If you haven't bookmarked Krugman's blog, it's time.
Sorry Tom, it's over.
The New York Crank has some good suggestions on what to cut first.
Bruce Schmiechen: Centrism in extremis: how serious people" handed the hostage-takers their weapons.
What Bustednuckles said.
Chris Floyd: If the Republic Had Not Died A Long Time Ago, This Would Indeed Be the Death of the Republic
DCap is about as dispirited as I am.
At least there's SOMETHING to celebrate: Margaret and Helen are back. And Batocchio celebrated his 6th Blogiversary this weekend.
While we're on the subject, happy 7th blogiversary to me. I completely forgot. I seem to do that a lot lately with birthdays, anniversaries, etc. Being sold out by the very people you put into office and working nonstop and then having to worry about your project deadlines while you're supposed to be on vacation will do that.
dimanche 31 juillet 2011
Blogrolling In Our Time
It seems like a good time to add Disaffected and it Feels So Good to the blogroll.
The Three Ring Circus
The Tea Party Caucus, left to right: (Back row) Allen West, Paul Ryan, Dan Webster, Joe Barton, Jeff Duncan. (front row, l-r) Joe Walsh, Louie Gohmert, Michele Bachmann.
President Obama nailed it when he said yesterday that the debt "negotiations" on Capitol Hill was a "three ring circus." What he could've done was clarify which entities made up the three rings: The House and Senate and the White House.
That's not to say the House and Senate Republicans aren't responsible for most of this ginned-up chaos that seemingly overnight has turned into a very real one. The intentions of the radical wing of the GOP are painfully transparent: Cripple Social Security using whatever fraudulent means necessary, and beginning the dismantling and/or privatization of Medicare and Medicaid through equally fraudulent means.
Republicans know as well as Democrats that if we do indeed default on our national debt by not raising the ceiling by Tuesday, the first of two things will happen: The Treasury will empty itself out paying our creditors and those on Social Security, unemployment and those serving our military will immediately stop getting checks.
The manufactured emergency has already resulted in a partial shutdown of the FAA, which has not only placed 70,000 union workers on temporary hiatus and is making millions for the airlines and airports, but $200,000,000 a week in airport taxes are going uncollected. Hm. Union workers out of work, private industry making millions and nearly a billion dollars in uncollected taxes a month. Funny how Republican initiatives do that, huh?
Yet, I think one would be hard-pressed to find even one Republican on Capitol Hill who's thought this far ahead: How will the GOP continue rah-rahing, sis boom-bahing the three war fronts and the troops who are fighting them after being solely responsible for cutting their paychecks?
I remember when Democrats were threatening to stall military appropriations bills during the Bush era and the Republicans were hoarsely screaming like so many elephants with their balls in a vise about. "The troops, the troops, my God, what about the troops?!"
Fast-forward to 2011: The troops may not get their next checks and be able to continue paying their bills starting next week. Yet, where are the Republican calls to continue funding the troops? Crickets.
Sure, it's painfully obvious the Republican Party and the Teahadists who have taken over a large part of the GOP caucus are hell-bent on destroying this country and destroying the biggest progressive legacies of the past 70-75 years, starting with Social Security and Medicare. But Obama must accept ownership for one of the rings of this three-ring circus.
Obama could've simply defused this situation months ago by invoking the 14th amendment to raise the debt ceiling. Former President Clinton said he would've used it. Obama, also a so-called Constitutional law scholar, claims his lawyers are telling him it wouldn't be legal. Obama keeps treating the 14th amendment as if it's a nuclear option but the fact is it would be more like a neutron bomb that would vaporize this sad, sorry clown show on the Hill while leaving the infrastructure intact. And if the Tea Bag Caucus in the House wants to impeach Obama for using what we all know is his constitutional prerogative, they'll have to explain why they're attempting to impeach a President for simply raising the debt ceiling in lieu of a Constitutional Amendment to balance the budget. They'll have to explain to the rest of us who precisely prevented that Constitutional amendment from passing. And the Tea Bag Caucus will lose whatever little credibility they now have.
Yet from the start, it was obvious that Obama was going to do what Obama always does: Capitulate to the fascist, pro-corporate GOP and immediately put Social Security on the table despite it being responsible for not one cent of the national debt (perhaps someone should remind Obama the $2.6 trillion surplus was obtained through something called "payroll taxes"). He's also put Medicare and Medicaid on the buffet table, despite both programs having rock-bottom operating costs of 3%. With a stroke of the pen, Obama could wipe out the prohibition to the government being able to negotiate drug prices with Big Pharma, thereby helping to reduce that burden by hundreds of billions.
But Obama does what Obama has always done: Sell the least fortunate up the river as he did when he froze pay for federal workers for two years at the same exact moment he authorized the continuance of the Bush tax cuts for the same length of time because the minority GOP was holding unemployment benefits hostage in both houses of Congress. At the same time he did that, he also capitulated to the GOP by allowing Social Security taxes to be cut by 2%. This has had an immediate effect: In the first six months, Social Security has lost $100,000,000,000 from its coffers. Six months ago, there was a $2.7 trillion surplus. Now we're hearing it's $2.6 trillion and counting.
To anyone who's ever balanced a checkbook and kept a checking account register, in order to remain solvent and to stay ahead of the game, you need to be bringing in at least as much as you spend, if not take in more. If you spend more than you generate, you're going to be in trouble with someone at some point. How the GOP can convince so many people that the debt can be reduced to nothing over ten years while lowering taxes simultaneously and to be allowed to advance these lies on national TV several times a day without being seriously challenged is a searing and damning indictment on the stupidity, gullibility and apathy of our once-great nation.
Boehner's watered down political theater of a bill passed in the House a few nights ago but it revealed some very interesting things. First off, 23% of the Tea Party Caucus, including Tea Bagger queen Michele Bachmann, voted against the bill, joining all 188 Democrats who also opposed it. And when the perennially-fractious Democratic Party in either chamber stands perfectly united against any Republican proposal, you know they're on the side of the angels. The vote tally also revealed that 22 Republicans in toto opposed the Boehner bill that everyone knew was doomed to failure (sources close to Congress revealed that even many Republicans who'd voted for it did so while holding their noses).
What I'm saying here, people, isn't brilliantly insightful but these thumbtack observations do get to the heart of the matter:
The Republican Party is fractured and split between those who want to destroy this country and those who want to sell the biggest chunks to China. There are many Republicans who are wide-eyed with terror that this game of chicken played by their party leaders will result in economic catastrophe.
But the leadership is plainly insane and terrified they won't get re-elected next year and one doesn't have to squint very hard to see the hands above the curtain of the puppet show pulling the strings: They belong to the Koch Brothers who'd, with Dick Armey, almost single-handedly created the Tea Party. They belong to Lloyd Blankfein and Jamie Dimon and Rex Tillerson and every hedge fund manager on Wall Street.
And then there's our President, who's plainly terrified of teh crazy of the GOP who are willing to shoot their own hostages so they don't incur the wrath of their puppeteers on Wall Street. And, in spite of knowing that Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid has not contributed to the national debt as has lowered taxes and endless wars, Obama will still put all of us who need those programs on the chopping block, including the 2.5 million active duty servicemembers and retired veterans drawing pensions.
He knows fully good and well our creditors will still get paid off and banks, credit card lenders and other predatory entities stand to make billions off jacked-up APRs and foreclosed homes when these innocent victims will no longer be able to pay their bills because of Republican brinksmanship.
Sure, it's all too obvious that the Republican Party is plainly insane and has turned a ginned-up emergency into a very real one. If this debt ceiling debacle doesn't conclusive prove this Tea Bagging 112th Congress isn't the worst one in American history, then nothing will.
But a large measure of the responsibility also has to be laid at the doorstep of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, currently occupied by an administration that seems bound and determined to exceed its predecessor as the worst presidency of all time.
How did it come to this? A Rant.
Despite what the generations that follow the post-World War II baby boom think, most boomers in my circle have always had the fatalistic notion that Social Security would not be there for us. I've posted before about a Tom Toles cartoon from the 1980's called "The Reading of the Will" which is rife with boomer resentment at our parents' generation because of their defined benefit pensions and guaranteed Social Security payments and leisurely retirements. Somehow we always knew. Even when, in the 1980's, what is now called the "Social Security Trust Fund" was set up specifically for the purpose of beefing up the system for baby boomer retirement, we knew. We knew that whatever stores were built up were replaced with IOUs that we knew the government had no intention of paying.
Those of us who did not want children and have been lucky enough to have not been completely jettisoned from the job market are better off than many. We've been taking advantage of 401(k) match and putting away as much as we can afford. Whether we'll be OK remains to be seen, once Medicare is gutted (and it WILL happen, whether Barack Obama is re-elected next year or not, since he's shown himself to be at best a rubber stamp for Republican policies. But friends of mine who are trying to put kids through college and seeing them into adulthood are scared to death -- not just of their own futures, because who can put away money for retirement when a low-end college is $25,000 a year, but of that of their children, many of whom are unable to get a toehold in the job market. What good does it to do graduate with a degree in marketing when the only job you're going to be able to get is to be re-hired as a cart boy at the Stop & Shop?
Work longer, they tell us. People are healthier longer, so it doesn't make sense to retire at 65 the way it once did. That's all well and good, but is it healthy for a society that is hemorrhaging jobs for older people to clog up the workforce? And there's no sign that the job market is ever going to get any better. Anything done on a PC can be done more cheaply overseas. Anything requiring special skills can be done by hiring immigrants on work visas. I have a friend who's a production editor at a publishing company. She's fifty, she has two kids to put through college and who's going to be the one to tell her that her job may very well not even exist in five years?
I've spent all of my adult years in the Age of Corporatism. I graduated high school into the first Arab oil embargo and graduated college with a degree in sociology into the second one. I started out in a retail management training program that was the catch-all for liberal arts majors at the time. But at least I was graduating into a society that hadn't yet been completely taken over by greed. That happened later, after Ronald Reagan took office, and while I myself have done well, our society hasn't. Oh sure, we have gewgaws and toys and electronics and two flat-screen TVs and 200 channels of nothing you'd want to watch on TV. People have pulled their kids out of school for Caribbean vacations paid for on home equity loans and people in Section 8 housing have smart phones. All of this is cited as examples by Republicans of how well off we are. But are we? And what about tomorrow?
