consultants are sandburs

Monday, February 27, 2017

Pinch their access even a little, in times of failing print media, and they start garbage mongering.

This link. Talk about thin-skinned over-reaction. This item is it, at length.

Andrew Higgins is a hit man with a word processor, and there is this footer to the online item:

Julie Hirschfeld Davis contributed reporting from Washington.

A version of this article appears in print on February 27, 2017, on Page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Phrase With a Venomous Past Now Rattles American Politics.

Page A1 stuff. Wow. Where the most important news is placed. All that's fit to print.

Whining is not impressive. Especially when Trump's EPA guy is on the move. Which is real news. Go figure.

The EPA thing? Strib carries a Bloomberg feed. Read it online. Either version. At least N.Y. Times did report on the Pruitt emails. Pruitt is an owned tool of fossil fuel moguls, but what else is to be expected of Trump/Bannon/the Mercers? Good people? Come on.

So, who nominated this hatchet man, who in the Senate voted his approval, and why was Pence not forced to a tie-breaker vote on this creep?

Reporting of that would be reporting news.

Do you suppose the Koch brothers are gleeful these days? Real news: pollution prevails, earth suffers. Only an enemy of the people would prioritize things differently in reporting what is happening in a nation. N.Y. Times is at least on the fossil fuel putsch story; but apparently not with the zeal attached to their ox having been mildly scratched while the earth is being gored.

The Pruitt confirmation vote allowing the man to take over the EPA was widely reported. The press was not negligent about that, although whether it was print edition of the N.Y. Times page A1 with an inflamatory headline is unclear from online research. From that linked web search the first three items in the search return list were opened, and each, including the N.Y. Times did report on the vote being 52-46 along party lines - the Republicans collectively holding that smoking guns - and it was reported that the Republicans also did a cramdown vote before the emails of the man's industry toady status were available to parade in advance of the Republicans kissing the ring of the fossil fuel moguls, can you say David and Charles?

Do you not believe David and Charles each had as wide a smile as this?

Readers are urged to review those first three search returns on the Pruitt disgrace of a nation; here, here and here. (Last item source of the image link above.)

A nation could focus its industrial reinvigoration on clean energy. There would be jobs installing solar and wind power, building transmission lines from big wind to big populations, managing the grid with intermittent sources more prevalant, and maintaining the solar panels clean and the wind trubines operative despite storm damage likelihoods. There would be a host of jobs; green energy probably being a bit more labor intensive to create and maintain than big coal fired plants, but, so what? Marginally higher labor costs might not appeal to David and Charles, which is but one reason they don't want to be regulated in their profit maximizing zeal, but more is at stake than keeping David and Charles super rich and happy. Like the future of a nation and a planet, for instance. But unbridled capitalism, no brakes allowed much less ever applied, is the rule of Trumpism, and those expecting something else in casting ballots for him deluded themselves if they believed "Great Again." Admittedly it is a fine and neatly crafted slogan, as good that way as "CHANGE" and "HOPE" and as much a deceit on the people. Who, sentient, expected anything different from Trump; and in passing, it needs to be said that expecting the same thing from Clinton would have been correctly playing the odds.

No comments: