Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Pulled Pork Sangies, Anyone?

By 33 Comments

Even the suggestion that Obama still wants to pursue earmark reform prompted pushback from a top House Democrat. “I don’t think the White House has the ability to tell us what to do,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., defiantly told reporters this week.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizo…

Arrogant Little Ass, aren’t you, Hoyer? And, yes, there are Republicans out there being just as arrogant.

So what does some of this pork look like? Well, according to OMB, $1.12 million will be spent to research Wild Rice, in St. Paul, MN, this coming year. http://earmarks.omb.gov/2009-e…

Wild rice is wild rice. It grows in the wild, by definition. Why are we researching it? Is it too late to get our money back?

Also, according to OMB, Boxer and Feinstein garnered $1.5 million for UC-Davis research into possible biowar agents and their cures. Laudable. But does the project need a Director, seven Assistant Directors and an administrator? http://www.rcebiodefense.org/r… And they all have PhD’s?

Not Laudable.

Marina Del Ray, in California, is picking up a cool $2.5 million. The project is simply listed under “harbor and waterway development” as a line item in the Corps of Engineers’ budget. Marina Del Ray? God knows, they don’t need the money. Any chance we can get a refund? http://earmarks.omb.gov/resour…

Presumably, these guys know the economy’s in the toilet. Yet they still choose to act as if everything’s just peachy.

Earmarking needs to stop. Now would be good. If the money needs to be spent, be up front about it – put it on the table for all to see, and stop hiding it in other bills.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. “Wild rice is wild rice. It grows in the wild, by definition. Why are we researching it?”

    <

    p>Thankfully people like William Borlaug never listened to people like you, and ti s because of that we don’t have global famine these days.

    <

    p>Also, according to OMB, Boxer and Feinstein garnered $1.5 million for UC-Davis research into possible biowar agents and their cures. Laudable. But does the project need a Director, seven Assistant Directors and an administrator? http://www.rcebiodefense.org/r… And they all have PhD’s? “

    <

    p>So…you object to the idea that people who research biological weapons should have doctorates.

    <

    p>”Marina Del Ray? God knows, they don’t need the money. ”  Hey, it’s a nice change from driving most federal spending into the welfare/red states.

    <

    p>Why should we ban earmarks?  So committees of people from far away tell neighborhoods how to spend money?

    • I do not object to research. I object to research into wild rice, at 1.12 million, when the economy sucks this bad. And wild rice will never feed the unwashed masses in Boston, let alone those of the world. Especially not at four bucks a box at the grocer’s.

      <

      p>I do not object to researchers having doctorates; I have my own. I object to the program having eight directors and an administrator. Tell me why, on a budget of 1.5 million, you think they need that many overseers, please.

      <

      p>And Marina Del Ray needs my money during this economic crisis about as much as the banks. After doing your due diligence into the matter, perhaps you can explain to me why the need the dough?

      <

      p>Eight thousand earmarks, no signing ceremony? Who’s hiding what from whom?

      <

      p>And the money going into the red states take care of your power generation, crude oil production, gasoline refining, you know, the things you don’t need. So take the bus and use CFL’s, sabutai. Do your part, will ya?

      <

      p>Then we can give the money to Marina Del Ray. Is THAT where you keep your boat?

      <

      p>Just asking.

      <

      p>Best,
      Chuck

      • Rice feeds many more people for the land used to raise it than maize or wheat.  

        <

        p>And I’m further guessing that you think earmarks should just go to…the 1% poorest districts?  The single poorest?

        <

        p>Huh, I thought all that power generations, crude oil production, gasoline refining were private functions for which I pay already.  I didn’t realize it was all SOCIALIST!  Mainly because it isn’t.

        • “wild rice” is neither wild, nor true rice.  It’s also called Indian Rice and Canada Rice.  It and maize are the only cereals native to North America.  I’ll defer to wikipedia for the nutritional benefits:

          <

          p>

          Almost always sold as a dried whole grain, wild rice is high in protein, the amino acid lysine and dietary fiber, and low in fat. Like true rice, it does not contain gluten. It is also a good source of the minerals potassium and phosphorus, and the vitamins thiamine, riboflavin and niacin.

          <

          p>Here’s wikipedia on cultivation:

          Because of its nutritional value and taste, wild rice increased in popularity in the late 20th century, and commercial cultivation began in the US and Canada to supply the increased demand. In the US the main producers are California and Minnesota (where it is the official state grain) and it is mainly cultivated in paddy fields. In Canada, it is usually harvested from natural bodies of water; the largest producer is the province of Saskatchewan. Wild rice is also produced in Hungary and Australia.

            • I’m against the inclusion of an earmark, and for the genetic engineering.

              <

              p>Earmarks bypass a coherent funding system for our scarce research dollars, creating pressure for scientists to spend time lobbying politicians rather than providing adequate rationale for their proposals to people who know their scientific rump from a hole in the ground.