I work in an industry that is rapidly consolidating, with tens of thousands having been laid off in just the last two years. The web development I used to do is dead too, replaced by templates and do-it-yourselfers. When I was in high school and college there was always a "hot industry" that was hiring. If engineers weren't in demand, then marketers were. If there was a glut of marketers, the accounting field was begging for people. Now there is no "hot industry". There is no path to upward mobility for the poor, there is no path towards staying in the middle class for those who were born into it. Only those with inherited money are able to prosper.
Social Security was implemented in the depths of the Depression, and Republicans have been trying to get rid of it ever since. Whatever faults the Democrats may have had, what with Ted Kennedy's scandals and Tip O'Neil's tippling and Hubert Humphrey's often preposterous optimism, they could always be relied on to be the protectors of the middle class and the poor. Whether it was Social Security, Medicare, Pell grants, nutrition programs, or education, the Democrats were the party of the little guy.
Something happened along the way. I suppose you could say it started with Jimmy Carter, who was the first conservative Democrat to hold the White House. Carter, a Southern Baptist, paved the way for the relentless Christianism that has pervaded our political discourse in the years since then. Ronald Reagan started his presidency by busting the air traffic controllers' union and accelerated the path towards elimination of the middle class. Reagan recognized the religious fervor in the southern states and the midwest, and he recognized the residual racism in the south, and used it to pit the middle class against the poor while screwing over both. The patrician George H.W. Bush similar knew nothing about the struggles of middle class people as he marveled over a supermarket scanner. Bill Clinton used his charm to win over crowds of middle class and minority voters while implementing NAFTA and eliminating Glass-Steagall and insisting that he was one of them. The advent of the internet led to $100,000 programming jobs and new media and lots of opportunities for the middle class to start to afford the trappings of the wealthy, and Americans embraced them. They leased BMWs for the kind of payments you used to have to buy a Chevrolet. They took adjustable-rate mortgages that allowed them to make lower payments on bigger houses. They bought houses for 3% down. They took equity loans for akylit soaring-ceilinged great rooms and dream kitchens and summer-long cruises with their kids.
Then George W. Bush came along, and the first thing he did was look at the surplus that Bill Clinton and the internet boom had left him and said, "Let's cut taxes." But to paraphrase the man himself, the have-mores were his base, so they got most of the spoils. Then he ignored a Presidential Daily Briefing on August 6, 2001, and a month later almost 3000 people died in a terrorist attack that should have been thwarted had he been doing his job. And what did he tell people? Go shopping. He put us into two wars, one of them completely unnecessary, kept the tax cuts in place, and anyone who dared question him was called un-American and traitorous. A right-wing echo chamber that had been developed during the Clinton years to obsess over his sex life was now firmly in place, and Judith Miller canoodled with Scooter Libby, and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq became conventional wisdom, and if you questioned it, you could very well find your house firebombed by an increasingly frightened and angry population.
Fear was a potent weapon during the Bush years, with color-coded terror warnings and a convenient tape by Osama Bin Laden issued every time Bush's approval ratings dropped. People in flyover states sat up nights worrying about Scary Swarthy Men doing things to the local Wal-Mart, and all the while, while Bush's Washington was warning of terrorist plots and Americans were hiding under the bed clutching a roll of plastic sheeting in one hand and one of duct tape in the other, the guys at the top were rifling through the dresser drawers where Americans kept their spending cash and filled their pockets, then crept off and joined the Be Afraid Chorus.
This is really the point at which the Democratic Party became completely undone. Faced with a McCarthyite White House, and saddled with the baggage of Vietnam amti-war protests, Democrats fell silent as they gave George W. Bush blank check after blank check after blank check to cut taxes for his friends and to feed more and more American kids into a Middle East meatgrinder. This is where it became obvious that this was a party completely unable to frame an argument. A half-million ordinary citizens marched in New York City in early 2003 because we knew that the Iraq claims were bullshit, but the Democratic Party could not even be bothered to study the readily-available evidence out there. It was easier to just listen to the Washington pundits and go along.
Then in mid-2002, a virtually unknown governor from Vermont appeared on Meet the Press and miracle of miracles, was showing that he HAD read the evidence, and he KNEW what was going on. Here was a guy I could vote for.
Howard Dean became so much of a threat to the Washington narrative that not only did Democratic presidential rivals pool resources to tag-team him in Iowa, where it was starting to look like he just might be able to take his campaign of truth to the nomination, but the media got in on the pile-on, deliberately turning down the crowd noise at a rally for campaign workers following his defeat in Iowa so that his exhortations to the disappointed crowd sounded like the ravings of a madman. Later on, after Howard Dean was safely out of the way, ABC, the network that perpetrated this journalistic crime, admitted that they had turned down the crowd noise. Horse, barn door, etc.
So John Kerry, the party's anointed one, the guy who couldn't possibly be attacked because he was a war hero, became the nominee....and was promptly attacked as a war traitor. John Kerry made two fatal mistakes. The first was believing that the American people are too smart to believe demonstrable untruths, and the second was believing that he was working with good-faith operators. Yet despite the willingness of the public to believe the claims of the so-called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (a group financed by a Bush and Tom DeLay campaign contributor), Kerry still came within Ohio's electoral votes of defeating George W. Bush in 2004. Kerry, displaying now-typical Democratic gutlessness, didn't even wait till all the Ohio votes were counted before taking his $14 million in campaign cash and going home, but it has since been well-demonstrated that Republican-initiated electronic voting shenanigans really DID tilt the scales for Bush.
So fast-forward to 2008. George W. Bush is acknowledged by all but about 20% of the population to be the miserable failure that those of us with gray matter in our crania knew all along. The financial crisis of 2008 has, depending on what you believe, put us within a hair's breadth of global economic collapse. The Democrats' presumed front-runner, Hillary Clinton, who in a room full of netroots activists at Yearly Kos 2007 said that "Lobbyists are Americans too", lost the nomination in the face of the charisma of Barack Obama, his transformative potential, and a desperate hunger in the population for someone as different from George W. Bush as possible.
I had supported John Edwards in the primaries. Of course we had no idea then what was going on in his private life, and we knew that people in his home state regarded him as somewhat of a phony, but at least he was SAYING the right things about how Americans were already suffering in a diminishing job market and a contracting economy. Edwards turned out to be as bad a messenger for "The Two Americas" as Ralph Nader is for "There Is No Difference", but at least on the stump he was the only guy paying any mind to what was happening. I took no end of shit from Obama supporters in those early days of the 2008 Democratic nominating process because I did not believe that he was the progressive dreamboat they did. I remember paraphrasing Walter Mondale's 1984 convention speech to a gay friend who was offended by John Edwards' "struggle" with accepting gay marriage. "You make John Edwards feel icky and you make Barack Obama feel icky. Obama won't tell you. Edwards just did."
And I was right.
But still -- what was an American in search of a president with a brain in his head, vote for a once-proud American Senator whose stock had fallen so far that he had to choose a bubble-headed beauty queen for his running mate, or a guy who could string together coherent sentences and show that he recognized we live in a complex world? McCain was so inept on the campaign trail that Obama hardly had to break a sweat. McCain seemed old, out-of-touch, and cantankerous. And even the priapic sexual fantasies of the pundit corps at the mere mention of Sarah Palin didn't change the fact that this dimwitted, theorcratic End Of Days-er was potentially one cancer survivor away from the nuclear football.
Even if you didn't support Obama all that much, there was a palpable aura of change in the air on January 20, 2009. It was an aura that diminshed quickly, as Obama filled his Cabinet with hacks, Clinton retreads, and corporatists. And now, thirty years after the I Got Mine And Fuck You doctrine took over the Republican Party, and one summer after the shrill ravings of barely 19% of the American people were treated as a massive new movement, here we are, with a Democratic Party capitulating to a gutting of the American social contract, and not even a request to ask billionaires to throw even one more nickel...one penny...into the pot.
I ask you: Who do these people, these Democrats represent? It isn't these people:
So who is it? And just whom do they think is going to keep them in office? Obama's political people think that "They Have No Place Else To Go" will keep the Democratic base in the fold. They think they're appealing to "a wide swath of voters":
Borosage is dead wrong. Maybe the dead-enders at Daily Kos, and the commenter here who insists that if you don't cheerlead for Obama it means you really want Mitt Romney to be president, will show up no matter what. But this particular voter is being tired of being told by a bunch of at best inept, lazy, spineless Democrats that no matter how many times they capitulate to the most insane Republicans we've ever seen, we have to vote for them because we have no place else to go. This particular voter is tired of being shown pictures of Michele Bachmann and being told, "ooh, SCARY!"
I am 56 years old. I can't say I want to be subject to torture because I'm not a Christian. I can't say I want to see a hastening of global thermonuclear war because some lunatic that a bunch of inbred ignorant hicks decided was a good person thinks it's his or her calling by God to accelerate the End of Days. I can't say I want a world in which my friends' kids are pushed down into poverty because the oligarchs find any semblance of the middle class frightening. I'd like to believe that I have 20 or 30 or, given the longevity of my family, even more good years ahead of me. I'd like to believe that I'll have time to do something other than just work, eat, and sleep before I die. But I'll tell you this much: If the rest of the middle class in country doesn't care that its government -- both parties -- hates them and is out to eliminate them at the beck and call of their oligarchic masters, then what the hell is the point? Let Michele Bachmann become president. Let's have a Supreme Court that always sides with corporations. Let's have creationism be taught in every school in the country. Let's head down this road towards a new dark ages. If Americans don't care enough to do something to stop this relentless decline into ignorance and hate and fear and loathing, why the hell should I, with my best years already behind me, bust my ass?
Those of us who did not want children and have been lucky enough to have not been completely jettisoned from the job market are better off than many. We've been taking advantage of 401(k) match and putting away as much as we can afford. Whether we'll be OK remains to be seen, once Medicare is gutted (and it WILL happen, whether Barack Obama is re-elected next year or not, since he's shown himself to be at best a rubber stamp for Republican policies. But friends of mine who are trying to put kids through college and seeing them into adulthood are scared to death -- not just of their own futures, because who can put away money for retirement when a low-end college is $25,000 a year, but of that of their children, many of whom are unable to get a toehold in the job market. What good does it to do graduate with a degree in marketing when the only job you're going to be able to get is to be re-hired as a cart boy at the Stop & Shop?
