S H A I J I N X

Bipartistupidity

2009-12-21T16:40:00.000-08:00

Almost everyone's had to go to the car dealership and buy a new car. When you go, you go with a basic premise in mind; that both you and the salesman want you to walk out with a new car. Both of you want your situation to be different when you leave than when you came in. Starting from that premise, the negotiations are pretty easy. There about things like warranties, accessories, and price. When you leave with a new car you might say to yourself, " I paid a little bit more than I wanted too, but, I got an extended warranty and a new mp3 player installed. All in all, I'm happy with the deal." The salesman, after you walk out, might say to themselves, " You know, I didn't get them to spend as much as I wanted. However, my commission will still be nice, and, I got another sale so I'm closer to getting that ' Salesman of the Month' bonus. All in all, I'm happy with the deal." This is possible because both you and the salesman on the otherside of the table knew you would both benefit from getting you into that new car.

Now imagine that salesman doesn't want to sell you that car. Imagine he thinks that you'll just make the car dirty if you get it so he's determined to make sure none ever leave the lot. Negotiations are gonna go a little bit differently. You ask if you can have an extended warranty, NO. You ask if you pay above sticker price if you can have a new and better stereo, NO. If you can pay under sticker price and let them off the hook for the warranty, NO. After awhile your gonna get fed-up and say, " Forget you then! I'll just go and build my own car." Now how many of us know or could afford to build our own car? Probably not many. So, you have to go ask someone to build it for you. They say, " Sure, but I wanna use it 3 days a week." You need a car so you agree. You borrow money to buy the engine, but the person you borrow the money from says they don't like speeders, so their only gonna give you enough money to get an engine that tops out at 60 mph. You agree. You go to buy the spark plugs, but you can only afford the economy ones that don't fire well so it's always rough to start the car. Lastly you get the shell but you can only afford an ugly rusty one. So what have you got: An ugly piece of junk that's hard to start, won't go past 60 mph, and you only get to drive 4 days a week. Now there's an argument to be made that you should scrap the car, get your money back, and come back at the endeavour when you've got better means. There's also an argument to be made that at least with a car you'll be able to get around better, thereby increasing your possibility for getting the means you need to improve upon your crappy car. There are valid points on both sides. However, let's not forget the reason for this predicament, i.e, the salesman being completely unwilling to negotiate with you for a good car in the first place.

Democracy is based on one unchangeable principle: Nobody gets everything that they want. We are all free and equal because we are all equally disappointed in what we get from the bargaining table. But if you want a seat at that table, you have to be willing to lose a little bit. Does anybody think that if 10-20 House Republicans had come up to the Speaker and said that they would be willing to vote for Healthcare Bill as long as there was no Public Option, that the House would have one in their bill? Does anyone think that if 1-2 Senate Republicans had been willing to cast their votes in favor of the bill if their was Medical Malpractice caps, that the Democrats wouldn't now being telling their trial lawyer friends to please not be mad at what had to happen? You sacrifice some things you want in order to get others. You want good grades, your not gonna be able to party 24/7. You want a nice house and money to spend, your going to have to be at a job that for most people isn't greatly satisfying. You want a family, your days of doing what you want, when you want, are going to have to go out the window. The ability to sacrifice some things in order to get other, more important things. There's a word for it: Adult. Let's hope that those in Congress who would rather say 'No' then ' Maybe' acquire this ability before the country turns into a slow crusty lemon that only works 4/7 of the time.

Telegraph: Encyclopaedia Britannica 1768

2009-11-18T20:08:00.000-08:00

A few weird and interesting facts circa 1768:

Homo sapiens were sub divided into five varieties: the American, the European, the Asiatic, the African and the monstrous.

Cures for flatulence included drinking chamomile tea and blowing smoke from a pipe ‘through the anus.’

The US state of Callifornia was spelt with two ‘L’s’ and is described as ‘a large country of the West Indies. Unknown whether it is an island or a peninsula.’

Side note: Apparently in 1768, words were "spelt" and not "spelled". Hmm.
(In honor of my "Rent-a-Muse"...you know who you are.)

It's A Left vs. Right World - We Just Live In It

2009-11-10T04:12:00.000-08:00

Full size image here

MediaMatters: Comparing FOX/MSNBC

2009-10-31T12:05:00.000-07:00

Jamison Foser of Media Matters wrote a great piece about the FOX/MSNBC/White House nonsense. In a nut shell, the White House has come to the conclusion that FOX News is not a real news organization, FOX says that MSNBC is the left version of them, and a ridiculous amount of people in journalism have decided to not only defend FOX, but also accept that equation. This is something Aaron Sorkin would pitch as a movie idea. Foser puts it all into a perspective that ignores the petty pundit soundbites and gets to the heart of the controversy.

First, he discusses the actual programming content and the time allotted to partisan ideals on both networks:

But hey, guess what? Maddow, Schultz and Olbermann account for three hours of original programming a day -- exactly the same as Joe Scarborough, who hosts the agenda-setting Morning Joe. That's conservative Joe Scarborough. Former Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough. And if you watch MSNBC during the day, you'll see a parade of anchors and reporters who frequently adopt conservative frames, pass along GOP spin, and routinely fail to challenge obvious falsehoods from conservative guests. I'm not saying these daytime reporters are conservatives, but I am saying they frequently (unknowingly, I'm willing to assume) traffic in conservative misinformation. Taken as a whole, it's awfully hard to say with a straight face that MSNBC leans to the left.

And yet reporters keep insisting that not only does MSNBC lean to the left, it leans as far to the left as Fox. (And, in the process, they ignore or downplay the central truth that the real problem with Fox isn't merely that it leans to the right, but that it is fundamentally dishonest; that its goals are not to inform the public, but to destroy people it sees as its enemies.)

Next, Foser demolishes CNN's Campbell Brown for attempting to capitalize on this feud by agreeing with the FOX/MSNBC comparison:

And in Brown's telling, MSNBC "leans left" just as much as Fox "leans to the right." Of course, Brown doesn't actually provide any examples; doesn't even name any names. In a segment that ran nearly 1,000 words, Brown didn't provide a single example of slanted commentary, flawed journalism, false claims, or anything else at all. No facts, no details, nothing.

It sure is easy to insist that Fox and MSNBC are equivalent when you don't have to actually assess what they do, isn't it? But that isn't really journalism; it's just pontification and spin.

But Brown can't offer examples; can't get into details, because if she did, the fantasy she constructs that Fox and MSNBC are polar opposites would fall apart.

She'd have to try to find MSNBC equivalents of Fox -- not just Hannity, but Bill Hemmer and Brett Baier, too -- falsely accusing an Obama administration official of covering up statutory rape. And of Hemmer falsely claiming Democrats "voted to give special protection to pedophiles."

She'd have to find the MSNBC equivalent of Fox reporter Jon Scott repeatedly being caught passing off GOP talking points (typos and all) as his original reporting. She'd have to find the MSNBC equivalent of Fox anchor Martha MacCallum having to apologize for passing off a six-month-old Joe Biden quote about the economy as a current comment -- a clip Fox deceptively cropped to make it appear Biden was saying something that he was actually criticizing John McCain for saying. And of White House correspondent Wendell Goler cropping an Obama comment and taking it out of context, completely reversing the statement's meaning in the process. Not Sean Hannity, not Glenn Beck -- Wendell Goler.

She'd have to find the MSNBC equivalent of Chris Wallace calling the Obama administration the "biggest bunch of crybabies I have dealt with in my 30 years in Washington." Anyone think David Gregory ever said anything like that about the Bush administration?

Campbell Brown knows she can't find any of these things, so she doesn't even try. And I haven't even scratched the surface of Fox's malicious and deeply dishonest attacks on those they disagree with; their assault on fact and reason, or their cheerleading for pet causes.

But even if Brown could find the MSNBC equivalent of all that and more -- which, again, she simply cannot do -- she'd still have to find the Fox equivalent of MSNBC handing over three hours a day to former Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough. And of MSNBC employing Pat Buchanan, the nation's most famous bigot. And of raging Clinton-hater, liberal-basher and on-air misogynist Chris Matthews hosting one of MSNBC's signature shows. And of MSNBC's "straight news" reporters regularly adopting conservative frames and failing to challenge right-wing lies during interviews. She'd have to find the Fox version of MSNBC's use of Michelle Bernard, a right-wing activist who has been sending out false and despicable anti-health care reform attack emails, as host of a special forum dealing with health care.

Campbell Brown can't do that, either.

Read the whole thing here.

100 Hilarious College Courses

2009-10-31T09:51:00.000-07:00

I find this list fascinating for many reasons. First, the list is in subsections that do not prepare you for the actual class titles. For example, under the section reasonably titled "Life Skills", there is a Princeton course called "Getting Dressed". Furthermore, the section titled "Literature and Language" has a course called "Those Sexy Victorians". I'm willing to bet that class has a wait list.

I also like the way the list was set up. Not only is there a brief description of every class, but each course title is linked directly to the school's actual catalog description. This way, you don't have to hunt for that Temple University course about UFOs in America. Instant gratification.

The biggest reason this list fascinates me: I would definitely take a few of these classes. As odd as they sound, I have to admit I would take them. A few that stood out to me:

Comparative History of Organized Crime. Henry Hill, Donnie Brasco, and more. Sign me up.
Purity and Porn in America. Because, well, you have to take a class in porn, right?
Nuthin' but a "G" Thang: I don't listen to Gangsta Rap. I want to embrace my inner thug.
The Office: Awesome, Awkward, & Addicting: I watch the show so might as well get credit.

Which classes would you take?

HCAN: Health Reform Chart under H.R.3200

2009-09-20T05:13:00.000-07:00

From Health Care for America NOW!

What Cocktail Are You?

2009-09-19T17:31:00.000-07:00

Curious? Take the quiz.

Apparently, I should be drinking a Martini. Who am I to argue? Where's the gin?

Make Up Your Mind

2009-09-19T16:51:00.000-07:00

This picture from adamthinks.com is associated with an excellent post regarding taxes and the military. For those of you who hate snark, do not click the link. Oh, and get a sense of humor, dammit.

Taliban Cuts Off Fingers Of Voters

2009-08-23T03:23:00.000-07:00

For the purpose of intimidation, the Taliban announced their plan for violence during the Afghanistan Presidential elections. They were not kidding.

From CNN:

Making good on a threat of election day violence, the Taliban sliced off the index fingers of at least two people in Kandahar province, according to a vote monitoring group.

After they cast their ballots, the fingers of Afghan voters are stained with ink to prevent them from voting multiple times. The fingers of the two women in Kandahar, a stronghold of the Taliban, were cut off because they voted, said Nader Naderi of the Free and Fair Election Foundation.

So, the next time Election Day comes around for you and all you can think of is the many excuses not to vote, think of this story. Think about these two brave women and the many more who voted knowing they were risking their lives. Then vote.

Time:High Price of Cheap Food

2009-08-22T12:00:00.000-07:00

Brian Walsh has written a disturbing yet informative piece about the high price of cheap food here in America. The article covers many aspects including farming techniques, price-to-calories ratio and environmental costs:

But cheap food is not free food, and corn comes with hidden costs. The crop is heavily fertilized — both with chemicals like nitrogen and with subsidies from Washington. Over the past decade, the Federal Government has poured more than $50 billion into the corn industry, keeping prices for the crop — at least until corn ethanol skewed the market — artificially low. That's why McDonald's can sell you a Big Mac, fries and a Coke for around $5 — a bargain, given that the meal contains nearly 1,200 calories, more than half the daily recommended requirement for adults. "Taxpayer subsidies basically underwrite cheap grain, and that's what the factory-farming system for meat is entirely dependent on," says Gurian-Sherman.

So what's wrong with cheap food and cheap meat — especially in a world in which more than 1 billion people go hungry? A lot. For one thing, not all food is equally inexpensive; fruits and vegetables don't receive the same price supports as grains. A study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that a dollar could buy 1,200 calories of potato chips or 875 calories of soda but just 250 calories of vegetables or 170 calories of fresh fruit. With the backing of the government, farmers are producing more calories — some 500 more per person per day since the 1970s — but too many are unhealthy calories. Given that, it's no surprise we're so fat; it simply costs too much to be thin.

This leads to a discussion I recently had with my brother about health care reform. The debate about reforming our health care system has been about cost from the very beginning: insurance premiums, deficit control, etc. This is understandable and expected. However, the strong (and sometimes twisted) debate has yet to turn to actual health care issues. The money aspect of the debate is important, but so is disease prevention, obesity control and exercise options. Food production and consumption plays into all of these issues. But this has yet to enter into the discussion. It is past time that it does. Health care reform without debating health is just health insurance reform. Just read the article. Money does not solve the whole problem.

Perseids, Rat-Eating Plants and More Random Links

2009-08-12T06:38:00.000-07:00

Just a few quick hits before work:

Have you checked out the Perseids yet?

Do you remember the movie "Little Shop of Horrors"? Disturbingly funny flick about a man-eating plant and his owner? Well, a recently discovered pitcher plant eats meat. Not just flies and mosquitoes. Rats. The plant eats rats. Creepy.

It turns out, Senator Al Franken of Minnesota can draw the U.S. freehand in about 3 minutes. No kidding. Very cool.

The Health Of Nations: A Comparison

2009-07-30T02:56:00.000-07:00

From the Conference Board of Canada:

Canada has earned a steady “B” on this indicator for nearly five decades. Japan’s impressive increase in life expectancy has set a high bar for attaining an “A” grade on average in this decade, a standard that only Switzerland has met. Moreover, Japan, which had among the lowest life expectancies in the 1960s, has been a steady “A” performer ever since. Of the five top-ranked countries in the 1970s, only Japan has been able to consistently maintain its “A.” Switzerland lost its “A” in the 1990s, regaining it in the current decade.

The Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden, on the other hand, have all lost their top-ranking status.

The U.S. has also seen a decline in its relative performance. It earned a “C” in the 1960s and 1970s and dropped to a “D” in the 1980s, where it has remained.

More links and charts here.

The Stimulus Is Working

2009-07-29T17:41:00.000-07:00

From Fast Lane, the Department of Transportation blog:

Here's the scorecard:

•$22 billion--nearly half of DOT's stimulus money--made available to the States;
•Over 6,600 projects approved
•Over 3,200 projects underway right now

And the future promises even more boosts to economic activity:

•$8 billion in high-speed rail development
•$1.5 billion in TIGER discretionary grants

Sounds great to me. Let's remember, there was never a promise of immediate relief. The President never said that no one would ever lose their job ever again. The stimulus is about creating and sustaining jobs as well as rebuilding our national infrastructure and expanding green technology to have a more robust economy and a better national future. There is a long way to go, but we could not have started without the stimulus.

