, never having visited it before, but clicking a link from the Naked Capitalism [Links] site. Now I'm not only an emotional, hotheaded, narrow minded female who needs meds, but I'm also screwing someone on line. Like Females much Ernest? I am unashamedly emotional and horrified about this issue.. And I know an abundance of elderly people, and non-elderly people who rely on the Post Office, and are not online at all - It Is Grievous, Oppressive and Horrifying To Them Also. The Just Barely Subtle: Racism, Genderism, Ageism and Classism among the 'Major' Dem Blawwgs is Stunning (and I’m not saying that females don’t take part in it either). As I implied I expect it on a Republican Blawwwg. I see I’ve gotten under your skin, not to worry, after wrapping up responses on this post, I won’t be revisiting ever again. I am literally falling through the cracks, I don’t have the fortitude in that precarious state to visit websites I don’t care for and argue just to argue, I visit websites in the hopes for some truth and comfort, very sorry I visited this one.

COMMENT #45 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 2/12/2013 @ 7:54 pm PT...





Diane @44 wrote: Now I'm not only an emotional, hotheaded, narrow minded female who needs meds, but I'm also screwing someone on line. Not very familiar with the use of metaphor, are you Diane. "Politics makes for strange bedfellows" has nothing to do with gender or sex, on-line or otherwise. I never said anything about your gender or about your being emotional, though you have done so --- repeatedly! You fall back on your gender as if it were a crutch. My comment @36 read: If you actually believe that what you posted was "polite commentary," you should seriously consider getting some therapy. That was not a comment about whether you were emotional. It pertained to your lack of self-awareness. You drop in words like "despicable semantic games," "stick it where the sun doesn't shine" and "kiss my ass," yet you express the belief that you had posted "polite commentary?" Your responses since that time suggest that you might benefit from professional help, which I had hoped you would have understood as a well-intended suggestion on my part, as opposed to an insult. Frankly, Diane, your heart is in the right place, but I have to seriously question your intellectual capacity to take part in a meaningful dialogue with those who may or may not agree with you. Here's a sincere suggestion. Consider, for the moment, that what I wrote in this article and in the respectful reply I provided to MichaelG @25 & 27 reflect views that I honestly and sincerely expressed. Then take the time to re-read your missives @28 & 29 from my point of view, as someone who had just expressed those honestly held, sincere beliefs. Ask yourself, in that case, would you regard your comments as "polite commentary" or would you regarding them as offensive and over the top?

COMMENT #46 [Permalink]

... diane said on 2/12/2013 @ 8:30 pm PT...





Priceless: Frankly, Diane, your heart is in the right place, but I have to seriously question your intellectual capacity ... Of course you do, Ernest. You take the time to re-read. I'm through, I've said everything I meant to say and have no second thoughts on it, because I thought about what I wrote before I wrote it.

COMMENT #47 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 2/13/2013 @ 4:30 pm PT...





Steve @ 42, Judging by your constantly moving goal posts, mangled arguments, consistently unreliable and distorted reporting, you, apparently, don't know anything about your politics either. And you should consider taking your head out of your ass once or twice. As a matter of fact, I regularly spread a nice assortment of boxes(that's right, they're from the post office)all across the lawn and then go for a walk around the neighborhood(far, far outside the boxes, in a time long ago)thinking.

COMMENT #48 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 2/13/2013 @ 8:17 pm PT...