Work longer, they tell us. People are healthier longer, so it doesn't make sense to retire at 65 the way it once did. That's all well and good, but is it healthy for a society that is hemorrhaging jobs for older people to clog up the workforce? And there's no sign that the job market is ever going to get any better. Anything done on a PC can be done more cheaply overseas. Anything requiring special skills can be done by hiring immigrants on work visas. I have a friend who's a production editor at a publishing company. She's fifty, she has two kids to put through college and who's going to be the one to tell her that her job may very well not even exist in five years?
I've spent all of my adult years in the Age of Corporatism. I graduated high school into the first Arab oil embargo and graduated college with a degree in sociology into the second one. I started out in a retail management training program that was the catch-all for liberal arts majors at the time. But at least I was graduating into a society that hadn't yet been completely taken over by greed. That happened later, after Ronald Reagan took office, and while I myself have done well, our society hasn't. Oh sure, we have gewgaws and toys and electronics and two flat-screen TVs and 200 channels of nothing you'd want to watch on TV. People have pulled their kids out of school for Caribbean vacations paid for on home equity loans and people in Section 8 housing have smart phones. All of this is cited as examples by Republicans of how well off we are. But are we? And what about tomorrow?
I work in an industry that is rapidly consolidating, with tens of thousands having been laid off in just the last two years. The web development I used to do is dead too, replaced by templates and do-it-yourselfers. When I was in high school and college there was always a "hot industry" that was hiring. If engineers weren't in demand, then marketers were. If there was a glut of marketers, the accounting field was begging for people. Now there is no "hot industry". There is no path to upward mobility for the poor, there is no path towards staying in the middle class for those who were born into it. Only those with inherited money are able to prosper.
Social Security was implemented in the depths of the Depression, and Republicans have been trying to get rid of it ever since. Whatever faults the Democrats may have had, what with Ted Kennedy's scandals and Tip O'Neil's tippling and Hubert Humphrey's often preposterous optimism, they could always be relied on to be the protectors of the middle class and the poor. Whether it was Social Security, Medicare, Pell grants, nutrition programs, or education, the Democrats were the party of the little guy.
Something happened along the way. I suppose you could say it started with Jimmy Carter, who was the first conservative Democrat to hold the White House. Carter, a Southern Baptist, paved the way for the relentless Christianism that has pervaded our political discourse in the years since then. Ronald Reagan started his presidency by busting the air traffic controllers' union and accelerated the path towards elimination of the middle class. Reagan recognized the religious fervor in the southern states and the midwest, and he recognized the residual racism in the south, and used it to pit the middle class against the poor while screwing over both. The patrician George H.W. Bush similar knew nothing about the struggles of middle class people as he marveled over a supermarket scanner. Bill Clinton used his charm to win over crowds of middle class and minority voters while implementing NAFTA and eliminating Glass-Steagall and insisting that he was one of them. The advent of the internet led to $100,000 programming jobs and new media and lots of opportunities for the middle class to start to afford the trappings of the wealthy, and Americans embraced them. They leased BMWs for the kind of payments you used to have to buy a Chevrolet. They took adjustable-rate mortgages that allowed them to make lower payments on bigger houses. They bought houses for 3% down. They took equity loans for akylit soaring-ceilinged great rooms and dream kitchens and summer-long cruises with their kids.
Then George W. Bush came along, and the first thing he did was look at the surplus that Bill Clinton and the internet boom had left him and said, "Let's cut taxes." But to paraphrase the man himself, the have-mores were his base, so they got most of the spoils. Then he ignored a Presidential Daily Briefing on August 6, 2001, and a month later almost 3000 people died in a terrorist attack that should have been thwarted had he been doing his job. And what did he tell people? Go shopping. He put us into two wars, one of them completely unnecessary, kept the tax cuts in place, and anyone who dared question him was called un-American and traitorous. A right-wing echo chamber that had been developed during the Clinton years to obsess over his sex life was now firmly in place, and Judith Miller canoodled with Scooter Libby, and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq became conventional wisdom, and if you questioned it, you could very well find your house firebombed by an increasingly frightened and angry population.
Fear was a potent weapon during the Bush years, with color-coded terror warnings and a convenient tape by Osama Bin Laden issued every time Bush's approval ratings dropped. People in flyover states sat up nights worrying about Scary Swarthy Men doing things to the local Wal-Mart, and all the while, while Bush's Washington was warning of terrorist plots and Americans were hiding under the bed clutching a roll of plastic sheeting in one hand and one of duct tape in the other, the guys at the top were rifling through the dresser drawers where Americans kept their spending cash and filled their pockets, then crept off and joined the Be Afraid Chorus.
This is really the point at which the Democratic Party became completely undone. Faced with a McCarthyite White House, and saddled with the baggage of Vietnam amti-war protests, Democrats fell silent as they gave George W. Bush blank check after blank check after blank check to cut taxes for his friends and to feed more and more American kids into a Middle East meatgrinder. This is where it became obvious that this was a party completely unable to frame an argument. A half-million ordinary citizens marched in New York City in early 2003 because we knew that the Iraq claims were bullshit, but the Democratic Party could not even be bothered to study the readily-available evidence out there. It was easier to just listen to the Washington pundits and go along.
Then in mid-2002, a virtually unknown governor from Vermont appeared on Meet the Press and miracle of miracles, was showing that he HAD read the evidence, and he KNEW what was going on. Here was a guy I could vote for.
Howard Dean became so much of a threat to the Washington narrative that not only did Democratic presidential rivals pool resources to tag-team him in Iowa, where it was starting to look like he just might be able to take his campaign of truth to the nomination, but the media got in on the pile-on, deliberately turning down the crowd noise at a rally for campaign workers following his defeat in Iowa so that his exhortations to the disappointed crowd sounded like the ravings of a madman. Later on, after Howard Dean was safely out of the way, ABC, the network that perpetrated this journalistic crime, admitted that they had turned down the crowd noise. Horse, barn door, etc.
So John Kerry, the party's anointed one, the guy who couldn't possibly be attacked because he was a war hero, became the nominee....and was promptly attacked as a war traitor. John Kerry made two fatal mistakes. The first was believing that the American people are too smart to believe demonstrable untruths, and the second was believing that he was working with good-faith operators. Yet despite the willingness of the public to believe the claims of the so-called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (a group financed by a Bush and Tom DeLay campaign contributor), Kerry still came within Ohio's electoral votes of defeating George W. Bush in 2004. Kerry, displaying now-typical Democratic gutlessness, didn't even wait till all the Ohio votes were counted before taking his $14 million in campaign cash and going home, but it has since been well-demonstrated that Republican-initiated electronic voting shenanigans really DID tilt the scales for Bush.
So fast-forward to 2008. George W. Bush is acknowledged by all but about 20% of the population to be the miserable failure that those of us with gray matter in our crania knew all along. The financial crisis of 2008 has, depending on what you believe, put us within a hair's breadth of global economic collapse. The Democrats' presumed front-runner, Hillary Clinton, who in a room full of netroots activists at Yearly Kos 2007 said that "Lobbyists are Americans too", lost the nomination in the face of the charisma of Barack Obama, his transformative potential, and a desperate hunger in the population for someone as different from George W. Bush as possible.
I had supported John Edwards in the primaries. Of course we had no idea then what was going on in his private life, and we knew that people in his home state regarded him as somewhat of a phony, but at least he was SAYING the right things about how Americans were already suffering in a diminishing job market and a contracting economy. Edwards turned out to be as bad a messenger for "The Two Americas" as Ralph Nader is for "There Is No Difference", but at least on the stump he was the only guy paying any mind to what was happening. I took no end of shit from Obama supporters in those early days of the 2008 Democratic nominating process because I did not believe that he was the progressive dreamboat they did. I remember paraphrasing Walter Mondale's 1984 convention speech to a gay friend who was offended by John Edwards' "struggle" with accepting gay marriage. "You make John Edwards feel icky and you make Barack Obama feel icky. Obama won't tell you. Edwards just did."
And I was right.
But still -- what was an American in search of a president with a brain in his head, vote for a once-proud American Senator whose stock had fallen so far that he had to choose a bubble-headed beauty queen for his running mate, or a guy who could string together coherent sentences and show that he recognized we live in a complex world? McCain was so inept on the campaign trail that Obama hardly had to break a sweat. McCain seemed old, out-of-touch, and cantankerous. And even the priapic sexual fantasies of the pundit corps at the mere mention of Sarah Palin didn't change the fact that this dimwitted, theorcratic End Of Days-er was potentially one cancer survivor away from the nuclear football.
Even if you didn't support Obama all that much, there was a palpable aura of change in the air on January 20, 2009. It was an aura that diminshed quickly, as Obama filled his Cabinet with hacks, Clinton retreads, and corporatists. And now, thirty years after the I Got Mine And Fuck You doctrine took over the Republican Party, and one summer after the shrill ravings of barely 19% of the American people were treated as a massive new movement, here we are, with a Democratic Party capitulating to a gutting of the American social contract, and not even a request to ask billionaires to throw even one more nickel...one penny...into the pot.
I ask you: Who do these people, these Democrats represent? It isn't these people:
So who is it? And just whom do they think is going to keep them in office? Obama's political people think that "They Have No Place Else To Go" will keep the Democratic base in the fold. They think they're appealing to "a wide swath of voters":
Mr. Obama, seeking to appeal to the broad swath of independent voters, has adopted the Republicans’ language and in some cases their policies, while signaling a willingness to break with liberals on some issues.
That has some progressive members of Congress and liberal groups arguing that by not fighting for more stimulus spending, Mr. Obama could be left with an economy still producing so few jobs by Election Day that his re-election could be threatened. Besides turning off independents, Mr. Obama risks alienating Democratic voters already disappointed by his escalation of the war in Afghanistan and his failure to close the Guantánamo Bay prison, end the Bush-era tax cuts and enact a government-run health insurance system.
“The activist liberal base will support Obama because they’re terrified of the right wing,” said Robert L. Borosage, co-director of the liberal group Campaign for America’s Future.
But he said, “I believe that the voting base of the Democratic Party — young people, single women, African-Americans, Latinos — are going to be so discouraged by this economy and so dismayed unless the president starts to champion a jobs program and take on the Republican Congress that the ability of labor to turn out its vote, the ability of activists to mobilize that vote, is going to be dramatically reduced.”