Ray LaHood, the Secretary of Transportation, says it more succinctly:

I know the stimulus can't make up for every job our economy has shed. But we have supported over 5,000 jobs already, with up to 500,000 more on the way once the full effect of this landmark program is felt in the transportation industry.

And every job we do create or preserve should be counted as a victory.

PopSci: 10 Facts About Apollo 11 Moon Landing

2009-07-18T10:14:00.000-07:00

With the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing approaching, I thought I would present this post from Popular Science. It is a list of 10 interesting facts about the mission. Personally, #2 really caught my eye: "The Apollo computers had less processing power than a cellphone."

One can only imagine the possibilities if we, as a nation, had continued our initial investment in space exploration and massive science education. Hopefully, the upcoming 40th anniversary of man's first steps on the moon will renew that spirit of challenge and curiosity.

We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win... President John F. Kennedy, September 12th, 1962

Random Stories That Intrigued Me

2009-06-29T19:13:00.000-07:00

NPR: Soldiers are not alone in their suffering of PTSD. Dr. Anthony Feinstein estimates that up to 12% of combat journalists suffer as well.

Dictionary.com Word of the Day: clandestine. Merriam-Webster Word of the Day: skimble-skamble. M-W wins.

UPI: There is a major radio ad campaign happening that you probably haven't heard about. People in Nova Scotia are being asked to not flush certain items down the toilet. Why? Due to a major failure at a sewage treatment plant, the beaches in Halifax are littered with tampon applicators and other "floatables". Gross.

Reuters: Queen Elizabeth wants to know how many swans she actually has. This involves her Swan Marker and her Swan Warden and skiffs. There is a lot of prep work involved so the official count is in three weeks. A swan census. This is serious business, folks.

Gay Marriage Flowchart by Patrick Farley

2009-06-29T05:28:00.000-07:00

Compiled by Patrick Farley

Links About LGBT Issues, Jailed Journalists, Cookie Dough and More

2009-06-19T10:09:00.000-07:00

The Advocate: 2008 saw a 28% increase in killings of LGBT people. The 29 murders represented the highest number recorded since 1999.

The Business Insider: Lara Ling and Euna Lee are not the only journalists jailed in foreign countries.

The Wall Street Journal: Will someone please explain to me how the government will count married same-sex couples in the Census if same-sex marriages are not federally recognized.

Treehugger: Phoenix light-rail is exceeding daily ridership expectations.

The New York Times: Nestle has voluntarily recalled its Toll House cookie dough because a few dozen people got very sick after eating it raw. Interestingly, the recall does not include its ice cream products with raw cookie dough. Go figure.

Great Show By Rachel Maddow Last Night

2009-06-05T17:02:00.000-07:00

The Rachel Maddow Show was excellent again last night. The clip below is the first 15 minutes Rachel spent talking about President Obama's speech in Cairo yesterday. We get the fantastic Rachel Breakdown and, to wrap it all up, the great Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Also, classic snark:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Knowing Someone Gay Helps With Perspective On Marriage

2009-06-05T14:06:00.000-07:00

Recently, Gallup asked people about their feelings regarding gay marriage. What makes this poll different than most? They broke down the results based on whether people were personally associated with gays and lesbians.

From Gallup:

The Gallup Poll data reviewed above show conclusively that many views toward gay and lesbian issues are related -- in some instances, strongly so -- to personal experience with individuals who are gay or lesbian. There are two plausible explanations for this relationship. One is that exposure to gays and lesbians leads to greater acceptance, regardless of one's ideological leanings. The second is that people who are more accepting of gays and lesbians are more likely to put themselves into situations in which they are exposed to gays and lesbians -- in terms of cities and regions of residence, as well as workplace and social choices. Both of these processes are at work, though it is difficult to say which is more important.

Whatever the direction of causality, the data do make a strong case that knowing someone who is gay or lesbian fosters more accepting attitudes on many of the issues surrounding gay and lesbian relations today.

To see more charts, go here

NYT: CA Awaits Prop 8 Ruling

2009-05-26T05:44:00.000-07:00

Today at 10am Pacific, the California Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality and implementation of Proposition 8 which narrowly passed in November 2008. Why does the CA Supreme Court need to get involved again? Well, it's complicated. From the NYT:

Previously, in May 2008, the court legalized same-sex marriage, and since the election, several groups have sued, saying the proposition’s revocation of that right was unconstitutional.
In addition to answering that legal question, however, the seven-member court is expected to address the legal status of some 18,000 same-sex couples who were married in California between June — when the legalization took effect — and Election Day in November.
The state’s attorney general, Jerry Brown, said last year that he believed those same-sex marriages would be legal regardless of Proposition 8. But opponents of same-sex marriage argue that it is illogical to continue to recognize marriages that can no longer be legally performed here.

Want to know where same-sex couples stand legally now?

Since the passage of Proposition 8, several states have legalized same-sex marriage, including Iowa, Maine and Vermont. Connecticut, where a court decision legalized same-sex marriage shortly before Election Day, began performing ceremonies shortly after California banned them. At the moment, married same-sex couples in California have the same rights as straight, married couples under California law, though same-sex couples have no federal recognition.
Like several other states, California allows members of the same sex to enter into domestic partnerships, which afford many of the same rights as marriage. But Kate Kendell, the executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, says domestic partnerships are not equivalent to marriage.
“It is more than symbolism to say that an entire category of recognition is off limits to one class of people,” Ms. Kendell said. “And the category that is off limits is the one that is most culturally desirable.”

Confusing, huh? Maybe it should just be absolutely equal for all. You know, for simplicity's sake.

My Question to the President for the C-SPAN Interview

2009-05-25T13:19:00.000-07:00

Recently, C-SPAN interviewed President Obama about an array of topics. They also asked the viewers to submit our questions to the president for the interview. Since question was not included in the interview, I'm just going to post it here. Maybe it might still find its way to him somehow...hope springs eternal.

Mr. President,
My question is in regards to the Don't Ask, Don't Tell law. I understand that there is a lot happening in the world and the country today that requires your immediate and continued attention. National security and commander-in-chief of the military is a major part of your duties as president. Both of these issues are directly affected by the DADT policy. Committed soldiers, marines, sailors and pilots are still being discharged by this policy under your administration. Furthermore, gay and lesbian military personnel who have not been discharged are being forced to break their oath to be honest and ethical because they have to lie to help protect this great nation. This is especially disheartening because you have stated that you do not agree with the policy. So my question is this: why have you not, at the very least, stopped the discharges from continuing while you wait for whatever you are waiting for to have the law changed?
I look forward to your answer and leadership on this issue and I thank you for listening.

Star Trek: Where JJ Abrams Should Never Go Again

2009-05-16T02:41:00.000-07:00

First off, let me say this post will contain spoilers, but as another dissappointed Trek Master said " the whole movie is spoiled" so what's the difference. JJ Abrams just proved to me why he was so successful with a show about a bunch of people not knowing what the hell is going. He just looked in the mirror and divided by 9. Not to copy Keith Olbermann, but WTF?! I don't even know where to begin. First off, the technical. The ship in that movie was NOT, repeat NOT, the original Enterprise. The original ship had a satellite dish atop its deflector array( that's in front of the bottom section to you non-nerds.) The ship in this movie was the NCC-1701-A, which was not created until Kirk was already an Admiral in his late 40's. Two, Uhura and Spock? Just, NO! Three, and most important, the timeline. If you make a movie about Colonial America, and then have everyone loving ol' King George and flying Jetsonmobiles, than at least have the common decency not to call it "Colonial America." Call it " This Ain't Real But It's Got Really Cool Special FX So Shut Up And Suck It!" At least then the people know what they're walking into. However, if you name a movie Star Trek, then you have to have everything happen within the already agreed upon timeline. You can't have Kirk becoming Captain of the Enterprise right out of the Academy. Hello, you missed a little thing like, oh, I don't know, HIS CAREER! Also, after 3 seasons of the original, 7 seasons of Next Generation, 7 seasons of DS9, 7 seasons of Voyager, 4 seasons of Enterprise, and 10 movies before this one, I think we would have heard about Vulcan being obliterated. I think it would have come up, maybe, over some Earl Grey or something. And what's worse, JJ knew that everything I just wrote was going to be said by a plethora of Trekkies. So what does he do? He slips in that because the timeline was altered, everything we're watching is actually an alternate reality. That way he's free to completely mess up the Star Trek universe, since technically, it's not the one we all know and love, but some weird alternate one, like that one burnt Cheez-It that comes in every box. Only there's a question that immediately pops into my head due to this approach: what do you do for an encore? Do you continue on in this alternate reality that bears no resemblance to the true Trek universe? Or do you admit you were wrong in to do this in the first place and come back to your senses? I'm hoping it's the latter. One heaping pile is already one too many, no need to duplicate.

For all you non-Trek fans out there, this movie is what you want to see. It's full of beautiful people doing cool stuff amid explosions and phaser fire. However, if you're a true Trekkie like me and many others, either forget everything you've ever seen with the title Star Trek attached, or, before you go see this movie, make an appointment with your eye doctor, because as many times as your going to roll them, your going to want to get them checked out as soon as possible.

Pres. Obama and the DADT

2009-05-13T07:21:00.000-07:00

The Daily Beast has a post by Matthew Yglesias titled "Obama's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Hypocrisy". It is a short post but here is my favorite part:

The game being played here is easy enough to understand. Obama's decision on a variety of fronts has been guided by a clear desire to avoid some of the early missteps made by Bill Clinton. And conventional accounts of Clinton’s early presidency put the way he got into an early dispute with the military brass over treatment of gay and lesbian servicemembers high on the list of missteps to be avoided.
But while the political logic behind the administration's thinking is understandable enough, the moral logic is contemptible. The dismissal of gay and lesbian soldiers was unjust when undertaken by administrations that believed in the policy. But disagreement about policy is inevitable in a democracy and sometimes injustice reigns. What we have today, however, is an absurdity—an administration that clearly does not believe in the policy, that is on record as opposing the policy, that campaigned explicitly on changing the policy, and that nevertheless declines to change the policy.
Tsao and Choi are being dismissed, in other words, not because the president of the United States feels they should be discriminated against, which would be bad enough. Instead, they're being dismissed because the president doesn't feel like doing anything about it.

Read the whole piece here.

NYT: Going Dutch

2009-05-04T06:13:00.000-07:00

I read this fantastic New York Times article on my lunch break yesterday. It is about the Dutch economic and financial system, written by an American living in the Netherlands. After reading this article, my brother's words seem more potent: If everyone truly understood real socialism, nearly everyone in America would be all for it.

For the first few months I was haunted by a number: 52. It reverberated in my head; I felt myself a prisoner trying to escape its bars. For it represents the rate at which the income I earn, as a writer and as the director of an institute, is to be taxed. To be plain: more than half of my modest haul, I learned on arrival, was to be swallowed by the Dutch welfare state. Nothing in my time here has made me feel so much like an American as my reaction to this number.
[snip]
And yet as the months rolled along, I found the defiant anger softening by intervals, thanks to a succession of little events and awarenesses. One came not long ago. Logging into my bank account, I noted with fleeting but pleasant confusion the arrival of two mysterious payments of 316 euros (about $410) each. The remarks line said “accommodation schoolbooks.” My confusion was not total. On looking at the payor — the Sociale Verzekeringsbank, or Social Insurance Bank — I nodded with sage if partial understanding. Our paths had crossed several times before. I have two daughters, you see. Every quarter, the SVB quietly drops $665 into my account with the one-word explanation kinderbijslag, or child benefit. As the SVB’s Web site cheerily informed me when I went there in bewilderment after the first deposit: “Babies are expensive. Nappies, clothes, the pram . . . all these things cost money. The Dutch government provides for child benefit to help you with the costs of bringing up your child.” Any parents living in the country receive quarterly payments until their children turn 18. And thanks to a recently passed law, the state now gives parents a hand in paying for school materials.
Payments arrive from other sources too. Friends who have small children report that the government can reimburse as much as 70 percent of the cost of day care, which totals around $14,000 per child per year. In late May of last year an unexpected $4,265 arrived in my account: vakantiegeld. Vacation money. This money materializes in the bank accounts of virtually everyone in the country just before the summer holidays; you get from your employer an amount totaling 8 percent of your annual salary, which is meant to cover plane tickets, surfing lessons, tapas: vacations. And we aren’t talking about a mere “paid vacation” — this is on top of the salary you continue to receive during the weeks you’re off skydiving or snorkeling. And by law every employer is required to give a minimum of four weeks’ vacation. For that matter, even if you are unemployed you still receive a base amount of vakantiegeld from the government, the reasoning being that if you can’t go on vacation, you’ll get depressed and despondent and you’ll never get a job.
Such things are easy for an American to ridicule; you don’t have to be a Fox News commentator to sneer at what, in the midst of a global financial crisis, seems like Socialism Gone Wild. And stating it as I’ve done above — we’ll consume half your salary and every once in a while toss you a few euros in return — it seems like a pretty raw deal.
But there’s more to it. First, as in the United States, income tax in the Netherlands is a bendy concept: with a good accountant, you can rack up deductions and exploit loopholes. And while the top income-tax rate in the United States is 35 percent, the numbers are a bit misleading. “People coming from the U.S. to the Netherlands focus on that difference, and on that 52 percent,” said Constanze Woelfle, an American accountant based in the Netherlands whose clients are mostly American expats. “But consider that the Dutch rate includes social security, which in the U.S. is an additional 6.2 percent. Then in the U.S. you have state and local taxes, and much higher real estate taxes. If you were to add all those up, you would get close to the 52 percent.”

House Passes Credit Cardholders' Bill Of Rights

2009-05-01T10:27:00.000-07:00

The Huffington Post has a great piece by Caleb Gibson on the details of the bill and why even more is needed:

Pushback against egregiously unfair lending practices in the credit card market is mounting. And it looks like Washington is finally getting the message. On Thursday, the House of Representatives passed the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights by a landslide vote of 357-70. The bill, championed by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), would enact basic standards that eliminate some of the most exploitative practices in the business. Card companies will no longer be able to retroactively raise the interest rate on existing balances--except under limited circumstances, such as a 30-day delinquency. (This will put an end to "any time, any reason" rate increases) When the credit card companies do increase an interest rate, they will be required to give customers 45 days' notice. In addition, interest may only be tallied on balances in the current billing cycle, statements will be mailed earlier in the billing cycle, payments will always be allocated to the portion of the balance with the highest interest rate, and hefty fees for over-limit transactions will be banned unless cardholders explicitly permit it ahead of time.
[snip]
Well, not so fast. Unfortunately, there is a 12-month lag between enactment and implementation. Congress is essentially outlawing these practices as harmful to consumers and then allowing them to continue for a year. Indebted Americans cannot wait a year for fair treatment when every day brings more bad news for the family bottom line.