              <

              p>As to the GM rice mentioned: what would be the response of the neoluddites if the grains of rice were not made to stay on the stalks?  “OMG Frankenfoods will take over the world!  Grab your torches and pitchforks!”  What is called a “hyper-aggressive” strain by one person is another’s “high yield.”  Of course it outcompetes the wild strain in it’s modified form, or else the modifications weren’t very good, now were they?

              <

              p>There’s plenty to go after Big Aggie about (over reliance on monoclonal crops, excessive use of antibiotics, GM focus on boutique items rather than more globally responsible traits) without attempting to crush a valuable technique still in its relative infancy.

        • The research is an attempt to alter it genetically. The Ojibwe believe (and I agree) that genetic modification will destroy the traditional crops, and they are right. The modifications these mad scientists are introducing cause ALL OF the grains to adhere to the stalk, so that none of them fall into the water, which is how the plant reseeds itself. The genetically altered plant is agressive as hell, and crowds out and destroys the wild plant.

          <

          p>This is like cutting open the goose that lays the golden egg to get all the eggs at once.

          <

          p>You get one good crop, then the rice is gone. Sitting in your comfortable chair, in front of your cyclops, is not a good way to learn these things. Neither is reading about them on some socialist website. Try going out and harvesting wild rice sometime — I have, and its hard, but rewarding work. While you’re out there, take a good look at the difference between the wild plant and the genetically altered plant.

          <

          p>Every time man screws around with Nature, he screws it up. The Ojibwe are right in their opposition. And the government is just plain wrong to fund such efforts. So are the Congresspersons from Minnesota who grab the earmarked money to fund the stupid effort. They don’t know shit from shinola about the rice, and could care less.

          <

          p>To the Ojibwe, it is both a source of food, and a source of income. These genetic engineers have been screwing around with this genetic alteration nonsense for over 45 years, and have gotten nowhere. This is why the earmark, and the effort, are a ripoff — of both the taxpayer and the Ojibwe. http://www.mnwildrice.com/rice…

          <

          p>Do your research.

          <

          p>Best,
          Chuck

          • I try to avoid farmed fish because we have access to the tastier, wild, stuff here.  But you and I both probably eat farmed fish in some form, even if not aware of it.

            <

            p>If you suddenly want to talk about genetic engineering, then you and I may have a good deal in common.  But please don’t pull a whole new topic out of nowhere, then tell me to “do my research”.

      • Marina Del Ray, as an artificially created marina, requires a lot of dredging:

        Army Corps of Engineers dredges Marina del Rey channel

        The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers starts work on Marina del Rey’s south channel today – and at least one Los Angeles beach can expect a facelift from the project. KPCC’s Molly Peterson reports.

        Molly Peterson: The south entrance to the Marina del Rey channel has filled in with sediment – and hazardous contaminants carried along with it – about 50,000 cubic meters of the stuff. So, starting today, the Army Corps is going to dredge the channel back down to a depth of 20 feet.

        Other harbors build up mud on the bottom, but this channel holds plenty of sand. It turns out to be useful. A contractor for the Corps will pull out the fine contaminated materials – about 10 percent of the total – and will use the rest of the coarse sand to fill in Los Angeles beaches, including Dockweiler, where they’ve eroded away.

        A spokesman for the Corps says engineers hope this project can serve as a guide for how to treat dredged-up materials for use on other beaches.

        This is a large marina. Keeping it free of sediment has been a government responsibility. The presence of contaminants could make it expensive.

        <

        p>The Beavis and Butthead part — which you continue an unseemly manner in your response to sabutai — is to focus on the presence of luxury boats. It’s quite possible that there is a good reason to want to devote more funds to the marina.

        <

        p>For you, though, derision is an argument.

        <

        p>I’m happy to respond in kind, if you’d like.

        • California destroyed some of the most pristine wetlands in the country, decimating migratory waterfowl populations in the area, and impacting the entire far west flyway.

          <

          p>There are thousands of yacht owners in MDR. Let THEM pay to dredge their damned man-made harbor!

          <

          p>Best,
          Chuck

  2. Just what we need.

    <

    p>Wouldn’t it be interesting to have an adult discussion about earmarks? Not going to happen here: This diary merely confirms Krugman’s observation that Republicans have become the party of Beavis and Butthead. Every one of the items commented on here sounds bad. Cue stupid laughter.

    <

    p>The stupid laughter is all the refutation we’re going to get.

      • Working backwards:

        <

        p>– Have you seen “Beavis and Butthead?”  Although B&B is surprisingly sophisticated, “carping” is not part of their oeuvre.

        <

        p>– “Aplomb” means “complete and confident composure or self-assurance.” KBusch has always denigrated with aplomb.  You should consult a dictionary before borrowing words from Fixident commercials.

        <

        p>– KBusch’s main point is your diary is just scary sound bites.  For example, “wild rice” is a cultivated crop.