Borosage is dead wrong. Maybe the dead-enders at Daily Kos, and the commenter here who insists that if you don't cheerlead for Obama it means you really want Mitt Romney to be president, will show up no matter what. But this particular voter is being tired of being told by a bunch of at best inept, lazy, spineless Democrats that no matter how many times they capitulate to the most insane Republicans we've ever seen, we have to vote for them because we have no place else to go. This particular voter is tired of being shown pictures of Michele Bachmann and being told, "ooh, SCARY!"
I am 56 years old. I can't say I want to be subject to torture because I'm not a Christian. I can't say I want to see a hastening of global thermonuclear war because some lunatic that a bunch of inbred ignorant hicks decided was a good person thinks it's his or her calling by God to accelerate the End of Days. I can't say I want a world in which my friends' kids are pushed down into poverty because the oligarchs find any semblance of the middle class frightening. I'd like to believe that I have 20 or 30 or, given the longevity of my family, even more good years ahead of me. I'd like to believe that I'll have time to do something other than just work, eat, and sleep before I die. But I'll tell you this much: If the rest of the middle class in country doesn't care that its government -- both parties -- hates them and is out to eliminate them at the beck and call of their oligarchic masters, then what the hell is the point? Let Michele Bachmann become president. Let's have a Supreme Court that always sides with corporations. Let's have creationism be taught in every school in the country. Let's head down this road towards a new dark ages. If Americans don't care enough to do something to stop this relentless decline into ignorance and hate and fear and loathing, why the hell should I, with my best years already behind me, bust my ass?
Grasshopper Bar, Sydney
Grasshopper may be completely hidden to the average passerby, but that seems to be half the appeal for the Sydney suits and hipster crowd that spill out the front of this laneway bar each weeknight. There are no signs on the street to indicate its existence, but those in-the-know head down the narrow alley off George Street, unmarked but for the remarkably appropriate street sign "Temperance
So much for the "invisible hand"
The idea of the "invisible hand" is that self-interest drives actors (in this case, corporations) to behavior that ultimately benefits society. The quasi-beneficent view of this is a corporation taking advantage of cheap labor to build a factory in a third-world country, but even those low wages are better than what the people there have now. Another example is Steve Jobs sitting in an office at Apple developing the iPhone (though whether that will ultimately benefit society in the long run remains to be seen). It's the basis of Thomas Friedman's "world is flat" theory, in which a New York Times columnist whose seven-figure income isn't at risk tells us that after companies run out of "race to the bottom" countries to which to outsource, everything will flatten out, even though it means that we peons who are not getting paid by the New York Times to write this crap will have to settle for a dramatically lower standard of income.
In the turmoil of the Washington budget battles, we have the airline industry, whose executives' motto is more Gordon Gekko than Adam Smith: Greed is Good. When faced with the opportunity of not having to pay federal taxes on airline tickets, are the airlines using it to build traffic and sell more seats smack in the middle of vacatin season -- the "factory in the poor country" model of benefitting society? Hardly. Instead they're raising base prices to make up the difference and pocketing the cash:
Mr. Baldanza, you'll never be accepted into the rich guys' club with an attitude like that.
In the turmoil of the Washington budget battles, we have the airline industry, whose executives' motto is more Gordon Gekko than Adam Smith: Greed is Good. When faced with the opportunity of not having to pay federal taxes on airline tickets, are the airlines using it to build traffic and sell more seats smack in the middle of vacatin season -- the "factory in the poor country" model of benefitting society? Hardly. Instead they're raising base prices to make up the difference and pocketing the cash:
Several federal taxes on airline tickets expired over the weekend after Congress failed to pass legislation to keep the Federal Aviation Administration running at full speed.
Raising the fares allows the airlines to charge the consumer the same amount as before, while pocketing money previously collected for the government.
It could turn into a windfall for airlines if the stalemate in Congress drags on. The government estimates that the expiring taxes total $200 million a week. And with jet fuel prices much higher than last year, airlines can use the cash.
As of midday Monday, nearly all large U.S. airlines had raised prices, but fare watchers said Alaska Airlines, Hawaiian Airlines and Spirit Airlines had not. The CEO of Spirit, a small, low-fare outfit that accounts for less than 1 percent of the market, said the industry looked bad.
"The taxes that Spirit and all the other airlines collect don't belong to us," Ben Baldanza said. "It's the taxpayers' money. It was never Spirit's money. It would be a grab to take that money."
Mr. Baldanza, you'll never be accepted into the rich guys' club with an attitude like that.
samedi 30 juillet 2011
Politico uses the "T" word
Politico isn't exactly known for using hyperbole where the right wing is concerned, so it's all the more amazing to see this over there:
So now we have Fareed Zakaria saying that teabag members of Congress will "blow up the country" if they don't get their way, and even Politico is getting nervous.
The press has no one to blame but itself for the inflated importance of a relatively small group of extremists. From the day Rick Santelli ranted on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, the 24-hour cable news cycle has treated a fringe bunch of lunatics as The Next Big Exciting Thing. Even Chris Matthews had a thrill of orange pekoe going up his leg at the thought of a big noisy even faux-populist effort. In Congress, the Not Quite So Insane caucus thought they could control the lunatic froth-mouthed minions that spout nonsense and are taken seriously by the frightened the the stupid. But the monster has been unleashed, and there may be no stopping it. It is a small monster, to be sure, but it is fierce and it has already caused much trepidation among the townspeople, who are too dispirited and confused now to go after it with pitchforks and torches and tar and feathers.
The tea party's terrorist tactics
As we stumble closer to Aug. 2, it has become clear that many in the tea party are willing to inflict massive harm on the American people to obtain their political objective of a severely shrunken federal government. Their persistence in rejecting compromise, even as the economic effects of the phony crisis they have created mount, has taken their radicalism beyond tough negotiating, beyond even hostage-taking.As markets fall in anticipation that there may not be a timely resolution; as credit agencies issue dire warnings that the U.S. political system has become so dysfunctional that a credit downgrade may be inevitable, and as America looks weakened in the eyes of the world, the tea party’s hostage-taking has evolved into the intentional infliction of harm on innocent Americans to achieve a political objective – terrorism.
Terrorism is a tough term, but, unfortunately, it describes tea party tactics precisely.
[snip]
Even in the absence of default, credit agencies would almost surely downgrade our credit worthiness, producing increases in interest rates that would slow the economy, increase unemployment and force families into foreclosure and bankruptcy.
As the markets dropped, families would watch their retirement and education savings and their dreams disappear.
Rather than reject the unthinkable, the tea party harnessed this potential harm as its weapon of mass destruction.
[snip]
The challenge for America is to stand firm in the face of terrorism, no matter the source.
So now we have Fareed Zakaria saying that teabag members of Congress will "blow up the country" if they don't get their way, and even Politico is getting nervous.
The press has no one to blame but itself for the inflated importance of a relatively small group of extremists. From the day Rick Santelli ranted on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, the 24-hour cable news cycle has treated a fringe bunch of lunatics as The Next Big Exciting Thing. Even Chris Matthews had a thrill of orange pekoe going up his leg at the thought of a big noisy even faux-populist effort. In Congress, the Not Quite So Insane caucus thought they could control the lunatic froth-mouthed minions that spout nonsense and are taken seriously by the frightened the the stupid. But the monster has been unleashed, and there may be no stopping it. It is a small monster, to be sure, but it is fierce and it has already caused much trepidation among the townspeople, who are too dispirited and confused now to go after it with pitchforks and torches and tar and feathers.
"They have not been elected as dictators of the United States"
Fareed Zakaria on how the Tea Party's profoundly undemocratic ways will "blow up the country":
vendredi 29 juillet 2011
Is MSNBC deliberately trying to taint its own brand?
Pundits whose brains are incapable of holding two thoughts at the same time think that MSNBC is "the left's Fox News". But while most (not all) of MSNBC's news/commentary shows lean to the left of what passes for the center these days (which really resembles 1964 Goldwater conservatism more than anything else), there is one characteristic of MSNBC's hosts that does not apply to Fox: With the exception of Joe Scarborough, who's still living in a delusional Republicanland where idiotic mouth-frothing teabagger lunatics don't control his party, MSNBC hosts don't just pull lies out of their asses and pass them off as demonstrable fact. And especially now that they've unwisely jettisoned the oh-too-confrontational Cenk Uygur, MSNBC represents the genteel left. Like it or not, you're never going to see Lawrence O'Donnell (who admirably fought bravely on as Joey "What ABOUT Lori Klausutis, anyway?" the Scar tried to filibuster him yesterday morning) call Rep. Peter King an asshole on the air. And even Rachel Maddow, who is now completely free to do pretty much whatever she wants, as MSNBC's reigning star, tends to wield tiny poison darts at those she demolishes rather than of carrying a big stick -- and doing it all with a smile. It's a successful formula that has managed to survive, and even thrive, in the post-Olbermann era, even as people like me have returned to the Olbermann fold, preferring to watch "The Last Word" as time permits the next day.
But aside from the factual differences between MSNBC's coverage of current events and that of Fox, MSNBC's point of pride is hat it hasn't acted as the propaganda arm of a political party the way Fox News does. O'Donnell is a bit too much of an Obama cheerleader for my taste; obviously still subscribing to the 11-dimensional chess theory of Obama rather than what increasingly looks like the reality -- that at best Obama is twisting himself into pretzels to appeal to and appease the right because of his unique childhood baggage, while at worst he really IS a moderate-right conservative. At least O'Donnell has arrived at his views through a coherent thought proess and is prepared to argue his points rather than just spouting talking points. But as we found out with the jettisoning of Cenk Uygur, MSNBC is first and foremost about access, and when opinion interferes with that access, Phil Griffin steps in.
The best spin on the decision to replace Uygur with Al Sharpton, despite strong ratings, is to add more diversity to MSNBC's all-white lineup (though it seems to me that with Muslims and gays being the hated minorities of choice on the right these days, a lineup that has an out lesbian in Rachel Maddow as its public face, the British-of-Pakistani-origins Martin Bashir on in the afternoon and Uygur, who was born in Turkey to Sunni Muslim parents, is more diverse than ANY on other news channel). So when MSNBC decided to replace Cenk Uygur with Al Sharpton at 6 PM, I had to scratch my head. Sharpton? Yes, Sharpton can be incisive and even funny when talking off-the-cuff, and he stole the show at the 2004 presidential debates, but even cable news is not journalism school. And for a sizable portion of the population, the name "Al Sharpton" is still far too closely associated with the image of Tawana Brawley insisting that "No one manipsnates (sic) me or my family."