Gibson works for the excellent advocacy organization Demos.

Kindle 2 Is Cheaper Than You Think

2009-04-25T20:20:00.000-07:00

Apparently, Kindle 2 owners are paying double the cost:

ISuppli estimated that the cost of parts to build the Kindle 2 totals $176.83, with $60 going toward an E-Ink Corp. display and $39.50 toward a module from Novatel Wireless Inc. to permit wireless downloads over Sprint Nextel Corp.'s EV-DO data network.
ISuppli believes that, when including manufacturing and battery costs, the device costs $185.49 to build.

Maybe it can be justified as a convenience fee?

Builders As Lenders

2009-04-21T11:32:00.000-07:00

This is an interesting editorial in the New York Times about an unmentioned cause of the housing crisis in California: home builders doubling as lenders.

The industry promotes the practice as a one-stop-shopping convenience that saves time and money. Too many homeowners found it did neither. They were pressured into buying overpriced homes with interest-only loans that they didn’t understand and couldn’t handle. When the bubble burst in Southern California, that was it for their dreams and homes.

Homeowner advocates say that the system is rigged against the consumer, riddled with inherent conflicts of interest. What in-house appraiser is going to scrupulously and honestly assess a home’s value, especially if the market begins to tank? If a lender is connected to a home builder, it is going to try to find any way possible to make that loan, since making that loan means selling that house.

Progressive Quiz

2009-04-21T06:40:00.000-07:00

The Center for American Progress has an interesting quiz to determine how progressive you may be. There are 40 questions and you answer them by responding on a scale of 1 to 10. Only takes about 10 minutes so give it a try. My score: 339.

Sac Bee:Citizenship Of Undocumented Immigrants To Be Challenged At The Polls

2009-04-11T18:28:00.000-07:00

The Sacramento Bee is reporting that a conservative group wants to vote to make it harder for a child born in the United States to undocumented parents to have citizenship.

The initiative, which proponents tout as the California Taxpayer Protection Act, is aimed for the June 2010 statewide ballot.
For undocumented parents to obtain the new "Certificate of Live Birth with Foreign Parent," they would have to be photographed, fingerprinted and pay an additional $75 fee.
Beyond the birth certificates, the measure also would limit welfare payments for the children of undocumented immigrants, as well as require that any application for public benefits submitted by illegal immigrants be handed over to federal authorities.
[snip]
The initiative, according to the proponents' Web site, appears to be the first step to try to end citizenship rights for children of illegal immigrants.
That would bump up against the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees that every child born in the United States is a U.S. citizen.
"Our citizen's movement will launch the national debate we need to bring an END to 'birth tourism' and AUTOMATIC CITIZENSHIP in the United States of America," the site reads.
The initiative itself "does not say that," noted Dolz, who said that "personally we might feel one way or another."

I'm not sure how this is possible considering what the 14th Amendment states:

Amendment XIV: Civil rights
The Fourteenth Amendment was proposed on June 13, 1866 and ratified on July 9, 1868.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Seems clear cut to me. I guess we will have to wait and see.

Easy Home Gardening

2009-04-10T12:40:00.000-07:00

Tina McCarthy at ecosalon.com lists the ten easiest vegetables to grow at home. She offers a lot of information regarding optimal pH levels, depth of seeds and watering tips.

Do The "Teabaggers" Know What Teabagging Means?

2009-04-10T11:08:00.000-07:00

Republican citizens across the nation are forming "Tea Parties" in opposition to the Democratic budget. I guess they think this is a clever reference to the Boston Tea Party during the American Revolution. The major problem with this is that the Boston Tea Party was based on the idea of taxation without representation. The budget proposed by the Democratic majority has middle-class tax cuts and only raises taxes on the top 3% of the population to Clinton-era levels. Also, Republican citizens have representation - it's called Congress. Yeah, there are fewer Republicans but that is due to the voting decisions by citizens during the 2008 election. We, as a nation, voted for more Democrats to represent us.
So, what does the Republican minority do? Nothing. Well, I shouldn't say nothing. They voted against the stimulus. They voted against the budget. They came up with an alternative budget that offers tax cuts to the rich. They support "tea parties". People are sending teabags to D.C. and Fox News is promoting "teabagging". This is a joke. Or, more sadly, it is not a joke. It is the Republican opposition's grand idea to have people get together and complain about taxing the rich. The bright idea is "teabagging".
Look up the definition of teabagging here. Then watch the video below of Rachel Maddow and Ana Marie Cox trying desperately to take this seriously. An "A" for effort, for sure.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Transcript

MADDOW: The Republican Party controls no real levers of power in Washington. They have yet to settle on any national leadership at all. They did come up with a Republican budget proposal in the House of Representatives, and 38 House Republicans even voted against that.
The GOP, in other words, is clearly in exile. But the conservative movement has found a reason to live. They have found something about which they feel very positive, something which they are ready to rally around. I speak of course of teabagging.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, HOST, “ON THE RECORD”: Angry taxpayers, or at least some of them, are taking to the streets in the spirit of the Boston Tea Party.
BRET BAIER, HOST, “SPECIAL REPORT”: More than 250 locations in all 50 states will hold rallies April 15th.
NEIL CAVUTO, HOST, “YOUR WORLD”: Americans sick of government ballots and wasteful spending, taking their message to the street and it‘s spreading fast. We‘re all over it.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They‘re going to try and send teabags to D.C.
D.C. - teabag the White House.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Teabag the fools in D.C.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MADDOW: Teabagging. After spending weeks mailing teabags to members of Congress, conservative activists next week say they plan to hold tea parties to proverbially teabag the White House. And they don‘t want to teabag alone, if that‘s even possible. They want you to start teabagging, too.
They want you to teabag Obama on Twitter. They want you to, quote, “send your teabag and teabag Obama on Facebook.” They want you to teabag liberal dems before they teabag you. And all this nonconsensual conservative teabagging is just the start.
All across America on Tax Day, Republican members of Congress are lining up to speak at teabag tea party events. Even Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina is getting in on the hot teabagging action.
Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana, previously most famous for his self-admitted very serious sin with prostitution services - he wants to give teabagging the Senate seal of approval. He has asked the Senate to commemorate the day of anti-Obama protests in law.
In terms of - now, no laughing offset or I will lose it. I‘m only barely making it through this as it is. All right. Ready? In terms of media, our colleagues at Fox News are not just reporting on teabagging, they are officially promoting it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GLENN BECK, HOST, “GLENN BECK”: Celebrate with Fox News. This is what we‘re doing next Wednesday. We want to be with you and your tea party, if you have a tea party any where that we‘re not covering one of those, E-mail me at glennbeck@foxnews.com. We may cover your tea party live on April 15th.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MADDOW: Fox News Channel has described the Tax Day events on screen as FNC Tax Day tea parties. And they are dispatching some of their hosts to take part of in the teabagging. But amid the celebration of inchoate right-wing bad feelings and the denunciation of taxes, spare a thought for the man who you‘d think might have the most to gain from harnessing the power of mass-organized public teabagging.
That of course would be Republican Party chairman Michael Steele. Mr. Steele apparently asked to address a teabag tea party event in Chicago next week. But organizers turned him down, saying he is welcome to show up at the event but not welcome to speak. The organizers said they did think the event would be, quote, “a fantastic time for Chairman Steele to listen to what we have to say.” Though, presumably, if he is being teabagged while doing so, the message will be a bit muffled.
Joining us now, Air America‘s national correspondent and “Daily Beast” contributor, Ana Marie Cox. Ana Marie, thank you for being here.
ANA MARIE COX, AIR AMERICA NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT/”DAILY BEAST”
CONTRIBUTOR: Good to be here, Rachel.
MADDOW: The Boston Tea Party was about taxation without representation, right? The protests planned for Tax Day are about the plan to go back to the Clinton-era tax rates for rich people. Is that the purpose of these and is this a parallel they‘re trying to draw?
COX: Well, it‘s the parallel they‘re trying to draw, Rachel. But you know, it is true that teabaggers are grossly unrepresented in Congress. I‘m trying to work on that personally. But one can only do so much. I think David Vitter really is the right spokesperson for the movement, though.
MADDOW: Well, that‘s a point well-taken and which I was afraid to allude to. And that‘s why you‘re here because you‘re braver than I am. So many Republicans are addressing the Tax Day teabag parties. Michael Steele has been rejected. Is he not considered a true teabagger by the movement?
COX: Well, you know, he said in that “GQ” interview that he thought teabagging wasn‘t a choice, that you couldn‘t change whether or not you would be a teabagger. I think the teabaggers now really believe that it‘s something they‘ve chosen to do, that they could change if they wanted to. But they won‘t.
MADDOW: Well, in terms of what‘s going to happen on Tax Day and what‘s been happening with the teabagging of Congress, which has been happening through the mail, which I didn‘t even know was possible, I sort of never believed you can be held responsible for the people who say they agree with you.
So we had this enthusiasm expressed for the teabagging events by white power groups like storm front and by the secessionists and by the armed militias. And I don‘t think you can really hold the teabaggers responsible for that. But is there a radical message here? I mean, the whole idea here is about revolution, sort of, right?
COX: Well, yes. I mean, I think that the people - the teabaggers would like it to be more radical than it is. But the fact is people have been teabagging for a long time and they probably will continue to do so.
MADDOW: Fair enough. Most of the energy of these events seems anti-Obama. You saw all, you know, the Facebook and Twitter things, “Teabag Obama. Teabag Obama.” But then, there‘s the rejection of Michael Steele and I wonder if there‘s also a chance that this sort of gets channeled into being teabag Arlen Specter, teabag John McCain, against Republicans who voted for any of the bailouts.
COX: Well, who wouldn‘t want to teabag John McCain - that‘s all I have to say. But I really think actually it‘s probably going to be more directed at Obama. And this is actually very much a part of, I think, the midterm strategy. You know, it‘s going to be teabagging like 24/7 when it comes to midterms.
MADDOW: Well, is there an effort to divide the conservative movement from the Republican Party once again, though? Because there is something about the origin of the current Republican Party that owes very much to the conservative movement which was not organized within the party. It was sort of organized without and took it over.
I wonder if they‘ve trying to cleave themselves again and say, “No, we‘re teabaggers, and you‘re not. And we‘re, therefore, the future of the right wing”?
COX: You could say there‘s a big split between the teabags. I think that you‘re right. I think the social teabaggers and sort of the fiscal teabaggers are really starting to move apart from each other.
MADDOW: Actually I just heard from standards we‘re not allowed to talk about fiscal teabags. But thank you for bringing it up. Ana Marie Cox of Air America Radio and “The Daily Beast,” it is always wonderful to have you on the show, particularly more tonight than ever. Thanks.
COX: All right. Thanks, Rachel.

Making Work Pay

2009-04-07T06:15:00.000-07:00

Have you noticed the extra money in your paycheck yet?

Since the enactment of the Recovery Act, American workers have seen increases in their paychecks reflecting the new credit and the Administration’s commitment to the middle class. IRS guidance asks that, by April 1, employers must have instituted the lower withholdings for their employees.

The Making Work Pay tax credit is the tax reduction centerpiece of The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (The Recovery Act) of 2009. The credit provides the most households ever with a tax cut—over 110 million or about 95 percent of working families.

[snip]

For 2009 and 2010, the “Making Work Pay” tax credit provides a refundable tax credit of 6.2 percent of earned income up to $400 for working individuals and $800 for married taxpayers.
Families should see at least a $65 dollar per month increase in their take home pay.
The credit will phase out for taxpayers with adjusted gross income in excess of $150,000 for married couples filing jointly and $75,000 for other workers, and thus is fully phased out for taxpayers with modified adjusted gross income in excess of $190,000 for married workers and $95,000 for other workers.

Our President wants to help those of us who are not rich. This will take time to get used to.

FT:Is There A Bit Of OCD In Us All?

2009-04-06T06:30:00.000-07:00

The Financial Times has an interesting piece about obsessive compulsive disorder. Richard Thomkins goes into depth about the history of the condition, celebrities with OCD, and the different stories of people who are dealing with it.

But even those statistics could be only part of the picture. According to a paper appearing in last month’s American Journal of Psychiatry, an estimated 21-25 per cent of individuals could be said to have borderline OCD, meaning they have obsessions or compulsions that meet at least some of the diagnostic criteria. Admittedly, more than one-third of these people are also suffering from another anxiety disorder or depression – but according to the paper, that still leaves an estimated 13-17 per cent of otherwise “normal” people – about one in 15 of us – suffering from at least some symptoms of OCD.
So, what is this disorder? And could someone you know be at least partly afflicted?
The term “OCD” has recently displaced “anal” in contemporary slang as a way of describing people who are more than usually meticulous, pernickety or pedantic – the sort of people who are never satisfied unless things are just right. If this reflected a greater understanding of obsessive compulsive disorder, it might be no bad thing. In fact, it has simply increased the degree of misunderstanding by confusing two different conditions with almost the same name. “Anal” people do not usually have OCD at all; they simply have an obsessive compulsive personality type, meaning they’re a bit fussy. People with OCD, in contrast, are suffering from a serious anxiety disorder that greatly impinges on their lives.
While being “anal” can be an asset in some circumstances, as in a job that requires attention to detail, there are no advantages in having OCD at any level. All it does is cause distress by introducing obsessive, irrational anxieties into the sufferer’s mind, typically involving perceived dangers or appalling images of one sort or another. A defining characteristic of OCD is that sufferers believe just thinking about bad things will make them happen unless they act to prevent it; so they feel compelled to carry out little rituals which to other people look odd and unnecessary but which to them have the magical power to counteract the perceived threat. Typically, the obsessive thoughts and compulsive behaviour reinforce one another in a vicious circle, causing the condition to become ever worse until it starts to interfere seriously with the sufferer’s life.
Although there are many possible obsessions, the most common of them fall into a surprisingly small number of categories. The best known is Howard Hughes syndrome – the fear of dirt and germs, commonly linked with compulsive handwashing and cleaning. Another common one is the fear of harming others or coming to harm oneself, often accompanied by compulsive safety checking – repeatedly making sure the door is locked, the cooker is turned off and the iron is unplugged. Many sufferers are obsessed with a need for symmetry, which results in compulsive rearranging of things. Others are tormented by thoughts that they will carry out some horrifying act of a violent, sexual or blasphemous nature, and often try to block out or neutralise these thoughts with mental rituals such as counting or the repetition of certain words or phrases.