      • I will be endeavor to be just as balanced as you — and focus on your mistake about wild rice. Wild rice (genus Zizania), it turns out, is not a rice (genus Oryza).

        <

        p>If you got that mixed up, well, I don’t think anything else in your post is accurate either.

        • With trenchant observations like

          <

          p>

          Wild rice is wild rice. It grows in the wild, by definition. Why are we researching it?

          <

          p>let’s hope his PhD is not in botany.  

        • is a cultivated crop. I am also aware that it is harvested in the wild, and the plants from which the commercial harvest is taken are plants identical to the wild plants.

          <

          p>Why do you defend a practice (attempted viable genetic engineering of wild rice) that has failed viability for more that 45 years?

          <

          p>And why do you defend hiding such funds in a Continuation bill, instead of taking them up in front of the public as separate bills?  For YEARS, both parties have been guilty of this thieving shenanigan, and Obama ran on a platform that said, among other things, he’d put a stop to it.

          <

          p>Right. Don’t hold your breath. I won’t!

          <

          p>Best,
          Chuck

          • I don’t believe I’m doing any of the things you accuse me of. My refusal to respond to another “well-written” dissertation does not say anything about what I support or oppose.

            <

            p>It seems to me that earmarks could have a useful role in legislation, e.g., Congress is supposed to have some say in how money is spent. And yes, the current system seems broken.

            <

            p>What I want to know is how broken is this system? How much money is misdirected and why? What remedies are appropriate? Finally, I want to learn that on Bill Moyers, not on Beavis and Butthead.

  3. First, for you numbers and counting part:

    <

    p>http://www.thedailyshow.com/vi…

    <

    p>You really don’t want to look like a jackass, like Thune.

    <

    p>Second,

    <

    p>

    Earmarking needs to stop. Now would be good. If the money needs to be spent, be up front about it

    <

    p>They are up front about it, the bill has a dollar amount on it.  The earmarks are appropriations, they don’t add dollars to the bill.  Do you understand that?

    • the ass who made it is worse than Al Franken at faking shock at conservative fiscal caution. I would be interested in your critique of my numbers, rather than just reading your general slam and railing against conservatives. So many words, so little substance . . .

      <

      p>Second, the dollar amount is certainly on the bill. But do you have any clue how deep I had to dig to uncover where the money was actually going?

      <

      p>And YOUR point? The earmarks are earmarks. Earmarks equal pork. Pork equals earmarks. The equations, whether Math, Chemistry or Physics, balance nicely.

      <

      p> Earmarking DOES need to stop. Your own champion, Obama, agrees, at least on the surface.. And ANY form of obfuscation over earmarks sucks.

      <

      p>Best,
      Chuck

      • like your post.  Counting dollars is not the issue like your opening.  

        <

        p>Yes, I would rather the departments / state determine where their money would be going.  But it’s true in both parties, even the jackass R’s when voted against this even when they knew it will pass had their own earmarks.  So they can still show up at the ribbon cutting ceremony and say there were against the bill at the same time.  Which is it?  Those are the true a-holes here.  If you want honesty, why don’t you start there.

        • was to knock the practice of earmarks. I really don’t give a rodent’s rectum who’s done it in the past. For Republicans and Democrats alike, the practice is reprehensible, and should be stopped.

          <

          p>Best,
          Chuck

  4. with the daisies on it may be significant to you, but to the rest of us this reads like adolescent conservative angst.  

    <

    p>Spare us, please.  Pleez.  

    • My “carefully scribed entries” (your description) were random selections, and, Ms (assumption) lightiris, if you look carefully, daisies are conspicuous by their absence. Each of them took five, count ’em, FIVE, levels of uncovering bureaucratic dummy language and obfuscation, IN THE OMB DOCUMENTS!!! to find the real intent of the expenditure.

      <

      p>Perhaps you need to stop drinking the kool-aid. Then, before critiquing someone else’s research, do your own. Then, if you conclude you can refute the research, give it your best shot. If you’re not willing to do your own research, it isn’t appropriate to attack the work of others.

      <

      p>Best,
      Chuck

      • What I posted does not rise to the level of “critique” and wasn’t intended to.  Your “research” seems to be of the same quality as your definition of “critique.”  

        <

        p>It appears you gleaned a few nuggets from the “OMB DOCUMENTS” you thought might tweak some here into a debate.  Well, there’s not much here to bother with let alone “refute.”  What we can tell from your musings is you don’t approve.  So what?  Are we supposed to be surprised?  Appalled?  Suckered into some masturbatory intellectual exercise with you so that you can dazzle us with more gems like “wild rice is wild rice”?    

        • a rat’s ass WHAT your masturbatory intellectual exercises are. And as I stated above, there is little research, beyond selecting random pork, and identifying what it really, truly, is.

          <

          p>I don’t expect you to be either surprised or appalled. What I would hope you would do is try to hold your Congresspersons and Senators accountable. But perhaps that is too much to ask.

          <

          p>Best,
          Chuck

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Archives