Sharpton is a bright guy and has been a media star, or at the very least a media figure, for a long time; and even Rachel Maddow had that deer-in-the-headlights look for a few weeks in the beginning as she became more comfortable with a teleprompter. I'm sure that once he's more comfortable, we'll see the witty side of Sharpton come out, but demeanor isn't Sharpton's only problem. As Glenn Greenwald notes, Sharpton really IS the left's equivalent of a Fox News host -- to the detriment of the MSNBC brand:
There's an ongoing battle going on over at the Great Orange Satan about how much to criticize Barack Obama. And even here, I see comments every now and then telling me to STFU about Obama, that to criticize Obama is to want Mitt Romney to be president (speaking of not being able to hold two thoughts in one's head at the same time). But when we are seeing play out before our very eyes what happens when people put rigid ideology (and in the case of criticism of Obama, keeping one's mouth shut isn't even about ideology) or party loyalty ahead of the national good, it's difficult to justify keeping silent while President Obama time after time proceeds to blow whatever chance he had at being the transformational leader he could have been. It does the nation no favors, and in Al Sharpton's case, it taints whatever journalistic cred he's trying to build.
So here is MSNBC, a network that's established a niche, that can even point to the high morning ratings of Joey What Happened To Lori Klausutis as showing diverse points of view and Andrea Mitchell and Chris Matthews as the faces of "traditional journalism", that genuinely CAN be described as "fair and balanced" for the most part, getting rid of some of its most formidable talent for speaking too much to power and replacing one of them with a guy who has steamer trunks of credibility-tainting baggage.
It makes me wonder if Sharpton was hired specifically so that if he doesn't get Cenk's ratings, it will be deemed an excuse to abandon its even vaguely left-of-lunatic-right leanings and again try the "Let's Be Like Fox" tactic.
But aside from the factual differences between MSNBC's coverage of current events and that of Fox, MSNBC's point of pride is hat it hasn't acted as the propaganda arm of a political party the way Fox News does. O'Donnell is a bit too much of an Obama cheerleader for my taste; obviously still subscribing to the 11-dimensional chess theory of Obama rather than what increasingly looks like the reality -- that at best Obama is twisting himself into pretzels to appeal to and appease the right because of his unique childhood baggage, while at worst he really IS a moderate-right conservative. At least O'Donnell has arrived at his views through a coherent thought proess and is prepared to argue his points rather than just spouting talking points. But as we found out with the jettisoning of Cenk Uygur, MSNBC is first and foremost about access, and when opinion interferes with that access, Phil Griffin steps in.
The best spin on the decision to replace Uygur with Al Sharpton, despite strong ratings, is to add more diversity to MSNBC's all-white lineup (though it seems to me that with Muslims and gays being the hated minorities of choice on the right these days, a lineup that has an out lesbian in Rachel Maddow as its public face, the British-of-Pakistani-origins Martin Bashir on in the afternoon and Uygur, who was born in Turkey to Sunni Muslim parents, is more diverse than ANY on other news channel). So when MSNBC decided to replace Cenk Uygur with Al Sharpton at 6 PM, I had to scratch my head. Sharpton? Yes, Sharpton can be incisive and even funny when talking off-the-cuff, and he stole the show at the 2004 presidential debates, but even cable news is not journalism school. And for a sizable portion of the population, the name "Al Sharpton" is still far too closely associated with the image of Tawana Brawley insisting that "No one manipsnates (sic) me or my family."
Sharpton is a bright guy and has been a media star, or at the very least a media figure, for a long time; and even Rachel Maddow had that deer-in-the-headlights look for a few weeks in the beginning as she became more comfortable with a teleprompter. I'm sure that once he's more comfortable, we'll see the witty side of Sharpton come out, but demeanor isn't Sharpton's only problem. As Glenn Greenwald notes, Sharpton really IS the left's equivalent of a Fox News host -- to the detriment of the MSNBC brand:
On Sunday, Cenk Uygur was interviewed by CNN's Howard Kurtz about Uygur's departure from MSNBC, and Ugyur claimed that Al Sharpton -- widely reported to be his replacement -- vowed in a 60 Minutes interview never to criticize President Obama under any circumstances. When I first heard Ugyur make this claim, I assumed it was hyperbole -- until I watched the video and read the transcript of the Sharpton interview. The 60 Minutes segment was aired on May 19, 2011, and chronicles what it calls Sharpton's "metamorphosis: today he's down right tame. So much so, that he has made his way into the establishment." It includes this:
Sharpton told us that having a black president is a challenge: if he finds fault with Mr. Obama, he'd be aiding those who want to destroy him. So he has decided not to criticize the president about anything -- even about black unemployment, which is twice the national rate.
The segment also described Sharpton as "now a trusted White House adviser" and recounts that "given his loyalty and his change from confrontational to accommodating, the administration is rewarding him with access and assignments."
How can a media outlet such as MSNBC that purports to be presenting political journalism possibly employ someone as a journalist -- even an opinion journalist -- who publicly and categorically pledges never to criticize the President of the United States under any circumstances? That would be like hiring a physician who vows never to treat any diseases, or employing an auto mechanic who pledges never to fix any cars, or retaining a pollster who swears never to make any findings about public opinion. Holding people in political power accountable is the prime function -- the defining feature -- of a journalist, including a pundit; if you expressly and publicly vow never to do that, how can you possibly be credibly presented as being one? And how can the political analysis of someone who takes this pledge possibly be trusted as sincerely held, let alone accurate? Note that this vow was not from three years ago; it was from two months ago.
There's an ongoing battle going on over at the Great Orange Satan about how much to criticize Barack Obama. And even here, I see comments every now and then telling me to STFU about Obama, that to criticize Obama is to want Mitt Romney to be president (speaking of not being able to hold two thoughts in one's head at the same time). But when we are seeing play out before our very eyes what happens when people put rigid ideology (and in the case of criticism of Obama, keeping one's mouth shut isn't even about ideology) or party loyalty ahead of the national good, it's difficult to justify keeping silent while President Obama time after time proceeds to blow whatever chance he had at being the transformational leader he could have been. It does the nation no favors, and in Al Sharpton's case, it taints whatever journalistic cred he's trying to build.
So here is MSNBC, a network that's established a niche, that can even point to the high morning ratings of Joey What Happened To Lori Klausutis as showing diverse points of view and Andrea Mitchell and Chris Matthews as the faces of "traditional journalism", that genuinely CAN be described as "fair and balanced" for the most part, getting rid of some of its most formidable talent for speaking too much to power and replacing one of them with a guy who has steamer trunks of credibility-tainting baggage.
It makes me wonder if Sharpton was hired specifically so that if he doesn't get Cenk's ratings, it will be deemed an excuse to abandon its even vaguely left-of-lunatic-right leanings and again try the "Let's Be Like Fox" tactic.
Krugman is getting in touch with his inner Keith Olbermann
Paul Krugman has been pretty shrill about the debacle that's taken place in Washington since a black Democrat became president and the right wing had a collective nervous breakdown. But today he fills in for David Brooks by taking a well aimed swipe at...well....David Brooks (and others of Bobo's ilk) in a column called "The Centrist Cop-Out" (NYT link):
Snap!
And there you have it -- Krugman at his best, taking off the gloves against his own absent colleague. So should we now watch for Paul Krugman to be fired from the New York Times and replaced by, say, Erick Erickson? You know, for balance and all.
The facts of the crisis over the debt ceiling aren’t complicated. Republicans have, in effect, taken America hostage, threatening to undermine the economy and disrupt the essential business of government unless they get policy concessions they would never have been able to enact through legislation. And Democrats — who would have been justified in rejecting this extortion altogether — have, in fact, gone a long way toward meeting those Republican demands.
As I said, it’s not complicated. Yet many people in the news media apparently can’t bring themselves to acknowledge this simple reality. News reports portray the parties as equally intransigent; pundits fantasize about some kind of “centrist” uprising, as if the problem was too much partisanship on both sides.
Some of us have long complained about the cult of “balance,” the insistence on portraying both parties as equally wrong and equally at fault on any issue, never mind the facts. I joked long ago that if one party declared that the earth was flat, the headlines would read “Views Differ on Shape of Planet.” But would that cult still rule in a situation as stark as the one we now face, in which one party is clearly engaged in blackmail and the other is dickering over the size of the ransom?
The answer, it turns out, is yes. And this is no laughing matter: The cult of balance has played an important role in bringing us to the edge of disaster. For when reporting on political disputes always implies that both sides are to blame, there is no penalty for extremism. Voters won’t punish you for outrageous behavior if all they ever hear is that both sides are at fault.
[snip]
Many pundits view taking a position in the middle of the political spectrum as a virtue in itself. I don’t. Wisdom doesn’t necessarily reside in the middle of the road, and I want leaders who do the right thing, not the centrist thing.
But for those who insist that the center is always the place to be, I have an important piece of information: We already have a centrist president. Indeed, Bruce Bartlett, who served as a policy analyst in the Reagan administration, argues that Mr. Obama is in practice a moderate conservative.
[snip]
So what’s with the buzz about a centrist uprising? As I see it, it’s coming from people who recognize the dysfunctional nature of modern American politics, but refuse, for whatever reason, to acknowledge the one-sided role of Republican extremists in making our system dysfunctional. And it’s not hard to guess at their motivation. After all, pointing out the obvious truth gets you labeled as a shrill partisan, not just from the right, but from the ranks of self-proclaimed centrists.
But making nebulous calls for centrism, like writing news reports that always place equal blame on both parties, is a big cop-out — a cop-out that only encourages more bad behavior. The problem with American politics right now is Republican extremism, and if you’re not willing to say that, you’re helping make that problem worse.
Snap!