[snip]

Obsessed, obsessive and obsession are over-used words. People talk about someone being obsessed with recycling or being an obsessive gambler; there is even a perfume called Obsession. But it is not enough to be preoccupied or infatuated with something to qualify as an OCD sufferer. With OCD, the obsessions have to be unwanted, unwelcome and anxiety-provoking – they can never bring satisfaction or pleasure. They also have to cause a repetitive behaviour or ritual aimed at preventing some dreaded event or situation, and this behaviour must be irrational or excessive. On top of that, the obsessions and compulsions have to interfere significantly with the sufferer’s life and/or take up at least one hour a day.
These criteria are laid down in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), published in the US and used to a varying extent around the world. But as Mataix-Cols points out, “The definition’s entirely arbitrary. It’s just some blokes getting together in America and saying that if you spend more than one hour a day doing rituals, and if those rituals are distressing and interfere with your everyday life, then you’ve got it. If not, you don’t. But what we’ve found is that there’s a very large prevalence of OCD symptoms in people who don’t fit this definition.”

The personal stories in this piece are extraordinary. I was unaware of the true intensity of the disease for some people. The entire article is worth checking out.

Where's The Beef?! GOP Budget Plan Lacks Details

2009-03-26T15:41:00.000-07:00

So, the Republicans were called out by the President on Tuesday for criticizing his budget plan without having an alternative. Today, House Minority Leader John Boehner tried to announce their budget plan. According to The Huffington Post, Rep. Boehner had a hard time backing up the 19-page proposal:

Reporters -- mainstream, liberal and conservative -- greeted the Republican document with a collective scoff.
"Are you going to have any further details on this today?" the first asked.
"On what?" asked Boehner.
"There's no detail in here," noted the reporter.
Answered Boehner: "This is a blueprint for where we're going. Are you asking about some other document?"
A second reporter followed up: "What about some numbers? What about the out-year deficit? What about balancing the budget? How are you going to do it?"
"We'll have the alternative budget details next week," promised Boehner. Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) had wisely departed the room after offering his opening remarks. ("Today's Republican road-to-recovery is the latest in a series of GOP initiatives, solutions and plans," he had offered.)
A third reporter asked Boehner about the Republican goal for deficit reduction, noting President Obama aimed to cut it in half in five years. "What's your goal?"
"To do better," said Boehner.
"How? How much?"
"You'll see next week."
"Wait. Why not today? Because he asked you to present a budget."
"Now, hold on," said Boehner. "The president came to Capitol Hill and laid out his blueprint for his budget during the State of the Union. He didn't offer his details until days later."
"In general, where do you see cuts coming?" the Huffington Post asked.
"We'll wait and see next week," he said.
Another reporter reminded Boehner that he has "criticized Democrats for throwing together a stimulus quickly and nobody knew what they were voting on. Are you saying that your budget will be unveiled on the same day that the House is expected to vote on it?"
"No, I expect it'll be out next week," he said, though the House is expected to vote on the budget next week. "But understand that a budget really is a one-page document. It's just a bunch of numbers."
Though not today, of course.

This is our fault, of course. We, the non-politicians, think that a budget plan should have budget details. You know, numbers and dates and whatnot. Silly us. What the republicans did was offer a plan to eventually show us a budget. That was the idea all along, I'm sure. It's nice that they have the time for wordplay. So cute.

Turley Talks To Maddow About War Crimes

2009-03-26T06:36:00.000-07:00

Jonathan Turley talks to Rachel Maddow about President Obama's resistance to war crime prosecutions of the Bush Administration.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Here is the transcript of the conversation:

Joining us now is Jonathan Turley, professor of Constitutional Law at George Washington University Law School. Professor Turley, thanks so much for coming on the show tonight.

JONATHAN TURLEY, PROFESSOR OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, GEORGE WASHINGTON

UNIVERSITY: Hi, Rachel.

MADDOW: So President Obama says all the right things to “60 Minutes” about the Bush administration‘s torture policy. And the Obama administration is planning on releasing these torture memos, repudiating the policies, promising to work to change them going forward.

In terms of lining themselves up with the Constitution, how substantive are these moves? Where would you put the Obama administration‘s policies on these issues as we speak tonight?

TURLEY: Quite frankly, I have to put it very, very low. Yes, the fact that he is having a dialogue with Dick Cheney that he finds irritating is understandable. I mean, Vice President Cheney comes off as sort of the cranky uncle you can‘t get rid of at Thanksgiving dinner.

But there is more to it than that. And the reason Obama seems very irritated by it is that he is responsible for the conversation. Because he‘s the one that is blocking a criminal investigation of Vice President Cheney and President Bush and other Bush officials. It is like a bank robber calling up and asking him to debate bank robbery.

President Obama would say, “Listen, fellow. That is a crime.”

But of course, he hasn‘t said that with Dick Cheney. He can‘t say that.

Instead, he says, “How long will it take for us to reconcile our values?”

These are not just our values. They are the law.

He should be saying what you are describing is a crime. And if he would allow an investigation to well-defined war crimes, Dick Cheney would not be making public statements. He would be surrounded by criminal defense counsel.

And yet the president refuses to allow the investigation of war crimes. And we just found out the international Red Cross, also the definitive body on torture, found that this was a real torture program. And yet, the president is having a debate with the guy over whether it was good policy.

MADDOW: In this case, we keep running up against politics versus law, politics versus law. For the legal case here, is all the president needs to do - the only thing he needs to do is get out of the way of prosecutors who would take this as a matter of law regardless of the politics here?

TURLEY: Rachel, let‘s be honest here. It is just as bad to prevent the investigation and prosecution of a war crime as its commission because you become part of it. There‘s no question about a war crime here. There is no need for a truth commission.

You know, some people say, what do you need, a film? We actually had films of us torturing people. So this would be the shortest investigation in history. You have Bush officials who have said that we tortured people. We have interrogators who have said we tortured people. The Red Cross has said it. A host of international organizations have said it.

What is President Obama waiting for? And I‘m afraid the answer is a convenient moment. The fact is he has been told by his adviser that it would be grossly unpopular to investigate and prosecute Bush officials. Well, that is a perfectly horrible reason not to follow principle.

When we talk about values, the most important one is that the president has to enforce the laws. He can‘t pick and choose who would be popular to prosecute.

Should he be appointing a special prosecutor? What should he be doing?

TURLEY: He should be appointing a special prosecutor. There is no question about that. This is the most well-defined and publicly known crime I have seen in my lifetime. There is no debate about it. There is no ambiguity. It is well known.

You‘ve got people involved who have basically admitted the elements of a war crime that we are committed to prosecuting. We don‘t need a truth and reconciliation commission because we are already reconciled to the rule of law. There is nothing to reconcile to.

What the people have to reconcile are the people who broke the law. They need to reconcile with the law. And he happens to be having a debate with one of those people as if they are talking about some quaint notion of policy.

MADDOW: I wonder, ultimately, if the fact that Dick Cheney continues to talk about this issue and continues to promote it as if it is a solution and something the Obama administration ought to feel ashamed for not having continued will ultimately be the thing that creates the political room the Obama administration feels that they need in order to proceed legally. They may just need to get that mad.

TURLEY: Rachel, I wish that were true. But you know, it is sort of like every great villain in every bad movie, dialoguing to prevent something happening. You know, Cheney is dialoguing. He‘s trying - the more he talks in public, the more he makes this look like a policy and not a legal issue which is exactly what he wants.

And the reason that the Obama administration is now pulling back on the truth commission is because they have finally realized that if the truth commission actually investigates, it will be the shortest investigation in history. There is no question there is a war crime.

And at the end, people are going to wonder how and why did you block this? It is like a live torpedo in the water and it is going to come back and hit him. And that is why President Obama is beginning to pull back.

The easiest thing to do is get out of the way, say, “You know what, this is not about values. This is about the law. I took an oath to God to enforce the law. And you know what, fellow? You are going to be a target of an investigation. And maybe you are not guilty. Maybe you are. But it is not for me to decide it. It‘s for a special prosecutor.”

MADDOW: Jonathan Turley, professor of Constitutional Law at George Washington Law School, thank you for joining us tonight.

TURLEY: Thank you, Rachel.

HuffPo: NY AG Cuomo Details AIG Bonuses

2009-03-19T06:38:00.000-07:00

This made me angry all over again:

• The top recipient received more than $6.4 million;
• The top seven bonus recipients received more than $4 million each;
• The top ten bonus recipients received a combined $42 million;
• 22 individuals received bonuses of $2 million or more, and combined they received more than $72 million;
• 73 individuals received bonuses of $1 million or more; and
• Eleven of the individuals who received "retention" bonuses of $1 million or more are no longer working at AIG, including one who received $4.6 million;
Again, these payments were all made to individuals in the subsidiary whose performance led to crushing losses and the near failure of AIG. Thus, last week, AIG made more than 73 millionaires in the unit which lost so much money that it brought the firm to its knees, forcing taxpayer bailout. Something is deeply wrong with this outcome. I hope the Committee will address it head on.
We have also now obtained the contracts under which AIG decided to make these payments. The contracts shockingly contain a provision that required most individuals' bonuses to be 100% of their 2007 bonuses. Thus, in the Spring of last year, AIG chose to lock in bonuses for 2008 at 2007 levels despite obvious signs that 2008 performance would be disastrous in comparison to the year before. My Office has thus begun to closely examine the circumstances under which the plan was created.

My first job was in 1991. I worked in an office with my mom. Since then I have been without work for a combined total of about 2 years off and on in my life. My point? I still have not made $1 million. Also, any pay raises I receive are based off of a job well done - not profit-losing idiocy and greed. Furthermore, I have friends who have taken lieu days and pay decreases despite how hard they work everyday. But AIG executives - working or not - get bonuses for bringing down the financial system. Disgusting.

2008 Chargers Season Inspires Possible Rule Changes

2009-03-19T04:52:00.000-07:00

Do you remember the call by Ed Hochuli during the Chargers/Broncos game last season that caused alot of uproar? It turns out, the NFL might change the rules to make sure that never happens again. (H/T)

During Week 2 of the 2008 season, referee Ed Hochuli admittedly made a bad call that cost the Chargers a win, ruling that Denver Broncos quarterback Jay Cutler threw an incomplete pass on a play that should have been called a fumble.
Under current instant-replay rules, Hochuli's call was not reviewable because of a line of thinking that players stop playing when a play is whistled dead, which makes it difficult to tell which team would have recovered the ball.
The Broncos went on to win that game, nearly costing the Chargers their AFC West crown. The league's competition committee will consider the change ---- allowing instant replay to determine whether a quarterback fumbles or throws an incomplete pass ---- among other proposals and league matters at the NFL annual meetings beginning Sunday in Dana Point. The meetings conclude Wednesday.

As a Charger fan, that call was devastating. I remember feeling angry when Hochuli announced that the Broncos could keep the ball. Then nauseous when they scored the touchdown. Hochuli apologized profusely and even answered angry emails personally, but the situation was horrible.

Another proposed change involves the draft:

The Chargers, who won their division with an 8-8 record and advanced to the AFC divisional round by beating Indianapolis, will draft well ahead of the Colts based on their regular-season record. The Chargers own the No. 16 slot in the draft, while the Colts, who finished 12-4, will pick 27th.
That circumstance won't happen beginning in 2010 if the proposed draft bylaw is passed. The new proposal, which will not affect this year's draft, states that the top 20 slots of non-playoff teams will be determined by regular-season record. Playoff teams, however, will be reseeded in slots No. 21-32 based on postseason performance.

Seems fair. However, I am glad it will not affect the upcoming draft. Selfish? Yes. Biased? Absolutely. Go Chargers!

Reich: Real Scandal of AIG

2009-03-17T05:44:00.000-07:00

Robert Reich explains on his blog the true reason so many of us feel angry and betrayed about the AIG bonuses.

The real scandal of AIG isn't just that American taxpayers have so far committed $170 billion to the giant insurer because it is thought to be too big to fail -- the most money ever funneled to a single company by a government since the dawn of capitalism -- nor even that AIG's notoriously failing executives, at the very unit responsible for the catastrophic credit-default swaps at the very center of the debacle, are planning to give themselves over $100 million in bonuses. The scandal is that even at this late date, even in a new administration dedicated to doing it all differently, Americans still have so little say over what is happening with our money.
The administration is said to have been outraged when it heard of the bonus plan last week. Apparently Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner told AIG's chairman, Edward Liddy (who was installed at the insistence of the Treasury, in the first place) that the bonuses should not be paid. But it turns out that most will be paid anyway, because, according to AIG, the firm is legally obligated to pay them. The bonuses are part of employee contracts negotiated before the bailouts. And, in any event, Liddy explained, AIG needs to be able to retain talent.
AIG's arguments are absurd on their face. Had AIG gone into chapter 11 bankruptcy or been liquidated, as it would have without government aid, no bonuses would ever be paid (they would have had a lower priority under bankruptcy law that AIG's debts to other creditors); indeed, AIG's executives would have long ago been on the street. And any mention of the word "talent" in the same sentence as "AIG" or "credit default swaps" would be laughable if laughing weren't already so expensive.
This sordid story of government helplessness in the face of massive taxpayer commitments illustrates better than anything to date why the government should take over any institution that's "too big to fail" and which has cost taxpayers dearly. Such institutions are no longer within the capitalist system because they are no longer accountable to the market. To whom should they be accountable? As long as taxpayers effectively own a large portion of them, they should be accountable to the government.
But if our very own Secretary of the Treasury doesn't even learn of the bonuses until months after AIG has decided to pay them, and cannot make stick his decision that they should not be paid, AIG is not even accountable to the government. That means AIG's executives -- using $170 billion of our money, so far -- are accountable to no one.

Happy Pi Day!

2009-03-14T07:55:00.000-07:00

Rachel Maddow shows her awesome geekness.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Random Movie Post

2009-03-13T16:30:00.000-07:00

Unlike most people I know, I am not a huge fan of watching new movies. For example, when the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie came out, it was the first movie I had seen in a theater in two years. The next movie I saw after that: Star Wars III. Which by the way is the last one so far. Some people might find that odd. It's not like a hate the medium; I do occasionally watch movies on DVD.
Recently, I came across a guy's website that is all about movies and it got me thinking-do I even have any favorite movies? The answer is yes and to my surprise, quite a few of them. I can even put them into weird categories which I will attempt to do presently.

Movies I Loved as a Kid and Still Love Today

1. The Princess Bride - Modern classic if there ever was one. This movie has so many memorable lines that parts of the script will be randomly inserted into everyday conversation. As a matter of fact, I can't think of one person who has seen this movie who did not like it. That would be inconceivable!
2. The Neverending Story - Another movie with a plot line surrounding one of my favorite pastimes: reading. Great fantasy story, terrific characters, and I will still feel weepy at the end when the princess screams "Call my name!" Pathetic, yes, but I don't care.
3. The Secret of NIMH - My favorite cartoon film. Based on the book Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH. A clutzy crow, a cat named Dragon, Nicodemus, and a momma just trying to keep her sick kid safe. This reminds me - I think my VHS copy is still at my grandparents house. I will have to look for it the next time I visit. Along with my copy of...
4. Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory - As an adult, the songs can be a bit pushy at times but all in all, still an entertaining film. The remake, on the other hand, was downright disturbing.
5. Star Wars IV-VI - I saw Star Wars: The New Hope 30 times before I was 10 years old. I still remember watching Return of the Jedi in the theater with ten of my closest daycare fans. But I absolutely loved The Empire Strikes Back. I still do.