wingnutsteve @42, That takes a lot of I don't know what(gall? amnesia? love of mindfucking? irony? tongues in cheek?) to tell me--"You should consider thinking outside the box once or twice..." You've probably forgotten what I'm about to relate because you seem to have trouble processing/retaining information that does not comport with the hall of mirrors reality within the confines of your own box. But I bet there are others around here who'll remember. Not that long ago(a coupla years?), within these very comment sections, I spent so much time and energy trying to find common ground with you, Davey Crocket, and perhaps a few others with whom I disagree on just about everything political, that I eventually started getting considerable shit from a number of the commenters here with whom I am usually in solidarity. I persisted in my efforts. If I recall correctly, Ernie was of the opinion that I was on a fool's errand. After a few more efforts with no success and then a few more efforts with no success(I'm stubborn) I gradually came to believe that I WAS on a fool's errand. In my opinion, you and Davey Crocket play by a different set of rules than I. Fair representation of the opposing argument is virtually non-existent. Coherent argument is extremely random at best. Strawmen are common. As are misrepresentation and outright misreporting of reality. Acknowledgment of mistakes approaches zero. But despite these red flags(I'm a little slow) I had persisted(I've had a lot of practice trying to find common ground with Tea Party relatives), even after the dispiriting experience of having some of my own tribe turn on me. Finally though, I gave up. During all that time I did not have a helluva lot of company trying to find common ground with you guys. If that's not operating "outside the box", I don't know what is. I think that phrase does not mean what you think it means.

COMMENT #49 [Permalink]

... lmk said on 2/14/2013 @ 4:21 am PT...





Let's have a look at what really happened in this thread: First, Diane's initial post (#21) was both polite and contained information not included in Ernie's original article. To assert or imply otherwise is simply false. Second, her main point about the role of Feinstein's husband and his company vis a vis postal privatization was unaddressed in the original article. That is a major oversight. So the real question is this: Was Ernie aware of this information when he wrote the article? If yes, then his omission reflects poorly on him. If no, then the right thing to do would be to do an update and thank Diane for providing valuable information. It is very important that we not fall into the trap of irrationally blaming only one party, while irrationally defending the other. That's not the reality of our situation and most contentious issues should be viewed in terms of who is serving the 99% and who is serving the PTB lurking among the 1%. Everything else is division and distraction, which only makes the PTB happier. Focus up, people!

COMMENT #50 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 2/14/2013 @ 8:25 am PT...





LMK @49 wrote: Second, her main point about the role of Feinstein's husband and his company vis a vis postal privatization was unaddressed in the original article. That is a major oversight. So the real question is this: Was Ernie aware of this information when he wrote the article? If yes, then his omission reflects poorly on him. I'm pleased that you prefaced this statement with "if." The fact is that I was not aware of it. I had no problem with Diane's initial comments that were polite and added a useful piece of information --- one which I see had been covered by Daily Kos. But that is the point of our comment section --- it permits individuals to add valuable information. But it is unfair to suggest that the lack of this additional information was an oversight on my part, just as it would be unfair for me to criticize Diane because she failed to include what I find to be a matter of graver concern --- Blum's role as a war-profiteer which forced Feinstein to resign her position on the Senate Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee. I drafted a relatively short article that addressed the concept of privatization and how it, as opposed to emails and competition from FedEX and UPS, explains the demise of the USPS. An "article," by definition, is not an encyclopedia. The BRAD BLOG provides readers with a forum for adding valuable information and to challenge information provided in an article in terms of accuracy or to the extent to which one might disagree with the opinions expressed therein. If Diane or anyone else had pointed to a factual error in the article, I'd have revised it and probably thank her in the body of the article for calling the error to my attention. But "added" information does not equal factual error. Readers have no more right to demand that an author rewrite an article to include the information they would like to see written than the author has a right to demand that a reader amend or revise their comments. Moreover, the fact that I didn't respond to this "new" information about Blum did not mean that I disagreed with it. I am somewhat disturbed, LMK, that you cherry-picked from Diane's initial two comments, which everyone agrees meets the definition of "polite," while ignoring later comments that were decidedly "rude" and amounted to over-the-top personal attacks that violate one of the very few rules Brad laid down for our comment section. At no time did I "assert or imply" that those first two comments did not amount to "polite" commentary. For you to both ignore the content of the later comments and falsely state that I had somehow asserted or implied that the first two Diane comments were somehow impolite seems a bit disingenuous. As David Lasagna accurately observed @37, Diane's comments had gone "from moderate tone in the first two to blistering attack mode in those that followed. 0-60 instantaneously." Lost in all this is the fact that the article, in my honestly held opinion, accurately described that legislation passed during a lame duck session of a GOP-controlled Congress and signed into law by a Republican President, fits neatly into a long-standing and well-established right wing privatization scheme "to eliminate government as a source of public service." The fact that two Democrats co-sponsored the legislation or that Feinstein's husband is profiting from the legislation does not alter or diminish the accuracy of that statement.