And there you have it -- Krugman at his best, taking off the gloves against his own absent colleague. So should we now watch for Paul Krugman to be fired from the New York Times and replaced by, say, Erick Erickson? You know, for balance and all.
jeudi 28 juillet 2011
Raising the Medicare eligibility age is stupid and counterproductive
It's like making everyone who doesn't live in a a flood plain or hurricane-prone area wait 2 years to get homeowners insurance while taking all comers in Florida right away. The whole thing with insurance is that is spreads the risk. If Barack Obama is ready to bargain away Medicare kick-in at 65, he's capitulating to Teh Stupid for no reason at all.
Rick Ungar explains:
You'd think, wouldn't you? But when what we have is government-by-kabuki, the old rules no longer apply.
Rick Ungar explains:
Not surprisingly, younger participants in Medicare spend a lot less of the government’s money than older beneficiaries simply because they don’t get sick as often as the older folks. By cutting out the youngest in the Medicare program – those who are 65 to 67 – the government would be kicking out the very beneficiaries whose monthly payments are most likely to stay in the system where their money helps to pay for the care of older participants. Why? Because these younger payers are less likely to require the government to make payouts on their own behalf.
In the meantime, the burden of insuring those who would be denied Medicare for a few years would fall to employers – assuming those over 65 can still be employed – where things can get pretty expensive when having to insure someone who is now in the very oldest employee demographic.
As for those who are no longer employed, it would get very scary as purchasing insurance at 65 can be an ugly adventure – even with the benefit of Obamacare.
I support the President in his willingness to make the hard decisions to get the country back on a sound financial footing. I’m even willing to consider changes in programs I very much believe in, such as Medicare, if those changes will preserve the program’s finances going forward.
But is it asking too much that if cuts are to be undertaken that the changes actually do something rather than simply appear to do something?
You'd think, wouldn't you? But when what we have is government-by-kabuki, the old rules no longer apply.
The Smoker You Drink, The Player You Get
And teabagger "family values" representative Joe Walsh (Hypocrite - IL) is quite the player...so much that he's forgotten he has kids to support:
In other words, so-called anti-government deficit hawk Joe Walsh was just another unemployed loser until he lucked into a nice fat government-issued paycheck, augmented by nice campaign contributions from the companies at whose beck and call he serves.
And now, Joe Walsh's theme song, sung by the OTHER Joe Walsh -- you know, the one who ISN'T a useless hypocritical POS:
UPDATE: Great minds think alike.
Tea party hero Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Ill.) wants to wipe out the nation’s debt, but he’s got some major personal debt that his ex-wife is demanding he take care of — $117,437 in child support, according to a lawsuit reported by the Chicago Sun-Times.
The suit charges that Walsh enjoyed foreign vacations with his new girlfriend while claiming he couldn’t pay support for his three kids because he was out of work.
[snip]
Walsh’s attorney, R. Steven Polachek, told the Sun-Times the claim of unpaid child support is unfounded.
“I dispute that he owes the child support that she’s claiming or anywhere near that amount,” he said. “Joe Walsh hasn’t been a big-time wage-earner politician until recently — he’s had no more problems with child support than any other average guy.”
In other words, so-called anti-government deficit hawk Joe Walsh was just another unemployed loser until he lucked into a nice fat government-issued paycheck, augmented by nice campaign contributions from the companies at whose beck and call he serves.
And now, Joe Walsh's theme song, sung by the OTHER Joe Walsh -- you know, the one who ISN'T a useless hypocritical POS:
UPDATE: Great minds think alike.
The Good Kitchen, Hurstville
The Hong Kong cafe is where cost and efficiency are valued over décor and conversational niceties. Expect your order to be taken within two minutes of being handed the menu and your food to arrive shortly after.
For my Eat This! column in the July issue of Time Out Sydney, I headed to Hurstville where comfort food equals pan-fried spam, condensed milk on toast and the calorific glory that is
For my Eat This! column in the July issue of Time Out Sydney, I headed to Hurstville where comfort food equals pan-fried spam, condensed milk on toast and the calorific glory that is
mercredi 27 juillet 2011
Wednesday Big Blue Smurf Blogging: What They Said
Today's honoree, who should have been on my most recent Around the Blogroll feature, is Driftglass, who scarily channels the late Mr. Gilliard (whose voice and wisdom I'm sure I'm not alone in saying I miss every damn day that we live in this nightmare that is America in the 21st century) with Only Nixon Can Go To Nixonland.
Money quote:
Money quote:
...it is long past time for that to change, which is why the Center must be destroyed: must be reduce to an economically uninhabitable no-man's land where it is no longer possible for the "Both Sides Do It" liars to ply their lucrative trade.
It is time for a new Pledge; a beneficent mirror-image of Grover Norquist's odious "Americas for Tax Reform" Party of God loyalty oath. A pledge where the signer promises they will not book guests on their radio or teevee show who are liars. Not link to websites that feature liars except to excoriate them. Will not buy from, advertise on or patronize media that hires and promotes liars. That they will not reference lying Centerists at all except to mete out to them the scorn they deserve.
The Truth: It Isn't Just for the Progressive Blogosphere and Brad Friedman Anymore
John Thorpe at the financial information site Benzinga agrees with Brad Friedman, with just about the entire progressive blogosphere, and anyone with a brain, that George W. Bush stole Ohio in 2004:
More tinfoily-but-true FACTS here.
Three generations from now, when our great-grandchildren are sitting barefoot in their shanties and wondering how in the hell America turned from the high-point of civilization to a third-world banana republic, they will shake their fists and mutter one name: George Effin' Bush.
Ironically, it won't be for any of the things that liberals have been harping on the Bush Administration, either during or after his term in office. Sure, misguided tax cuts that destroyed the surplus, and lax regulations that doomed the economy, and two amazingly awful wars in deserts half a world away are all terrible, empire-sapping events. But they pale in comparison to what it appears the Republican Party did to get President Bush re-elected in 2004.
"A new filing in the King Lincoln Bronzeville v. Blackwell case includes a copy of the Ohio Secretary of State election production system configuration that was in use in Ohio's 2004 presidential election when there was a sudden and unexpected shift in votes for George W. Bush," according to Bob Fitrakis, columnist at http://www.freepress.org and co-counsel in the litigation and investigation.
If you recall, Ohio was the battleground state that provided George Bush with the electoral votes needed to win re-election. Had Senator John Kerry won Ohio's electoral votes, he would have been elected instead.
Evidence from the filing suggests that Republican operatives — including the private computer firms hired to manage the electronic voting data — were compromised.
[snip]
SmarTech was part of three computer companies brought in to manage the elections process for Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, a Republican. The other two were Triad and GovTech Solutions. All three companies have extensive ties to the Republican party and Republican causes.
In fact, GovTech was run by Mike Connell, who was a fiercely religious conservative who got involved in politics to push a right-wing social agenda. He was Karl Rove's IT go-to guy, and was alleged to be the IT brains behind the series of stolen elections between 2000 and 2004.
Connell was outed as the one who stole the 2004 election by Spoonamore, who, despite being a conservative Republican himself, came forward to blow the whistle on the stolen election scandal. Connell gave a deposition on the matter, but stonewalled. After the deposition, and fearing perjury/obstruction charges for withholding information, Connell expressed an interest in testifying further as to the extent of the scandal.
"He made it known to the lawyers, he made it known to reporter Larisa Alexandrovna of Raw Story, that he wanted to talk. He was scared. He wanted to talk. And I say that he had pretty good reason to be scared," said Mark Crispin Miller, who wrote a book on the scandal.
Connell was so scared for his security that he asked for protection from the attorney general, then Attorney General Michael Mukasey. Connell told close friends that he was expecting to get thrown under the bus by the Rove team, because Connell had evidence linking the GOP operative to the scandal and the stolen election, including knowledge of where Rove's missing emails disappeared to.
Before he could testify, Connell died in a plane crash.
More tinfoily-but-true FACTS here.
Fox News At Its Finest, Part XIV
How about this blast from the past? Fox "News" quoting Dick "deficits don't matter" Cheney about his rosy economic forecast less than two years before it blew up.
This is how Fox decided to celebrate Martin Luther King Day last January: By slamming a black man using a dead white guy. Kudos, Fox.
Sure they did, Pat. And one of their names was Christopher Columbus.
"But let's ignore the fact that as Hurricane Katrina was destroying New Orleans, Bush did the same thing in San Diego."
And the Republican party is doing its damnedest to ensure the White House can't make that guarantee.
Homeland Security using DNA scans for immigration cases, TSA using DNA scanners at airports... what's the difference?
I guess when Roger Ailes set out to change the world, he literally meant it.
Best. Idea. Ever.
This sounds like a great way to get karmic brownie points (from Digby):
This business about not being willing to hire the unemployed is reprehensible. I was laid off from a job three years ago not through any fault of my own, but because the grant money ran out and I had less seniority than my peer who stayed (there were two of us and they could only afford to pay one). I managed to get my current job during a very small window when anyone with even passing familiarity with the job function could get hired, but then I set my mind to essentially starting from scratch. Yes, it required a lot of effort, but if a person can learn, that person can get up to speed quickly.
Mr. Brilliant is currently working at a contract job that pays significantly less than he was making before he was one of at least six people over the age of fifty let go from his last job, and has nothing to do with what his skills are, but at least he can tell people who might have "permanent" jobs available that he's working.
If you had any doubt that there is a systematic attempt underfoot to completely eliminate the middle class, here it is. Those who have lost their jobs have a head start on the road down to grinding poverty, and those in a position to hire (you know, those "job creators" that John Boehner always talks about) want to make damn sure they stay that way. Meanwhile, those of us who DO still have good-paying jobs burn out, then try to take some much-needed vacation time and spend it with gnawing anxiety about whether they'll still be seen as valuable after taking a few days off.
The Republicans, particularly the Tea Party wing, has been masterful at taking jobs as an issue out of the public consciousness entirely because of this debt issue. Remember when the Republicans ran on job creation? Where are the jobs? And what does John Boehner expect the "99ers" to do now? Die in the street?
I have a business idea. Who wants to incorporate and and sell themselves to jobless people as their "current job" for resume purposes? You could just charge a little fee if the person gets the job. Why not? It's no more immoral than saying people shouldn't be allowed to work if they aren't already working.
This business about not being willing to hire the unemployed is reprehensible. I was laid off from a job three years ago not through any fault of my own, but because the grant money ran out and I had less seniority than my peer who stayed (there were two of us and they could only afford to pay one). I managed to get my current job during a very small window when anyone with even passing familiarity with the job function could get hired, but then I set my mind to essentially starting from scratch. Yes, it required a lot of effort, but if a person can learn, that person can get up to speed quickly.