Old Classics That Rule

1. The Godfather I and II - Never ceases to amaze me how fascinating these films are. If they come on television, it never occurs to me to try to find something better because most likely, there isn't anything better on at any given time. I think I like Part I the best although you learn so much from Part II that it is too hard to choose. Having said that, Part III was horrid and I will never watch it again.
2. The Manchurian Candidate - This movie got me interested in learning about spies. It is because of this movie that I found The Sandbaggers series and for that, I am eternally thankful.
3. 12 Angry Men - Genius. Great actors, brilliant script, simple set with a complicated undertone of hostility and confusion. Just genius.
4. Annie - Yes, that Annie. I know it's weird but I do consider it an old classic and it's a great flick. Maybe it's because I'm a huge Carol Burnett fan. Or I can relate to having a big curly afro. Or maybe I'm just a dork. Yep, that's it. I'm a dork.
5. Dog Day Afternoon - Al Pacino as a bank robber who really sucks at it. There's a transvestite, a media circus, and the fact that it was based on a true story. Funny without being a comedy.

Movies That Are Just Plain Good

1. Kingdom of Heaven - Beautiful in both cinematography and story. I could watch it over and over. And I have.
2. Almost Famous - A movie about a kid who genuinely loves genuine music. He travels with a band to write an article for Rolling Stone, falls in love with a groupie and falls out of love with the whole "musicians as heroes" crap. Great soundtrack also. The Who, Elton John, and more.
3. Primary Colors - Based on a book anonymously written about the presidential campaign of Bill Clinton. John Travolta was surprisingly excellent as Jack Stanton. Emma Thompson played his wife. Kathy Bates plays his strategist. Stanton cheats every chance he gets, eats everything he can, and generally relies on others to make him look good. Great movie.
4. Thirteen Days - JFK during the Cuban Missile Crisis. I loved this movie because it helped me better understand the constant strategy necessary to do the right thing in government. And do it while fighting your own military brass who have other ideas of what is right. Complicated situation conveniently narrowed down to three hours. I did a lot of extra research after seeing this movie, but I loved it.
5. Natural Born Killers - I saw this in the theater, then bought the director's cut on VHS. Great film. What happens to abused children when they grow up. What happens when the media becomes the story? What happens when the two meet? Oliver Stone's twisted take on the answers caused a lot of ruckus if I remember correctly. It was great.

The 80s

1. Stand By Me - I am a huge River Phoenix fan and have been since I saw the movie Explorers (Which I have on DVD by the way). Not much needs to be said about this one.
2. The Breakfast Club - If you could relate to one of the characters, you liked it. If you couldn't, you didn't. If you related to a little bit of each, you loved it. Simply brilliant.
3. Some Kind of Wonderful - Rich kids versus poor kids. Privilege versus angst. Fancy cars and special treatment versus tomboys in boxers and working in a car shop. Love, drums, and T-bills at 7%.
4. Weird Science - Two geeks use a computer to create a perfect woman. Like Frankenstein. Because in the 80s, that's what we thought computers could do if you hook into the right modem and use the right floppy disk, right? Yeah, silly in it's context but an entertaining flick I must have seen a dozen times. Plus, how could you go wrong with Kelly LeBrock in lace and a denim jacket. With a popped collar no less.
5. The Secret of My Success - Michael J. Fox moves from Kansas to NYC to make it in the business world. His aunt falls for him, he falls for his uncle's mistress, and pretends to be an executive while simultaneously working in the mailroom. Fox's charisma carries the film but it's enough to make it a hit in my book. Plus, the elevator scenes are great.

I'm sure I missed a few but this is my list of favorite movies. What's yours?

GCFL: Astronomers Declare February No Longer A Month

2009-03-10T04:26:00.000-07:00

This is a funny piece by Michael Haber:

Emboldened by their success in declaring Pluto not a planet, the International Astronomical Union determined this week by a close vote that February is too short to be considered a true month. It has, however, been granted the newly created status of "dwarf month." It shares this dubious distinction with several other calendar time spans, including Labor Day Weekend, Christmas Vacation, and the Time Between When You Were Supposed to Get Your Oil Changed and When You Actually Did.
"It only seems fair," said IAU President Ron Eckers. "February reaches a peak size of 29 days, averaging only 28 days for 75 percent of the time. Recent research has shown that other periods, such as the Time Between When You Were Supposed to Get Your Oil Changed and When You Actually Did, often exceed this meager time frame. In fact, this erratic behavior only strengthens our case that February does not belong in the same classification as the eleven 'true' months."
Eckers also warned that the crop of 30-day "so-called" months should be careful to maintain their number of days. "They're already cutting it pretty close in my book."

Earmark Education

2009-03-09T16:33:00.000-07:00

It turns out I never truly understood the earmark debate. I thought I did but I just read a piece by Stan Collender that schooled me (for which I am thankful). h/t Matthew Yglesias

Second, the talk that you can reduce federal spending by eliminating earmarks is flat wrong.For years, lawyers and analysts have tried and failed to come up with a standard definition for “earmark.” But there is no dispute about one thing: All an earmark does is allocate part of the funds being appropriated. That means that eliminating an earmark only eliminates the allocation and not the spending. The appropriation, the law that actually provides the funds for the government to spend stays at the original level regardless of whether the earmark stays in place. The only thing that changes is that the decision about how and where to spend the funds shifts from Congress to the executive branch agency that administers the funds. And that, rather than lower spending, is what the earmark debate really is about. Regardless of what is said about “fiscal responsibility” and spending the people’s money wisely, the issue is not about how much to spend. The dispute is over who gets to make the decision.

[snip]

Third, eliminating earmarks doesn’t automatically mean that the decisions about how and where to spend the funds will be any less political or more objective. The notion that executive branch departments and agencies make spending decisions solely by applying rigid criteria about which projects are more worthwhile than others is naive.

[snip]

It makes no sense to think that a bureaucracy headed by an appointee who was selected to implement the president’s agenda will do something different than what the administration wants ... or that the White House would allow it. The decision about how and where the funds will be spent will be just as political as if it was made for an individual Member of Congress. Fourth, the ultimate irony of the earmark debate is that the fiscal conservatives who are the biggest supporters of eliminating earmarks are also the ones who typically express the greatest dissatisfaction with the federal bureaucracy. But the bureaucracy making the decisions would be the result if the campaign to end earmarks were successful. Federal departments and agencies would end up having the sole power to decide how to allocate the funds included in appropriations, and the decisions would be every bit as political as the ones made with earmarks.

I wish I knew all of this during the campaign. I wish others knew about it as well. Especially you-know-who.

Open Left Calls Out Rep. Eric Massa

2009-03-09T05:43:00.000-07:00

Chris Bowers at Open Left has a post about Democratic Congressman Eric Massa (NY-29) and his vote against the recent housing bill. Here is his statement on why he voted against it:

"I campaigned on a platform of standing as an independent voice and voting in the interests of my constituents, not a political party. Today I did just that because I didn't think the Housing bill delivered a proportionally fair amount of relief to the families of my district," said Congressman Massa moments after the vote. "With this in mind, I could not rationalize further deficit spending in the face of minimal assistance to the working families in our district. While there are a number of things that I did like in this bill, the projections in it demonstrated that it was largely targeted to States like California, Nevada and Florida where the housing crisis has hit the hardest, not Western New York. I support helping families refinance their adjustable rate mortgages to stay in their homes, but compared to many other states, Western New Yorkers would not benefit enough to warrant my vote."

Wow. That is an amazingly obnoxious and ignorant point of view. I have no problem with politicians who vote against their party leadership. If you genuinely feel that doing that helps your constituents and gives them what they need, so be it. As a matter of fact, Rep. Cao of Louisiana would have done well to go against his Republican leaders on the stimulus bill. However, Massa knows the bill would help his constituents. He voted against it because in his view, other districts get a better deal than his. He admits that these districts were hit harder and could use the help but that doesn't matter to Massa. This guy voted no because he feels his district is in need of more help than offered. Seriously.

Here is Chris's take:

Someone who thinks like this should not be in Congress. Members of the legislative branch should not only vote for legislation that disproportionately benefits their own districts. If you say that a piece of legislation will help people, but you oppose that piece of legislation because your corner of the country does not disproportionately benefit from it, then you have displayed not only an abusive relationship to members of your own district, but a rather shocking level of antipathy toward the residents of the other 434 congressional districts. Does Eric Massa actively dislike the people who live outside of his district? Given that he said that the housing bill will help them, but that he voted against it anyway, it is hard to conclude otherwise...It is more than a little hypocritical for someone who raised $386K from Act Blue, and $554K from PACs to be so willing to give people outside his district the middle finger. If even 5% of that money came from the NY-29, it would be a shock.

Great point. It will be interesting to see how well his future fundraising efforts go. In the meantime, Rep. Massa proves that hypocrites are not only on one side of the political aisle.

Democratic vs. Democrat

2009-03-06T05:28:00.000-08:00

Nate Silver wrote a piece recently about Republicans' use of the term "Democrat Party" instead of the appropriate term "Democratic Party". It's a great post with video of former Bush Press Secretary Ari Fleischer whining about current Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, it has a chart explaining the media usage of the two variations, and a very succinct analysis regarding the supposed purpose.

The intent seems to be twofold: First, it seems to be an attempt at branding/labeling/controlling the way language sounds in an audience’s ears. Democrat apparently sounds "worse" than Democratic, and it's also an attempt to separate the Democratic Party from small-d democratic, a popular American concept. If such a tactic nets votes, it’s objectively justifiable. Second, it’s designed to get under the skins of Democrats. From a Republican perspective, both seem to be independently important reasons to standardize the epithet. As to the first goal, it’s unclear whether this could work, or whether, if it did, there would be any meaningful result that would ostensibly help further Republican fortunes at the ballot box. I’m open to hearing what this might be.

[snip]

As for the second goal, the non-tactical, end-in-itself enjoyment of antagonizing Democrats, to use Fleischer’s term, is pure, uncut childishness. Moreover, it’s just boring. Newsflash – human beings have figured out a lot of ways to antagonize other human beings with pejoratives. It’s like Palin-as-hockey agitator, no great skill involved (and of course "Democrat Party" is a Palin staple). It’s literally the most basic childhood taunt – taking someone’s real name, and calling them something else to provoke a reaction. It's the single-celled amoeba of verbal harassment. It’s unmistakable that much of the term’s use involves an attempt at agitation. Again, objectively, there’s nothing wrong with Republicans methodically doing this – refusing the basic respect of allowing the Democratic Party its own name. They can elect their own behavior all they want; it’s a free country. Democrats may choose a reflexive reaction, but nobody "makes" you react, you have responsibility for how you react.

Great analysis. Seriously, I could not figure it out myself. I just didn't understand what the point was; couldn't wrap my mind around it. However, it is Nate's personal feelings regarding this subject that I want to highlight because it articulates exactly how I feel about it.

On the flip side of the coin, denying another person or group basic respect means that once the epithet escapes a Republican’s lips, he or she can’t complain when no respect is returned. Some Democrats aren’t bothered. Their perspective is that the very nature of such a tiny, repetitive jab, like a sibling flicking you on the shoulder, is that it pales in comparison with the constellation of behaviors that create actual wounds. However, some Democrats find it to be a threshold issue in a conversation. It's irrelevant whether it wounds; it's a communication signal. If your behavior choice is a playground tactic, why should my behavior choice be to listen to what you say in whatever else is coming out of your mouth? You won’t agree to my name. I am supposed to take anything you say seriously? Couples therapists know a thing or two about this one. Respect is a threshold condition for listening. If Republicans genuinely want Democrats to listen to their policy ideas, they shouldn't use the term because it's counterproductive. For example, when I hear the term, nothing else matters that comes out of that person's mouth. That Republican has failed the threshold bad faith test, and who cares what they say?

Exactly.

Rahm Emanuel as The Gatekeeper

2009-02-27T04:36:00.000-08:00

There is a much-talked about piece in the New Yorker about White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. It is very good. However, it would be difficult to write anything about Rahm that wasn't entertaining. The man is - if nothing else - intense. You should read the entire piece and learn about the man behind the President. A few of my favorite parts:

Unlike recent chiefs of staff from the Bush and Clinton eras, who tended to be relatively quiet inside players, Emanuel is a former congressional leader, a Democratic Party power, and one of the more colorful Beltway celebrities. He is a political John McEnroe, known for both his mercurial temperament and his tactical brilliance. In the same conversation, he can be wonkish and thoughtful, blunt and profane. (When Emanuel was a teen-ager, he lost half of his right middle finger, after cutting it on a meat slicer—an accident, Obama once joked, that “rendered him practically mute.”) And, like McEnroe, Emanuel seems to employ his volcanic moments for effect, intimidating opponents and referees alike but never quite losing himself in the midst of battle.

And this part demonstrates his well-known intensity:

The stimulus bill was essentially held hostage to the whims of Collins, Snowe, and Specter, but if Al Franken, the apparent winner of the disputed Minnesota Senate race, had been seated in Washington, and if Ted Kennedy, who is battling brain cancer, had been regularly available to vote, the White House would have needed only one Republican to pass the measure. “No disrespect to Paul Krugman,” Emanuel went on, “but has he figured out how to seat the Minnesota senator?” (Franken’s victory is the subject of an ongoing court challenge by his opponent, Norm Coleman, which the national Republican Party has been happy to help finance.) “Write a fucking column on how to seat the son of a bitch. I would be fascinated with that column. O.K.?” Emanuel stood up theatrically and gestured toward his seat with open palms. “Anytime they want, they can have it,” he said of those who are critical of his legislative strategies. “I give them my chair.”

This guy is awesome. Normally, I am annoyed by people who use drama and theatrics, but Rahm gets important things done. Also, he is so entertaining...when you are not on the other end of his tirade.

Truth Commission Announced For March 4th

2009-02-26T12:41:00.000-08:00

Sen. Leahy's speech and statement here and Sen. Whitehouse's speech here.

Gov. Jindal Makes Rachel Maddow Speechless

2009-02-25T13:14:00.000-08:00

This is a clip of the immediate reactions of Rachel, Keith Olbermann, and Chris Matthews regarding the Republican response of President Obama's SOTU.