COMMENT #51 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 2/14/2013 @ 8:33 am PT...





It's such a relief to have commenters like wingnutsteve, Diane, and LMK who have sole proprietary possession of the truth. And it feels so good to be browbeaten and lectured to as poor ignorant fools about what we should be thinking and how we should be thinking it. This is why I got out of group politics over forty years ago. The personal politics of the people ON MY SIDE sucked every bit as much as the personal politics of those on the other. The students at Oberlin were having a huge meeting to talk about shutting down the school after the Kent State Massacre. Finney Chapel was literally filled to the rafters. The mood was electric. But about fifteen minutes into the presentations I left. The same narrow-minded, self-righteous bullshit attitude as was evident in so many of the forces of tyranny I opposed seemed present in my politically like-minded peers right in front of me on that stage. I could see no difference. Didn't feel like fighting what felt like a conservative tyranny of spirit only to trade it in for a liberal one. I don't know, I expected more from people fighting for social justice and an end to war.(And I found it in the warm humanity of Howard Zinn, Michael Moore, Arundhati Roy, Molly Ivins, David Orr, Eqbal Ahmad, Amory and Hunter Lovins, etc.) That's one of the main reasons I love the Bradblog. Flawed humans that they are, I believe that Brad and Ernie are, for the most part, motivated by love, the search for truth and commonality, and a kindness and openness of spirit. That's what revolution is supposed to look and feel like. I'm with Che on this. And with Emma Goldman on the need for dancing.

COMMENT #52 [Permalink]

... lmk said on 2/14/2013 @ 11:07 am PT...





For the record, I agree that Diane's later posts were a bit off the rails. The main point is that her valuable information could have been handled better when presented (is it that hard to post an update)? Nor does the inclusion of her valuable information suddenly thrust the article into "encyclopedia" territory. More to the point, Ernie states it his "honest opinion" that his article showed a "long-standing and well-established right wing privatization scheme "to eliminate government as a source of public service." Since many Dems are complicit as well, that is what undercuts the validity of the article. Nothing more; nothing less.

COMMENT #53 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 2/14/2013 @ 11:51 am PT...





LMK @52 wrote: Nor does the inclusion of her valuable information suddenly thrust the article into "encyclopedia" territory. And where does it stop? Should I have have researched the position of every Democratic member of the House and Senate to determine precisely where they stood on a measure that passed on a voice vote? Yes, the measure passed without much opposition from Democrats? We went to war with Iraq with little opposition from Democrats, Sen. Byrd and Congressman Kucinich being among the notable exceptions. Does that mean that every article and book which addressed the lies told by the Bush/Cheney regime to take us into that war are "flawed" and "biased" if they focused on the lies without engaging in "fair and balanced" nonsense by pointing out each and every Democrat who shares some of the blame? In the article, I asked why Democrats did not repeal this abomination when they controlled the House and Senate in 2008-2010? Was it unfair of me not to inquire of each Democratic member of Congress whether or not they were actually aware of the offending provisions of the PAEA before posing that question? Frankly, this comes down to a complaint, initiated by one of this blog's most dishonest right wing posters, and picked up on by those on the left. that I did not address an issue that "they" would like covered --- Democratic complicity in GOP privatization schemes. That's a fine topic. I invite any who so desire to address it in an article they choose to write. But the topic exceeds the scope of this article. And with that, I'm done wasting further time on this redundant thread.

COMMENT #54 [Permalink]

... postal widow said on 2/18/2013 @ 11:57 pm PT...