Mr. Brilliant is currently working at a contract job that pays significantly less than he was making before he was one of at least six people over the age of fifty let go from his last job, and has nothing to do with what his skills are, but at least he can tell people who might have "permanent" jobs available that he's working.
If you had any doubt that there is a systematic attempt underfoot to completely eliminate the middle class, here it is. Those who have lost their jobs have a head start on the road down to grinding poverty, and those in a position to hire (you know, those "job creators" that John Boehner always talks about) want to make damn sure they stay that way. Meanwhile, those of us who DO still have good-paying jobs burn out, then try to take some much-needed vacation time and spend it with gnawing anxiety about whether they'll still be seen as valuable after taking a few days off.
The Republicans, particularly the Tea Party wing, has been masterful at taking jobs as an issue out of the public consciousness entirely because of this debt issue. Remember when the Republicans ran on job creation? Where are the jobs? And what does John Boehner expect the "99ers" to do now? Die in the street?
Blogrolling In Our Time
Tucked away amongst all the survivalists on Bustednuckles' blogroll is this little gem, I Painted My Fridge Red. B
ecause anyone who quotes Frank Zappa, Albert Schweitzer, Cicero, John Greenleaf Whittier, and Homer Simpson is A-OK in my book.
(Hey Larry! Want a 1950's Admiral fridge with a Cadillac-pink interior?)
ecause anyone who quotes Frank Zappa, Albert Schweitzer, Cicero, John Greenleaf Whittier, and Homer Simpson is A-OK in my book.
(Hey Larry! Want a 1950's Admiral fridge with a Cadillac-pink interior?)
A public service announcement
I'm 56 years old, and I have an appointment on Friday for my annual skin check, because melanoma is not something I want to have to deal with. Whether you are 16 or 56 or 76, please don't mess around with sun exposure. If something on your skin doesn't look right, have it checked out. And if you've ever had a blistering sunburn, make an appointment like the one I have on Friday. Your future grandchildren will thank you.
mardi 26 juillet 2011
Din Tai Fung, Sydney
Half the fun of dining at Din Tai Fung is the chance to watch the dumpling makers in action, clearly visible through the glassed-in kitchen out the front. There's always something to look at - from the man stretching a skipping rope of noodles by bouncing it effortlessly onto the metal bench; to the secret huddle of staff deftly folding dumplings in the corner; to the man checking the bamboo
Around the Blogroll and Elsewhere
I've been scrambling like mad lately, and even though in theory I have a few days off, I have to get some things done around this house or else we might as well bulldoze the whole place and start from scratch.
So take a tour of those who are far more disciplined than I:
Karen Garcia reads David Brooks and wishes she hadn't.
Jess finds her inner nerd. (I link to this because it reminds me of when Mr. Brilliant introduced me to reggae and afropop music back in 1983...and we're celebrating our 25th wedding anniversary in September. Make whatever connections there that you like.)
Tom Degan on the (unfortunately largely successful, though the Democrats don't seem to realize it yet) efforts by Republicans to make sure anyone who wants to vote them out of office doesn't get to vote.
On the day after yet more conciliatory bullshit from President Kiss Republican Ass, I'm linking to The New York Crank's speech he WISHES Obama would give.
Legal Schnauzer wonders why Karl Rove is going to an event in a backwater town in Alabama.
Kyle Leighton demonstrates that the when Boehner talks about Social Security and Medicare being the biggest contributors to our debt, it's because our biggest debtor isn't China, it's ourselves. Boehner's owners went on a bender using that money and now don't want to have to pay it back to elderly, disabled, and sick people who can either pay the rent this month or eat, but not both.
At Mother Jones, an article about the epidemic of teen suicide in Michele Bachmann's district.
At Balloon Juice, ABL notes that Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, having instituted voter ID laws, is now trying to make sure that people in Democratic areas will be unable to obtain the necessary ID.
So take a tour of those who are far more disciplined than I:
Karen Garcia reads David Brooks and wishes she hadn't.
Jess finds her inner nerd. (I link to this because it reminds me of when Mr. Brilliant introduced me to reggae and afropop music back in 1983...and we're celebrating our 25th wedding anniversary in September. Make whatever connections there that you like.)
Tom Degan on the (unfortunately largely successful, though the Democrats don't seem to realize it yet) efforts by Republicans to make sure anyone who wants to vote them out of office doesn't get to vote.
On the day after yet more conciliatory bullshit from President Kiss Republican Ass, I'm linking to The New York Crank's speech he WISHES Obama would give.
Legal Schnauzer wonders why Karl Rove is going to an event in a backwater town in Alabama.
Kyle Leighton demonstrates that the when Boehner talks about Social Security and Medicare being the biggest contributors to our debt, it's because our biggest debtor isn't China, it's ourselves. Boehner's owners went on a bender using that money and now don't want to have to pay it back to elderly, disabled, and sick people who can either pay the rent this month or eat, but not both.
At Mother Jones, an article about the epidemic of teen suicide in Michele Bachmann's district.
At Balloon Juice, ABL notes that Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, having instituted voter ID laws, is now trying to make sure that people in Democratic areas will be unable to obtain the necessary ID.
lundi 25 juillet 2011
Keshyog sur site gtmteleshopping.com
Pour des milliers d'années les hommes et les femmes ont été a la recherche de la solution à la perte de cheveux qui peut se développer à travers le temps dans la calvitie. Cette recherche est associé à l'insatisfaction au bien-être personnel qui peut causer des problèmes psychologiques. Pour résoudre ce problème de cheveux une
plante médicinale ayurvédique pour les soins des cheveux. Après des années de recherche dans nos laboratoires de R & D, notre équipe de recherche a développé ce produit pour les cheveux qui a fait ses preuves. KESHYOG aide les gens qui ont des problèmes liés aux cheveux comme - la chute des cheveux, les pellicules, la calvitie et des cheveux gris prématurés. Et ainsi de suite. Il nourrit le cuir chevelu entier, élimine les cellules mortes et améliore la circulation sanguine à partir du centre-niveaux.
Avantages directs
1. L'utilisation de ce médicament régulièrement et de la manière prescrite pour les 8-10 semaines contribue à la croissance de nouveaux cheveux.
2. S'il est utilisé correctement ce traitement commence arrêter la chute des cheveux dans les 3-4 jours.
3. Utilisation régulière et correcte de Keshyog s'arrête complètement les pellicules dans la semaine.
4. Keshyog Herbal Hair Oil lorsqu'il est appliqué correctement produit brillants cheveux noirs, au lieu des cheveux gris prématurés approximative de départ au bout de 2 mois.
5. Keshyog Herbal Hair Oil arrête également le problème de fin de split-cheveux dans les 2 semaines.
Avantages indirects
1.Keshyog Herbal Hair Oil, dans certains cas a aussi prouvé son efficacité dans le développement de la mémoire vive.
2. L'utilisation quotidienne et adéquate de ce traitement va induire un sommeil profond dans la personne souffrant d'insomnie causée par une pression artérielle élevée.
3. Ceci est un traitement complètement ayurvédique que l'allégement du stress parce que quand vous l'appliquez après un travail acharné.
4. Très léger tapotement remis de cette huile cheveux juste au centre de votre soulagement porter par temps très froid et la toux.
5. Contribue à éviter la formation de cloques si elle est appliquée immédiatement sur la zone de combustion du corps.
Précaution
1. Éloignez-vous de n'importe quel shampooing chimiques à base d'huile et de cheveux pendant la durée de ce traitement.
2. Évitez la lumière solaire directe sur la zone de traitement. Cache-lumière est conseillé de porter pendant la durée du traitement.
3. Ne pas utiliser de traitement des cheveux avec d'autres Keshyog.
4. Ce traitement est complètement à base d'herbes ayurvédiques et dans la nature, sans effets secondaires.
A little late to the game, but...
If you didn't already feel sad enough about the absolute unnecessary waste that was the death of Amy Winehouse, take a look at this appearance on Jools Holland from 2005, before she became the "hot mess" that we've seen most often and which finally killed her:
Damn.
And just in case you thought we'd forgotten about politics, there's this.
Republicans: Bashing dead people for political gain is what they do.
Damn.
And just in case you thought we'd forgotten about politics, there's this.
Republicans: Bashing dead people for political gain is what they do.
Voir Anders Behring Breivik au tribunal en direct
Anders Behring Breivik Auteur des attaques d’Oslo et l’île d’Utoya
Oh this is just swell.
Can we please stop taking End Times lunatics seriously as presidential candidates? Why on earth should we elect someone who thinks there'll be nothing to lead?
You know, we scratched our heads in disbelief that there were so many people who would be willing to fly airplanes into buildings because they believed they'd get 72 virgins in heaven. How is that any different from this idea that you're going to get to sit and eat nachos on the sofa with Jesus while you watch all those gays and Jews and people who think life is for enjoying burn in the tribulations? And please spare me your huffy comments about how Christians have never done anyhthing like the 9/11 attacks, particularly after what happened in Norway last weekend. I'm sure that if I dig hard enough I can come up with 3000 incidents of Christians who are willing to kill anyone, even their own children, who they feel aren't right with God...even more if we want to go back through history.
If you need religion to get through this massive cosmic joke that is life in America in the 21st century, have at it. But now that this notion of "candidate of faith" has changed from someone who marginally believes and goes to a house of worship on occasion to someone who is actually looking forward to the End of Days, I think it's time to call them "Crazy People" and rule them out from holding any kind of power over the rest of us. But instaed we get pundits having orgasms over Rick Perry's pearly white teeth and perfect hair and most of all, those real macho cowboy boots.
But perhaps Rick Perry's most damaging baggage comes in the form of the extremist pastors with whom he has been breaking bread these days. On August 6, the governor is hosting "The Response," a seven-hour, Christians-only prayer event at Houston's Reliant Stadium. His office hyped the event as "a Day of Prayer and Fasting for our nation to seek God's guidance and wisdom in addressing the challenges that face our communities, states and nation."