President Obama Touts Stimulus Success

2009-02-21T11:22:00.000-08:00

The full text of the President's Weekly Address here. And here is my favorite part:

Because of what we did, 95 percent of all working families will get a tax cut -- in keeping with a promise I made on the campaign. And I'm pleased to announce that this morning, the Treasury Department began directing employers to reduce the amount of taxes withheld from paychecks -- meaning that by April 1st, a typical family will begin taking home at least $65 more every month. Never before in our history has a tax cut taken effect faster or gone to so many hardworking Americans.

Look at the President bragging! That's alright, though. He earned it. The weird thing is there are a few Republicans out there bragging about the plan too. The plan they voted against. I guess they assume their constituents are stupid. It's funny because Republicans are always talking about how important tax cuts are; yet they voted "no" on a bill with huge tax cuts! Clueless.

SWJ: Kilcullen's Senate Testimony

2009-02-21T09:36:00.000-08:00

Dave Kilcullen's testimony on Afghanistan is compelling. I feel like I understand better the complications and nuisances of the strategy involved in the area. It is worth a full read but here is a small portion regarding our long term options:

We need to do four things – what we might call “essential strategic tasks” – to succeed in Afghanistan. We need to prevent the re-emergence of an Al Qaeda sanctuary that could lead to another 9/11. We need to protect Afghanistan from a range of security threats including the Taliban insurgency, terrorism, narcotics, misrule and corruption. We need to build sustainable and accountable state institutions (at the central, provincial and local level) and a resilient civil society. Then we can begin a phased hand-off to Afghan institutions that can survive without permanent international assistance. We might summarize this approach as “Prevent, Protect, Build, Hand-Off”. Let’s call it “Option A”.

[snip]

Is there an alternative? Some have recently argued for “Option B”, where we would focus solely on the Prevent task, putting Protect, Build and Hand-Off on hold. We would conduct counterterrorism operations against Al Qaeda, while doing the minimum development and population protection needed to enable those operations, and shelving long-term nation-building aspirations. After all, we might say, we went into Afghanistan to defeat Al Qa’ida, not to build a model state in the Hindu Kush.
The problem with Option A is that we may not be able to afford it. The trouble with Option B is much simpler: it just won’t work.

And on the Pakistan part of the equation:

The critical problem is that Pakistan has so far been both unable to control its own territory and population, and unwilling to accept international assistance on the scale, or of the type, needed to do so. Meanwhile we have tended to focus what little attention we give to the region on Afghanistan, a problem that is far easier to understand although extremely difficult to address.
Because of Pakistan’s size (173 million people) and military capacity (a defense establishment that includes 100 nuclear weapons and a well-equipped army larger than that of the United States) the notion that we could or should force an unwilling Pakistan to do our bidding is both unrealistic and extremely risky.

I wonder if this testimony was the reason for President Obama to commit 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan.

h/t to Rachel Maddow for the link on Twitter

LA Times: Don't Miss A Credit Card Payment

2009-02-15T18:26:00.000-08:00

We taxpayers bailed out the banks so they could stay in business. What do we get for that? Credit card fee hikes. How's that for gratitude?

By ratcheting up the pressure on customers, major banks -- some of which have received billions of dollars in bailout cash from taxpayers -- are making it likely that a growing percentage will be forced to either default on their obligations or seek bankruptcy protection.
Last week, letters arrived at the homes of Citibank cardholders throughout California warning that their rates could rise to 29.99% if they miss a single payment -- even for cards with low-low-low introductory rates.
Citi customers have the right to decline any such rate hike. But if they do, their account will be closed as soon as the card expires. And that's one of the more generous conditions offered by a leading bank.
Other lenders say cardholders who don't want higher rates can close their accounts immediately and pay off the outstanding balance.

Your welcome??

What Happens When You Drive Through A Rainbow?

2009-02-13T10:17:00.000-08:00

From Jonathan Turley:

The search is over. The end of a rainbow has been conclusively found, but there was a conspicuous absence of a pot of gold. It seems an unlikely coincidence that this missing pot is revealed on the day that Congress approves the roughly $800 billion stimulus package.
Fortunately, given the unexpected loss of the pot of gold, the Democrats quickly add $5 billion for California (where the end of the rainbow was found) to keep the rainbow and any attending Leprechauns employed. However, some question the value of this trickle down rainbow economy while others insist that this is simply another radical version of Keynesian economics.
There are also indications that the California Leprechauns were former clients “Bernie” Madoff, which may explain the loss of treasure and disappearance of the little investors.

NYT Op-Ed: The Stump Theory

2009-02-12T05:15:00.000-08:00

Gail Collins writes a great op-ed piece about how being "old is in". Time for us to readjust.

My own personal theory is that we’re witnessing a defense mechanism triggered by the current economic unpleasantness.
Since it appears that nobody is ever going to be able to afford to retire, we’re moving into an era in which having your car fixed or your tonsils removed by a 75-year-old will need to seem normal. Meanwhile, young people are going to have to stay in school and keep their heads down since their elders have no intention of creating any job openings in the near future. So it’s better if we readjust our thinking and start regarding everybody as 20 years younger than the calendar suggests. Then you will feel much better when the 80-year-old postman delivers your mail and it includes a request for money from your 38-year-old offspring doing post-post-post-doctoral work at Ohio State.

Ricky Gervais Pens Open Letter To President Obama

2009-02-10T05:30:00.000-08:00

Ricky Gervais is a great comic talent. I used to watch his show "Extras" which was a hidden gem, in my opinion. Check out the rest of his blog here.

An open letter to Barack Obama.
Dear Mr President, Firstly, congratulations on your historic win. I have never been so behind a candidate for what must be considered the boss of the world. You seem to be a man of grace and integrity, who would never shirk responsibility in any way. I'll get to the point.
As I'm sure you are aware, one of your flock has strayed. A Miss Paris Hilton, who is, I believe, a resident of Beverley Hills, is in England doing a reality game show for ITV2 called Paris Hilton's British Best Friend. Fine. I have no problem with that. I don't have to watch. But now it has come to my attention that she has bought a house in North London a few miles from me, and is out and about ingratiating herself with the Great British public. Mr President. We are not stupid. This is clearly a retaliatory strike for Posh Spice moving to LA. I know it, and you know it, so let's cut the "it's a free country" nonsense and come to some agreement.
I propose an exchange. This is how it would work. We call them both and tell them that we've found a giant "paparazzi nest", in New York say. (half way home for both of them already) At first they may be confused that they'd never heard of such a thing before, but the thought of that many photographers in one place will be irresistible. Once we get them there, while they are having their photos taken (we will have hire a few guys with cameras to make it look good) we will swap their limos around. It's fool proof.
This is a covert operation of which Mr Gordon Brown knows nothing. (I've got him working on finding a synthetic fur for The Queen's guards' bearskin hats.) Have your people call my people. They may have to call a few times as my people are useless to be honest.
Thank you,
Ricky Gervais

Moody's Chart

2009-02-08T05:02:00.000-08:00

According to this chart by people who know what they are talking about, tax cuts suck and spending rules. But, we already knew that from Bush's trillion dollar tax cut program. Just have to look around to see those results.

For every $1 spent on food stamps, $1.73 comes back to the economy. Sooooo, why did that get cut from the Senate's version of the stimulus bill? Seriously..what was the reason?

Rachel Maddow Explains Economic Stimulus

2009-02-07T06:26:00.000-08:00

Video clip titled "Reality Check" from The Rachel Maddow Show on February 5, 2009

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Transcript:
The economy is in crisis because people aren‘t buying enough stuff. There is supply, right? People make stuff that is to be sold and then there‘s demand. Demand is buying.
Right now, there‘s not enough buying. So, what they teach you in the very easiest semester of the very easiest economics class, because it‘s really easy to understand even if you are a total dunderhead about more completed macroeconomics stuff, what they teach is that the government can turn around an economic crisis that‘s caused by not enough demand—by making demand. Stimulating demand, they call it—economic stimulus.
[...snip...]
It is reality check time here. Economic stimulus, most efficiently, is government spending. The most purely stimulative spending would probably be just to give envelopes full of cash to the poorest people in the country. Statistically, they‘d be the most likely to spend it.
In the absence of a political reality, that would make something like that possible, an almost ideal strategy is government spending, say, on infrastructure of which the American Society of Civil Engineers just said we could use $2.2 trillion worth. It‘s good jobs that can‘t be outsourced, immediately, that have the long-term benefit of dragging our country into the 21st century in terms of our ability to compete economically with the rest of the world.

President Obama's WaPo Op-Ed

2009-02-05T05:53:00.000-08:00

President Barack Obama has an op-ed piece in The Washington Post today.

In recent days, there have been misguided criticisms of this plan that echo the failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis -- the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems; that we can meet our enormous tests with half-steps and piecemeal measures; that we can ignore fundamental challenges such as energy independence and the high cost of health care and still expect our economy and our country to thrive.
I reject these theories, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change. They know that we have tried it those ways for too long. And because we have, our health-care costs still rise faster than inflation. Our dependence on foreign oil still threatens our economy and our security. Our children still study in schools that put them at a disadvantage. We've seen the tragic consequences when our bridges crumble and our levees fail.
Every day, our economy gets sicker -- and the time for a remedy that puts Americans back to work, jump-starts our economy and invests in lasting growth is now.

The President said much of the same yesterday. It was in a tone that, frankly, I would like to have seen a week earlier when the Republicans in the House of Representatives voted against a quick economic stimulus package for political bravado. I have a hard time believing that their constituents are against government spending on infrastructure when many of them are without power during a basic winter storm. Or, that they are against government spending on green technology and rebuilding bridges when so many people are without a job. The Republicans in Congress are performing fantastic political theater at the worst time. Hopefully, our senators will come together this week and put a stop to it. 626,000 people filed unemployment claims last week. Enough is enough.

Read the whole piece here.

Esquire: Best Cheap Booze

2009-02-03T05:39:00.000-08:00

Esquire provides a list of five bottles of decent liquor under $15. Share and enjoy!

Rep. Barney Frank On ABC's "This Week"

2009-02-02T05:39:00.000-08:00

Barney Frank was great yesterday with Sen. Jim DeMint. Here is the transcript. A highlight:

FRANK: Spending can be stimulus. I don't understand what you think stimulus is.
(CROSSTALK)
DEMINT: But this is the largest spending bill in history, and we're trying to call it a stimulus when it's just doing the things that...
FRANK: Well, let me tell you what I think is the largest...
DEMINT: ... you wanted to do anyway.
FRANK: The largest spending bill in history is going to turn out to be the war in Iraq. And one of the things, if we're going to talk about spending, I don't -- I have a problem when we leave out that extraordinarily expensive, damaging war in Iraq, which has caused much more harm than good, in my judgment.
And I don't understand why, from some of my conservative friends, building a road, building a school, helping somebody get health care, that's -- that's wasteful spending, but that war in Iraq, which is going to cost us over $1 trillion before we're through -- yes, I wish we hadn't have done that. We'd have been in a lot better shape fiscally.
STEPHANOPOULOS: That is a whole another show, so I'm going to...
(CROSSTALK)
FRANK: That's the problem. The problem is that we look at spending and say, "Oh, don't spend on highways. Don't spend on health care. But let's build Cold War weapons to defeat the Soviet Union when we don't need them. Let's have hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars going to the military without a check." Unless everything's on the table, then you're going to have a disproportionate hit in some places.

ASCE 2009 Report Card For America's Infrastructure

2009-01-31T09:39:00.000-08:00

The American Society of Civil Engineers have released a new report card for America's infrastructure and - no surprise - it is still bad. Horribly bad. Frighteningly bad. It's like we are a third world country. Furthermore, if you compare this new report card with the previous one in 2005, our infrastructure has maintained a solid "D" G.P.A. with our aviation services, roads, and transit systems functioning at a lower level than before. Everything else stayed the same - solid C's and D's all around. Oh, and infrastructure investment is only about 18% of the proposed economic stimulus plan. Unbelievable.

Video Of A Robot That Rebuilds Itself

2009-01-31T04:30:00.000-08:00

Um, creepy! (h/t)

Two things: 1)I half expected the robot to mold into a replica of a human and slaughter the guy that keeps kicking it into pieces. Which makes me realize that I have seen Terminator 2 way too many times. And 2)I don't watch videos on YouTube very often, but the last time I did, it did not take 5 minutes to view a 3 minute clip. It buffered every 15 seconds or so. Is that a YouTube issue, a Google issue, or just mine? So annoying.

Updated Peanut Butter Recall List

2009-01-30T16:00:00.000-08:00

The official FDA list pertains specifically to the current salmonella outbreak caused by peanut butter. I was planning on writing a long rant about how inept the manufacturers and the government regulators are at keeping us safe; however, it looks like Michelle Cottle at The New Republic said it all ( and more concisely than I would have, I'm sure.)

I would like to highlight a paragraph I read at the FDA site that might be missed by some people:

Product recalls include some pet food products that contain peanut paste that was made by PCA. While the risk of animals contracting salmonellosis is minimal, there is risk to humans from handling these products. It is important for people to wash their hands--and make sure children wash their hands--before and, especially, after feeding treats to pets. Further information for consumers is located in the Frequently Asked Questions section located on this web site. The pet food products are also included in the searchable data base of recalled products.

Go ahead and check out Cottle's piece. She links to a New York Times report that will both scare and anger you.

Army Suicides Up in 2008

2009-01-30T14:52:00.000-08:00

From Yahoo! News yesterday:

At least 128 soldiers committed suicide in 2008, the Army said Thursday. And the final count is likely to be even higher because 15 more suspicious deaths are still being investigated.
"Why do the numbers keep going up? We cannot tell you," said Army Secretary Pete Geren. "We can tell you that across the Army we're committed to doing everything we can to address the problem."

[..snip..]

The new suicide figure compares with 115 in 2007 and 102 in 2006 and is the highest since current record-keeping began in 1980. Officials expect the deaths to amount to a rate of 20.2 per 100,000 soldiers, which is higher than the civilian rate — when adjusted to reflect the Army's younger and male-heavy demographics — for the first time in the same period of record-keeping.
Officials have said that troops are under unprecedented stress because of repeated and long tours of duty due to the simultaneous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Yearly increases in suicides have been recorded since 2004, when there were 64 — only about half the number now. Officials said they found that the most common factors were soldiers suffering problems with their personal relationships, legal or financial issues and problems on the job.
But the magnitude of what the troops are facing in combat shouldn't be forgotten, said Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa., a former Navy vice admiral, who noted he spoke with a mother this week whose son was preparing for his fifth combat tour.