And as Perry said on the event's website, "As a nation, we must come together and call upon Jesus to guide us through unprecedented struggles." The list of endorsers and sponsors of the event reads like is a who's who of hard-right Christian fundamentalism, including Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, and the American Family Association -- the anti-gay group designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Rick Perry's decision to pal around with these ultra-conservative religious groups and pastors will undoubtedly help him in the GOP primaries, though these affiliations could render him unelectable in a general election. This courtship began in 2009, when two Texas pastors from the New Apostolic Reformation movement -- Tom Schlueter of Arlington and Bob Long of San Marcos -- approached Perry.
These pastors, whose followers believe the End Times are near and they have a direct line to God, told Perry that God has a grand plan to anoint Texas as "The Prophet State" that would lead America to godly government. And they told Gov. Perry that he is God's man to lead the nation.
You know, we scratched our heads in disbelief that there were so many people who would be willing to fly airplanes into buildings because they believed they'd get 72 virgins in heaven. How is that any different from this idea that you're going to get to sit and eat nachos on the sofa with Jesus while you watch all those gays and Jews and people who think life is for enjoying burn in the tribulations? And please spare me your huffy comments about how Christians have never done anyhthing like the 9/11 attacks, particularly after what happened in Norway last weekend. I'm sure that if I dig hard enough I can come up with 3000 incidents of Christians who are willing to kill anyone, even their own children, who they feel aren't right with God...even more if we want to go back through history.
If you need religion to get through this massive cosmic joke that is life in America in the 21st century, have at it. But now that this notion of "candidate of faith" has changed from someone who marginally believes and goes to a house of worship on occasion to someone who is actually looking forward to the End of Days, I think it's time to call them "Crazy People" and rule them out from holding any kind of power over the rest of us. But instaed we get pundits having orgasms over Rick Perry's pearly white teeth and perfect hair and most of all, those real macho cowboy boots.
dimanche 24 juillet 2011
fatima taba3mrant 2011 au Festival d'Aix-en-Provence
Regarder fatima tabaamrant 2011, L'Atlas et la Ritournelle Amazigh avec Raïssa Fatima Tabaamrant dans l'Hôtel Maynier d'Oppède à à Aix-en-provence Fatima Tabaamrant choisira quelques chansons dans son répertoire :1) Ifoulki Ladab2) Bismillah iga Tifawt3) Baba Youba4) Atalb
Itaran5) Abou Dayra (Hommage à Raïss Lhaj Belaïd) 6) Ahinou Nga Tachmaât7) Ayih Awdi (Hommage à Raïss Lhaj Belaïd) 8) Bismillah Ad N'Souss9) Ikss Ozlay Itfilit10) Bslama
Mazel Tov!
Congratulations to all the couples who got married in New York today, especially Rod and Ricky of Avenue Q, whose nuptials must be making Rick Santorum's head explode:
I do have to wonder, though, where Nicky was. Brokenhearted, perhaps? It would be irresponsible not to speculate.
I do have to wonder, though, where Nicky was. Brokenhearted, perhaps? It would be irresponsible not to speculate.
Dear Chairman Rinsed Penis, Pt 3
As a proud
That means I subscribe to the Chairman's balcony pronouncements via electronic mail (which I do not think will last. Don't count out the carrier pigeon just yet). What follows is Our Glorious Leader's latest communique to the proles from on high:
Dear ,
They are at it again! The liberal media and the Obama spin machine are furiously laying the groundwork to blame Republicans if the government were to default on August 2nd.
The truth is Obama caved to Nancy Pelosi and his Party's ultra-left wing on Friday and they sabotaged the negotiations with GOP leaders by demanding EVEN HIGHER TAXES at the last minute of negotiations.
The Republican Party's stance is clear: We need spending cuts not new taxes.
Obama promised America a better economy when he was elected in 2008. But there is no doubt that his and the Congressional Democrats insatiable hunger for ever higher taxes, greater government growth, reckless spending and massive trillion dollar deficits have only made things worse. More job killing taxes are the last thing our economy needs.
It's no surprise that the liberal Democrats would now rather play politics than tackle the government's addiction to spending - and the liberal media will be there to support them every step of the way.
Even worse, Obama and his leftist allies will be running scare and attack ads against our most vulnerable members and we need to support them now!
Please help us fight the Obama Democrats' message machine and their liberal media allies. This is a serious debate affecting real families. We must make sure our friends and neighbors know the truth - Republicans are offering serious solutions while the Democrats default on our government obligations.
Support our Republicans who boldly stand against the Obama/Pelosi plan to raise taxes today! Make a special campaign contribution to the RNC right now of $25, $50, $100 or more. Every dollar you send now will be used to fight the Obama spin machine as we work to make him a one-term president and work to turn our nation around.
Sincerely,
Reince Priebus
Republican National Committee
P.S. , Republicans are fighting tooth-and-nail to pass commonsense, conservative solutions to cut government spending, slash our debt and get our fiscal house in order -- while the Obama Democrats demagogue and distort our agenda. The only way we can truly enact our reform agenda is to elect a Republican president AND Congress and make Barack Obama a one-term president. Please make a generous campaign contribution today to help the RNC fight the Obama media machine and lay the foundation for electing a new President and Republican majorities at all levels in 2012. Thank you.
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Fucking A! (And pardon my French and pardon me again for speaking French, the language of diplomacy i.e. cowardice). How long does the Kenyan think he can continue bamboozling the American public by patiently sitting down with the Republican leadership time and time and time again, willing to teach dutch uncle lessons in fiscal responsibility to our nation's most deservedly vulnerable? Luckily, after 2 1/2 years the Republican Party is wise to the wily Kenyan and have bravely walked away from his dastardly tricks not once, not twice but thrice!
Lord knows I'm no Milton Friedman or Ben Stein but I don't have to be a graduate of the Chicago School of Economics that had successfully overthrown countless Marxist regimes to know that the answer to our problems is not to add money to offset the deficit but slash, hack, chop and burn off the excess. The excess is, of course, entitlement programs sucked off of by people who expect a living after 5 decades of hard work and affordable health care as enjoyed by Congressman Ryan and Speaker Boehner.
Who do these entitlists think they are in asking for billionaires to pay a higher tax rate without they themselves being prepared to sacrifice??? Isn't it enough that this poor man is paying over half what his executive secretary pays in income taxes? My God, the 35% corporate tax rate is already so prohibitively high that many leading American corporations have to bite the bullet and flee our shores in search of cheaper labor to escape the radical left wing tax-and-spend agenda of the Kenyan and his cronies.
That would include arch Liberal Nancy Pelosi, who cleverly tried to lull the GOP into a false sense of security by taking impeachment of the Bush War Heroes off the table as well as a public option for that government takeover aka ObamaCare to suck off health care lobbyists before calling for a public option yet again.
So how dare Obama and his Socialist henchmen ask for an additional $40 billion in tax revenue per year over the next decade when corporations this year alone are barely getting by with a paltry $1.66 trillion in profits in the 3rd Q of 2010? Sweet Milton, these same captains of industry can certainly be excused for hoarding their last $1.6 trillion in cash reserves and not using that money for hiring. And by the time Obama gets done with his fascist takeover of private industry, that $1.6 trillion won't be enough to buy a copy of liberal Ben Affleck's Gigli on VHS.
The Democrat Party had certainly grabbed the microphone like a starving twink grabbing cock at a gay orgy at the Castro and their message machine is spinning like Milton Friedman in his toddler-sized grave at all this talk from Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich about raising taxes on the wealthy. If these men are allowed to remain unchecked, pretty soon other liberal Democrats will begin chiming in. For now, however, the GOP has managed to suppress such a hypothetical, widespread liberal agenda from getting to the people but who knows how long that'll last?
Any fool can see that everyone from those on welfare to the middle class does not want higher taxes on the wealthy. Poll after poll after poll after poll (especially in swing states) bears this out. Only those on unemployment may call for this job-killing tax agenda of the liberals because if tax cuts were to continue, then corporations may decide to stop going through the foreign labor pool or predatory temp agencies and, (gasp!) offer them a job!
So huzzah, Chairman Penis, for calling the Obama administration out for what it is: a bunch of petulant, spoiled babies who cut and run without cutting anything significant from the budget nor running the nation as the corporation as our Founding Fathers had intended.
L'auteur des attaques d’Oslo et l’île d’Utoya
L'auteur de la tuerie sur l'île d'Utoya et d'un attentat à la bombe vendredi à Oslo .
Anders Behring Breivik, un Norvégien grand et blond de 32 ans, proche de l'extrême droite et fondamentaliste chrétien,
Le bilan du massacre d'Utoya s'élève pour l'heure à 85 morts et celui de l'explosion d'Oslo, devant le siège du gouvernement, à sept morts. De 92, le nombre total de décès pourrait s'alourdir à 98 si l'on ajoute les personnes toujours portées disparues, a précisé la police.
Stomachs Eleven: Bone marrow, pig's trotters Pierre Koffmann and truffled hens
If you ever have a bone to pick with someone, make sure it's a marrow bone. It was this sight of marrow bone towers that excited me most when I arrived at the home of Mr and Mrs Pig Flyin' for our latest Stomachs Eleven adventure.
Appetisers to start
The members of our merry dining crew have all been terribly spoilt by the generosity of Mr and Mrs Pig Flyin'. Our original aim was to rotate
Match Uruguay vs Paraguay 24/07/2011 Finale Copa América
le match Uruguay Paraguay sera le 24/07/2011 a 19:00 en cadre de Copa América 2011 Finale regarder et voir lien match gratuit Uruguay - Paraguay Liens match en direct live buts résumés sur internet
et chaine suivant aljazeera spor,alryadia,canal+ et autre
Décidément, cette Copa America édition 2011 aura été surprenante jusqu’à sa finale ! Alors que tous les aficionados attendaient un duel au sommet entre les géants sud-américains que sont le Brésil et l’Argentine, ce sont finalement l’Uruguay et le Paraguay qui vont en découdre ! L’armada offensive de la Celeste aura fort à faire face au mur défensif des Guarani, hermétique au possible depuis le début de la compétition : ils se retrouvent en finale sans avoir gagné le moindre match ! Le match se jouera le 24 juillet 2011 à 21h00
vendredi 22 juillet 2011
Chacha Show fokaha a ramadan 2011
La final Lalla laaroussa 2011 Lalla L3roussa enfin a marakeche
La final Lalla laaroussa 2011 enfin a marakeche
Regarder final Lalla laaroussa 2011 en direct sur net
La final De Lalla laaroussa 2011 live sur votre pc free
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)