Treasury To Citi: You Can't Keep The Jet

2009-01-28T04:38:00.000-08:00

Timothy Geithner was finally sworn in Monday as our new Treasury Secretary. While the Senate delayed his confirmation, we learned that Citigroup - one of the many banks we taxpayers bailed out this past November - took ownership of a $50 million corporate jet. Well, yesterday the two stories merged. Geithner told Citi no.

Mr Geithner used his first day in office to unveil rules intended to make more transparent decisions over how much capital to inject into each bank under the Tarp, and to insulate these decisions from the influence of politicians and lobbyists.
The rules and the intervention over the Citi jet – which sets a new tone in the relationship between the government and banks – are intended to reassure a sceptical public that Tarp funds will not be misused.
Some Washington officials say they are amazed by the financial sector’s tin ear to public sentiment at a time when it is heavily reliant on government aid.
Asked about the Citi jet purchase, Robert Gibbs, White House spokesman, said President Barack Obama “does not believe that is the best use of money at this point. That money should be used to lend to consumers”.
People close to Citi said the troubled bank could end up paying around $4m to cancel the order for the jet – believed to be a Falcon 7X made by France’s Dassault – unless it can find a buyer for the aircraft.

NYT Op-Ed: The Same Old Song

2009-01-27T15:51:00.000-08:00

The New York Times has a great op-ed piece by Bob Herbert today. The question of the day: why does anyone still listen to the GOP?

What’s up with the Republicans? Have they no sense that their policies have sent the country hurtling down the road to ruin? Are they so divorced from reality that in their delusionary state they honestly believe we need more of their tax cuts for the rich and their other forms of plutocratic irresponsibility, the very things that got us to this deplorable state?

[..snip..]

Maybe the Republicans don’t think there is an emergency. After all, it was Phil Gramm, John McCain’s economic guru, who told us last summer that the pain was all in our heads, that this was a “mental recession.”
The truth, of course, is that the country is hemorrhaging jobs and Americans are heading to the poorhouse by the millions. The stock markets and the value of the family home have collapsed, and there is virtual across-the-board agreement that the country is caught up in the worst economic disaster since at least World War II.
The Republican answer to this turmoil?
Tax cuts.
They need to go into rehab.

Thank you! Another thing Republican politicians need to do is talk to the American people. Ask us what we want: tax cuts or spending to create jobs. Almost 3 million people lost their jobs in 2008. Hell, 70,000 just found out they will lose their job by Friday. The GOP thinks that tax cuts will solve our economic worries?
President Obama won in November in part because the voters decided his plan for economic recovery was more viable than Sen. McCain's plan. The people have spoken. We want Obama's plan. It would be nice if the Republicans in Congress would accept that reality.

WaPo: Surgical Checklist Reduces Complications

2009-01-26T04:40:00.000-08:00

From the Washington Post:

Surgeons, it seems, are discovering what airline pilots learned decades ago: The human brain can't remember everything, so it's best to focus on the complicated challenges and leave the simple reminders to a cheat sheet.
"You take something as complex as surgery, and you think there isn't a lot that can be done to make it better," said Atul Gawande, a Boston physician who led the study being published in the New England Journal of Medicine. "A checklist seems like a no-brainer, but the size of the benefit is dramatic."
The low-cost, low-tech intervention tested in eight hospitals around the globe could have enormous financial implications, as well. If every operating room in the United States adopted the surgical checklist, the nation could save between $15 billion and $25 billion a year on the costs of treating avoidable complications, according to calculations by the authors.
In the one-year pilot study involving 7,600 patients, the hospitals saw the rate of serious complications fall from 11 percent to 7 percent. Inpatient deaths declined by more than 40 percent overall, with the most drastic reductions occurring in hospitals with fewer resources.

Two questions: 1) If your hospital does not implement the checklist before surgery, can the patient request that they do before operation? 2) Can we request the same for Chief Justice John Roberts? He's a smart guy so I'm almost positive he can have the Presidential Oath memorized in four years. But I don't want to take that chance. One index card. Is that too much to ask?

Download the surgical checklist

Phun.org: Obama The First 100 Minutes

2009-01-22T19:14:00.000-08:00

NYT: Millions Of Cardholders At Risk Of Fraud

2009-01-21T10:15:00.000-08:00

From The New York Times about Heartland Payment Systems:

Robert H. B. Baldwin Jr., Heartland’s president and chief financial officer, said that his company believed the card numbers, expiration dates, and in some cases cardholder names were exposed after attacks on its computer systems at the one point where data had been unencrypted.
Once consumers swiped their cards, so-called sniffer software captured that data as Heartland sought authorization from the major payment companies and banks. Customers of Visa, MasterCard, American Express and Discover Financial were all vulnerable.

Furthermore, these vulnerabilities have occurred in spite of massive spending to reinforce security standards in the industry.

All this is happening after credit card companies and merchants spent over $2 billion on establishing the Payment Card Industry standards, Ms. Litan said. “And yet the breaches continue and they get more serious.”

Unbelievable.

Borowitz Report: Bush Repeals English Language

2009-01-20T07:19:00.000-08:00

Andy Borowitz writes a humorous piece about Bush and his last act as President.

Rev. Robinson's Prayer Not Broadcast On HBO

2009-01-18T18:10:00.000-08:00

Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, an openly gay Episcopal Bishop, delivered a moving prayer today at the request of President-elect Barack Obama to kick off the inaugural festivities in Washington D.C. this afternoon. Unfortunately, HBO did not broadcast his invocation. Pam Spaulding at Pam's House Blend talks about it here. I also read about it at Queers United and AmericaBlog. Which means this is going to get around very fast. If I were in charge at HBO, I wouldn't expect huge ratings on Tuesday for the inauguration (unless, of course, they also don't broadcast homophobe Rev. Rick Warren's invocation). People don't respond well to being ignored.

Here is a transcript of the Rev. Robinson's prayer:

A Prayer for the Nation and Our Next President, Barack Obama By The Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire

Opening Inaugural Event Lincoln Memorial, Washington, DC January 18, 2009

Welcome to Washington! The fun is about to begin, but first, please join me in pausing for a moment, to ask God's blessing upon our nation and our next president.
O God of our many understandings, we pray that you will...

Bless us with tears - for a world in which over a billion people exist on less than a dollar a day, where young women from many lands are beaten and raped for wanting an education, and thousands die daily from malnutrition, malaria, and AIDS.
Bless us with anger - at discrimination, at home and abroad, against refugees and immigrants, women, people of color, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.
Bless us with discomfort - at the easy, simplistic "answers" we've preferred to hear from our politicians, instead of the truth, about ourselves and the world, which we need to face if we are going to rise to the challenges of the future.
Bless us with patience - and the knowledge that none of what ails us will be "fixed" anytime soon, and the understanding that our new president is a human being, not a messiah.
Bless us with humility - open to understanding that our own needs must always be balanced with those of the world.
Bless us with freedom from mere tolerance - replacing it with a genuine respect and warm embrace of our differences, and an understanding that in our diversity, we are stronger.
Bless us with compassion and generosity - remembering that every religion's God judges us by the way we care for the most vulnerable in the human community, whether across town or across the world.
And God, we give you thanks for your child Barack, as he assumes the office of President of the United States.
Give him wisdom beyond his years, and inspire him with Lincoln's reconciling leadership style, President Kennedy's ability to enlist our best efforts, and Dr. King's dream of a nation for ALL the people.
Give him a quiet heart, for our Ship of State needs a steady, calm captain in these times.
Give him stirring words, for we will need to be inspired and motivated to make the personal and common sacrifices necessary to facing the challenges ahead.
Make him color-blind, reminding him of his own words that under his leadership, there will be neither red nor blue states, but the United States.
Help him remember his own oppression as a minority, drawing on that experience of discrimination, that he might seek to change the lives of those who are still its victims.
Give him the strength to find family time and privacy, and help him remember that even though he is president, a father only gets one shot at his daughters' childhoods.

And please, God, keep him safe. We know we ask too much of our presidents, and we're asking FAR too much of this one. We know the risk he and his wife are taking for all of us, and we implore you, O good and great God, to keep him safe. Hold him in the palm of your hand - that he might do the work we have called him to do, that he might find joy in this impossible calling, and that in the end, he might lead us as a nation to a place of integrity, prosperity and peace.

AMEN.

Slate: Video Montage Of Bushisms

2009-01-17T06:36:00.000-08:00

Jacob Weisberg of Slate.com has compiled a list of his favorite Bushisms throughout the last nine years. He also included "The Best of Video Bushisms". I almost felt embarrassed for Bush while watching. Almost.

Letter From A Liberal: Be A Freakin' Liberal

2009-01-16T01:57:00.000-08:00

Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman has written a long and detailed letter to the President-elect ( 4 days to go) on what he, in Krugman's expert opinion, should do to fix our current financial crisis, repair the institutions that allowed it to happen in the first place, and implement policies to keep it from happening again. He touches on public works programs, banking policies, and the absolute need for, if not Universal, then Universally Accessible Healthcare. It will be in the January 22, 2009 edition of Rolling Stone. His basic theme: If they're not calling you a Marxist, then you're doing something wrong!

Can Obama Top My Favorite Inauguration Speech?

2009-01-14T04:32:00.000-08:00

Everyone knows President-elect Barack Obama gives great speeches. Let's face it - his oratory skills are a force to be reckoned with. My personal favorite was the nomination speech. My brother says the best was after he won the Iowa Democratic Caucus. Everyone has a favorite.

When it comes to inauguration speeches, two that are considered historically powerful are the first one by FDR and the only one by JFK. These were excellent speeches that did offer great insight into the characters and motives of our newly elected leaders. But there is another powerful inauguration speech of the past that I just don't think Obama can surpass. The first inaugural address of President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Halfway through the speech, President Eisenhower offers what he calls "certain fixed principles" for the nation. You can read the whole amazing speech here. As for the principles:

(1) Abhorring war as a chosen way to balk the purposes of those who threaten us, we hold it to be the first task of statesmanship to develop the strength that will deter the forces of aggression and promote the conditions of peace. For, as it must be the supreme purpose of all free men, so it must be the dedication of their leaders, to save humanity from preying upon itself.
In the light of this principle, we stand ready to engage with any and all others in joint effort to remove the causes of mutual fear and distrust among nations, so as to make possible drastic reduction of armaments. The sole requisites for undertaking such effort are that—in their purpose—they be aimed logically and honestly toward secure peace for all; and that—in their result—they provide methods by which every participating nation will prove good faith in carrying out its pledge.
(2) Realizing that common sense and common decency alike dictate the futility of appeasement, we shall never try to placate an aggressor by the false and wicked bargain of trading honor for security. Americans, indeed all free men, remember that in the final choice a soldier's pack is not so heavy a burden as a prisoner's chains.
(3) Knowing that only a United States that is strong and immensely productive can help defend freedom in our world, we view our Nation's strength and security as a trust upon which rests the hope of free men everywhere. It is the firm duty of each of our free citizens and of every free citizen everywhere to place the cause of his country before the comfort, the convenience of himself.
(4) Honoring the identity and the special heritage of each nation in the world, we shall never use our strength to try to impress upon another people our own cherished political and economic institutions.
(5) Assessing realistically the needs and capacities of proven friends of freedom, we shall strive to help them to achieve their own security and well-being. Likewise, we shall count upon them to assume, within the limits of their resources, their full and just burdens in the common defense of freedom.
(6) Recognizing economic health as an indispensable basis of military strength and the free world's peace, we shall strive to foster everywhere, and to practice ourselves, policies that encourage productivity and profitable trade. For the impoverishment of any single people in the world means danger to the well-being of all other peoples.
(7) Appreciating that economic need, military security and political wisdom combine to suggest regional groupings of free peoples, we hope, within the framework of the United Nations, to help strengthen such special bonds the world over. The nature of these ties must vary with the different problems of different areas.
In the Western Hemisphere, we enthusiastically join with all our neighbors in the work of perfecting a community of fraternal trust and common purpose.
In Europe, we ask that enlightened and inspired leaders of the Western nations strive with renewed vigor to make the unity of their peoples a reality. Only as free Europe unitedly marshals its strength can it effectively safeguard, even with our help, its spiritual and cultural heritage.
(8) Conceiving the defense of freedom, like freedom itself, to be one and indivisible, we hold all continents and peoples in equal regard and honor. We reject any insinuation that one race or another, one people or another, is in any sense inferior or expendable.
(9) Respecting the United Nations as the living sign of all people's hope for peace, we shall strive to make it not merely an eloquent symbol but an effective force. And in our quest for an honorable peace, we shall neither compromise, nor tire, nor ever cease.

Great stuff, huh?

Politico: Openly Gay Rev. Gene Robinson To Deliver Invocation At An Inauguration Event

2009-01-12T05:30:00.000-08:00

From Mike Allen at Politico:

BREAKING: The Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, who became the Episcopal Church’s first openly gay bishop in 2003 and last year entered into a civil union with his gay partner, will deliver the invocation for Sunday’s kickoff inaugural event on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, with President-elect Obama in attendance. The event is free and open to the public. An Obama source: “Robinson was in the plans before the complaints about Rick Warren. Many skeptics will read this as a direct reaction to the Warren criticism – but it’s just not so.” Robinson has been referred to as “the most controversial Christian in the world.” A Sewanee graduate!

This is wonderful news! I don't necessarily believe it was planned this way before the Rick Warren fiasco. I think this is a response to the outrage. Which makes me believe the President-elect's claim that he does read his negative press (unlike President Bush). Excellent!

I wonder what Warren will say about this? Something offensive, I'm sure.

1/12/09: Random Bushism Of The Day

2009-01-12T05:05:00.000-08:00

"It's amazing I won. I was running against peace, prosperity, and incumbency." -George W. Bush, June 14, 2001, speaking to Swedish Prime Minister Goran Perrson, unaware that a live television camera was still rolling.

Turley Talks About The Need For War Crime Tribunals

2009-01-11T17:06:00.000-08:00

Rachel Maddow explains the situation we have regarding 15,000 Iraqi prisoners we have detained in Iraq. As of January 1st, we no longer have any legal jurisdiction with regards to these prisoners, most of whom are not charged with a crime. President Bush would like Iraq to continue this illegal process.

Also, Jonathan Turley explains to Rachel Maddow (and us) why the Bush Administration should be prosecuted for war crimes. With an adamant sense of urgency, Turley describes that not only are we Americans aware of the committed crimes, but other countries are as well. Do we want our justice system taken over by the justice system of other countries? If President Bush or Vice-President Cheney go out of the country, what risk do we want to take that another country will handle what we should take care of ourselves?

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The 17th Amendment

2009-01-10T11:21:00.000-08:00

From ConstitutionFacts.com

Amendment XVII: Direct election of senatorsThe Seventeenth Amendment was proposed on May 13, 1912, and ratified on April 8, 1913.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointment: until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

So, the Governor of the state could make a temporary appointment once a special election date has been determined, right? The appointed Senator would know that it was temporary, still participate in senatorial duties and decide whether or not to officially run for the seat. Am I missing something here? Why don't we do it this way anymore? Can the Senate say they will do it this way to avoid all of the drama? Because in my world, following the Constitution is pretty much drama free. And right now, that sounds pretty good.

Awkward

2009-01-09T16:30:00.000-08:00

From Politico's Wuerker:

Another San Diego Sinkhole

2009-01-09T05:41:00.000-08:00

There was another sinkhole San Diego yesterday:

Northbound Texas Street is closed from Madison Avenue north to Camino del Rio as city crews repair the sinkhole at Texas and Madison. The street is expected to remain closed until about 7 p.m., said Arian Collins, spokesman for the city water department.

The 4600-block of Texas is without water and will remain so until 4:30 to 5 p.m., Collins said. The problem was called by a leak in a service line, which connects a water main to a water meter, Collins said. "That started undermining some of the street," he said.

However, the sinkhole itself is actually pretty small, Collins said. "I think the hole we made to get down to it was bigger than the hole made by the water," he said.

It may be small in size, but it is also the second sinkhole in an urban neighborhood in just the last two months. The previous one in November swallowed a car:

Needless to say, I am totally for infrastructure spending. The sooner, the better.

Photo from signonsandiego.com

1/7/09: Random Bushism Of The Day

2009-01-07T04:38:00.000-08:00

"So I analyzed that and decided I didn't want to be the president during a depression greater than the Great Depression, or the beginning of a depression greater than the Great Depression." --George W. Bush, Washington D.C., Dec. 18, 2008

01/03/09: Random Bushism Of The Day

2009-01-03T13:00:00.000-08:00

President Bush: "Peter. Are you going to ask that question with shades on?"
Peter Wallsten of the Los Angeles Times: "I can take them off."
Bush: "I'm interested in the shade look, seriously."
Wallsten: "All right, I'll keep it, then."
Bush: "For the viewers, there's no sun."
Wallsten: "I guess it depends on your perspective."
Bush: "Touche."
--an exchange with legally blind reporter Peter Wallsten, to whom Bush later apologized, Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006 (Watch video clip)

What I Have Learned This Week

2009-01-02T13:24:00.000-08:00

A lot of talk out there in the internet tubes about the slamming Joe Scarborough received from Zbigniew Brzezinski on "Morning Joe". It's nice to hear that there are people who are not afraid to be completely honest about his "stunningly superficial knowledge". However, while Joe tried to recuperate, Mr. Brzezinski mentioned the Taba Summit. I had never heard of this before. I know about it now. Thank you, sir.

New Mexico Rail Runner now runs from Santa Fe: The Central New Mexico corridor, which is home to half the state’s population, contains Santa Fe, the state capital, and Albuquerque, the largest city and economic hub of New Mexico. The two cities are connected by a single four-lane interstate highway, I-25...The high real-estate prices in Santa Fe mean that many of the people who work there must commute from the Albuquerque metro area. Furthermore, the capital is home to many of the state’s cultural institutions and tourist attractions, and most out-of-state visitors are forced to make the 60-mile journey from the Albuquerque International Sunport by car. As the population of the region grows, commute times are expected to increase 80% on some routes by 2025, making the introduction of additional forms of transportation a priority to local governments.[7]

Roland Burris, Blagojevich's appointee for Obama's Senate seat, has a mausoleum. It's actually quite nice. It's bigger than my kitchen. And really, really weird.

Charles Barkley feels that speeding is understandable if the possibility of sex is the reason. Alabama's future Governor, everyone!

Colorado Governor Picks Senate Replacement

2009-01-02T11:02:00.000-08:00

The Denver Post is reporting that Colorado Governor Bill Ritter has selected a replacement for Senator Ken Salazar:

Denver Public Schools Superintendent Michael Bennet has been chosen to fill the U.S. Senate seat, sources close to the process confimed (sic) this morning.
Bennet would fill the seat after the confirmation of Ken Salazar as Interior Secretary.
Gov. Bill Ritter is expected to formally introduce Bennet as his choice on Saturday.

Compare this to the fiasco in Illinois and the media circus in New York. Colorado knows how to do it.

Think Progress: 2008 Bush Accomplishments

2009-01-02T09:29:00.000-08:00

– Number Of U.S. Troops Killed in Iraq: 322.
– Number Of U.S. Troops Killed in Afghanistan: 151.
– Number Of Jobs Lost: 1.9 million.
– Number Of Banks Federal Government Now Owns Stock In: 206.
– Number Of Uninsured Americans: 47.5 million.
– Change In Housing Prices: declined 18 percent.
– Change In Health Insurance Premiums: increased 5 percent.
– Change In Number Of Delinquent Mortgages: increased 75 percent.
– Change In Use Of Food Stamps: increased 17 percent.
– Change In Dow Jones Industrial Average: declined 35 percent.
– Change In Bush Approval Rating: declined 9 percent to 29 percent.

Gaea's Last Stand

2008-12-30T03:25:00.001-08:00

There are many numbers that will live on in our history. The 13th day of the 186 defenders at the Alamo. The final fight of the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae. However, all these numbers pale in comparison to the number 350. This is the number at which our very existence begins to be threatened. After all, who cares about any of the great acts in history, if no one is around to read them?

Yahoo!: Phoenix Opens New Light-Rail System

2008-12-28T05:21:00.000-08:00

Awesome! But, the hot summers will be a huge test. Will people wait for the rail outside in the heat? Hopefully, the planners thought ahead and set up water mist systems at every stop.

My National High-speed Rail Service Idea

2008-12-20T15:25:00.000-08:00

So, I have been dwelling on high-speed trains lately. Since 4am yesterday, to be precise. I keep thinking how wonderful it would be to have a fully-functioning, profitable, fun way to travel this beautiful land of ours. However, since I am obsessing, I thought it would be a good idea to post my ideas about high-speed rail service so I might stop obsessing. (I have found that it is the best way for me to move on. Expect in the near future a few posts regarding the frighteningly quick evolution of sea creatures and female Apache helicopter pilots. Oh, and Rhode Island. Although, I doubt a few posts will cure me of that fascination.)

Back to the rail, I have something that I scribbled out today. First, a few disclaimers. This is an idea about preliminary, yet national, high-speed rail service. A starting point, if you will. Second, I understand that having a rail from San Diego to Las Vegas is a little silly since one is proposed for Los Angeles to Vegas, but I live in San Diego so I have some bias regarding this. I admit it. I still want it. Lastly, I scribbled this out at 5am today and now - after a few relaxing mixed drinks - it still looks alright to me. I just wanted to put that out there. OK, here we go:

A California line is already proposed (Prop. 1A passed on November 4th). It would have a line starting in San Diego and going through Riverside, L.A., Central Valley, and splitting off toward either San Francisco or Sacramento. This is great but I think it should continue from San Francisco all the way to Seattle. It could follow the I-5 with a stop in Eureka and another in Portland.

S.D. - Phoenix - Central N.M. - Austin - Nawlins - Atlanta - Orlando - Miami

LA - Vegas - Denver - St. Louis - Nashville

St.Paul/Minn - Chicago - Cleveland - New York

Pittsburgh - D.C.

This is the part where you have to visualize the diagonal subconnections. Use the map.

S.D. connects to both L.A. and Vegas. Vegas connects also to Phoenix. Phoenix to Denver. Denver to New Mexico. St. Louis to Texas and Louisiana. Nashville to Atlanta.

Denver also to St. Paul/Minneapolis. St. Louis also to Chicago.

Cleveland to Pittsburgh.

This would be great for commerce as well as jobs. Someone who lives in Cleveland could work in Chicago. Someone like myself could get to Phoenix or Las Vegas to visit family in less than 3 hours. A barbecue fanatic can get Texas style for lunch and St. Louis style for dinner. To compare or brag or whatever.

I feel a little better now that I got that out. What do you think?

Bloomberg: Credit Card Users Feel Pain

2008-12-19T14:04:00.000-08:00

Companies are implementing rate hikes and extra fees to curb higher defaults and lower consumer spending.

The new rules come on the heels of a $700 billion federal bailout of the financial system, including $125 billion invested in the nine largest U.S. banks. Recent moves by JPMorgan Chase & Co., Citigroup Inc. and other firms to add charges and decrease the amount of money cardholders can borrow at the same time they’re taking taxpayer dollars have angered some customers.
“People are totally confused,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Corp.’s Economy.com. “The taxpayer is essentially a big owner in JPMorgan, Bank of America and Citigroup, and these are the folks who make credit-card loans. Many are asking, ‘So why is it that my credit-card loan got pulled? Why am I being charged a higher rate?’”
A decline in spending by consumers and a rising number of defaults are leading Citigroup, JPMorgan and other lenders to increase fees and interest rates for some customers and cut the amount others can borrow. The changes are intended to reduce risk and raise revenue.

Read entire article here.

Apparently, It's A Very Big Bus

2008-12-19T05:36:00.000-08:00

Alphacat: Obama Whatever I Like Video

2008-12-17T06:10:00.000-08:00

Ignorance Is Bliss

2008-12-16T04:30:00.000-08:00

I miss not knowing stuff. It was... peaceful. This is the reason Obama says things are gonna get worse before they get better. The problem is that they're going to get a lot worse for a lot longer than most people expect. Welcome the Great Recession everyone!! Take a seat and eat some popcorn, 'cause it's going to be awhile.

Gays Vs. Southpaws

2008-12-11T15:54:00.000-08:00

Nothing But Sunshine

2008-12-10T04:28:00.000-08:00

Here is what I don't understand: If you know that you are doing wrong, then why are you talking? Why appear in front of cameras and essentially dare the authorities to try to get evidence? Unless Gov. Blagojevich is completely devoid of conscience understanding, he knew that anyone wiretapping him would have good evidence. Was it just arrogant bravado for the cameras? Why say anything at all? How about, "I am here to show my support for the workers. I have no comment at this time regarding accusations against me." Would that have been so hard?

Big Bang Theory Finally Hitting Home

2008-12-10T01:19:00.000-08:00

The Big Bang Theory is simple. The Universe started as one, separated into many, and eventually will become one again. It took awhile but this theory is finally starting to be recognized as not just a theory, but a fact of nature for both the Universe and it's inhabitants. As a Star Trek fan, a world, not just a country, of the people, by the people, and for the people, has seemed as natural to me as breathing. Alas, the world will, once again, have to catch up to me.

Newsweek: Gay Marriage

2008-12-08T04:16:00.000-08:00

This is an excellent article by Lisa Miller about the religious views of the anti-gay establishment. I found this article interesting for many reasons. On a personal note, I am not a religious person. I was raised in a family where members practiced different variations: Methodist, Baptist, Seventh-Day Adventist, etc... If I had to claim one religion at this point in my life, it would be Humanist (did you know there are, like, 15 different aspects of Humanism? How does that make any sense??)

Suffice it to say, I just think people should be respectful of individuality, patient with differences, and stop using their personal beliefs as an excuse to be unkind. It always amazes me when I see someone being angry and judgemental and condescending while wearing a Christian cross around their neck. I mean, doesn't following Christ mean something anymore? Or is it just jewelry and random words? If you choose to believe that Christ is your Savior, then why not do your best to treat others like he did? I remember those stories about him from church as a kid. He seemed like a good guy. He said some good things. He did a lot of good deeds. He was kind, patient, giving and forgiving. Seems like someone to emulate, not use to degrade and disrespect others.

To paraphrase a line from Studio 60: If a gay couple moves in next door, how does that impact my family relationships? And if it does, why is it their problem??

12/8/08: Random Bushism Of The Day

2008-12-08T04:04:00.000-08:00

"You know, I'm the President during this period of time, but I think when the history of this period is written, people will realize a lot of the decisions that were made on Wall Street took place over a decade or so, before I arrived in President, during I arrived in President." --George W. Bush, ABC News interview, Dec. 1, 2008

A Day Which Will Live In Infamy

2008-12-07T06:23:00.000-08:00

The History Channel has a short video and summary of the attack on Pearl Harbor here.

I'll Drink To That!

2008-12-05T09:05:00.000-08:00

75 years ago today, the 18th Amendment to the Constitution was repealed. Now, normally I get a bit pissy about changes to the Constitution; however, it is my humble opinion that the 18th amendment was stupid anyway. So there.

The 21st Amendment was ratified on December 5, 1933. This amendment officially declared alcohol consumption, transportation, and possession would be legal again. Now, I wasn't alive to see this happen - hell, my grandparents were not even alive then - but I can imagine the reaction to this news went something like this:

"Thank you, Congress! I am so happy you have allowed me to drown my sorrows in a bottle of bourbon!"

and

"Cool! Maybe I can drink away the existence of the Hoover Administration!"

and

":::GULP::: Aahhhhhh..."

Again, I wasn't there. This is supposition, folks. But I'm probably close, right?

The point is that we can legally imbibe and we have been doing just that for 75 consecutive years. So in celebration of that, we are being asked to do more:

"This anniversary is a great time to recognize the success of the past 75 years of effective, state-based alcohol regulation since the ratification of the 21st Amendment," said NBWA President Craig Purser. "Today, American consumers of legal drinking age have access to nearly 13,000 labels of beer from the smallest craft brews to the largest multinational labels - all delivered through a transparent and accountable alcohol distribution system. If you're of legal drinking age, join America's beer distributors in raising a glass on December 5 to the 75th anniversary of the 21st Amendment and today's successful system of state-based alcohol regulation."

Sounds reasonable to me. Then again, I am so easy.

Cheers!

Funny Or Die: Prop 8 - The Musical

2008-12-04T05:31:00.000-08:00

See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die

Rachel Maddow And Richard Engel

2008-12-03T04:48:00.000-08:00

Richard Engel was a guest on The Rachel Maddow Show last night. I always appreciate whenever Engel is on any show because 1) He explains foreign policy and actions in a way that is easier to understand and 2) If he is being interviewed it means he is safe. I worry about that guy. He is always in the middle of a gunfight somewhere. It is a double-edged sword, I guess. He is great at explaining conflicts that are happening in other countries because he spends so much time in the middle of conflicts in other countries, but there is something really calming about seeing him in a television studio and not in the mountains with bullets flying around him.

Last night, Engel was armed with a great tool - a map. Engel and Maddow talked about the Afghanistan - Pakistan - India conflict. If you missed it last night, please watch the video clip below.

12/2/08: Random Bushism Of The Day

2008-12-02T05:05:00.000-08:00

"I didn't grow up in the ocean -- as a matter of fact -- near the ocean -- I grew up in the desert. Therefore, it was a pleasant contrast to see the ocean. And I particularly like it when I'm fishing." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Sept. 26, 2008