partisan chaos

Ditto

2007-10-13T12:25:00.000-07:00

On reflection, I'm doing the same.

I have been guilty of mudslinging here but I think we all have that propensity at times.

I think I'm going to come up with a new RvL type blog with some ground rules on civility and accountability. I don't want to lose friends over a stupid blog.

So long

2007-10-13T10:22:00.000-07:00

Hey guys,

I know I've been MIA for months and months -- much of it has been being busy, but there is a bigger underlying issue. I just can't stomach or be associated with the personal attacks here any longer.

I'm pulling my account from the blog and killing the listserv.

I appreciate your insights and contributions -- I'll certainly miss some of what goes on here. It's good to hear what the right is being programmed to think as digested by an articulate person -- but not at the sacrifice of civil discourse.

I hope you guys are doing well -- keep up the good fight in whatever way you find worth your energy.

Finally: Impeachment = Accountability -- and if we have to start with Pelosi for obstructing the Impeachment process, so be it.

-dta

Ratings (Two)

2007-10-13T08:39:00.000-07:00

Suzie, this may be the source for what you were talking about with Olbermann:

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/msnbc/q3_cable_yeartoyear_growth_at_msnbc_68198.asp

One Pissed Off General

2007-10-12T21:07:00.000-07:00

Here we go, media bias. The headline:

‘A nightmare with no end in sight’
Ex-commander of coalition forces in Iraq lambastes ‘failure of leadership’

Partial truth. General Sanchez is (rightfully) pissed off at everyone.

Ratings

2007-10-11T17:37:00.000-07:00

First - cable TV
Keith Olbermann's Ratings on the Rise; Fox News Drops Out of the Top Ten Most Watched Cable Channels
---------

And then some info on the radio stations:
Columbus
Station Group Owner Format Fa'06 Wi'07 Sp'07 Su'07 P1 Su'07 P2

WYTS-AM Clear Channel Talk
0.8 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.6

WYTS-AM - Was WTPG-AM until January

Cincinnati
Station Group Owner Format Fa'06 Wi'07 Sp'07 Su'07 P1 Su'07 P2
WCKY-AM Clear Channel Sports 1.6 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.0

On July 7, 2006, WCKY and WSAI switched programming
On December 11, 2006, WSAI's progressive talk format ended.
It relaunched that day as "1360thesource.com," still carrying a talk format but heavily programmed with advice and consumer awareness-driven shows such as Clark Howard and Dr. Laura Schlessinger.
That format lasted just six months, as WSAI went back to a sports format in July of 2007.
Today, it carries the entire ESPN Radio lineup on a 24/7 basis as an all-network sister station to WCKY.
It has not shown ANY ratings since 2006
Akron
WARF changed formats on March 30, 2007 from liberal talk to sports, using Sporting News Radio. It no longer shows up in the ratings.
--------------

Wonder why? I think they're afraid to let us see that progressive ratings did better than either the right-wing stuff or sports. And in some of these places the sports stations was, like, the 4th one in the area.. Really needed that, right?

You cannot be so blind as to understand that in such a divided country left vs right that there isn't a business case for progressive radio.

Ed Schultz mentions a web site of a product he liked and the hits crashes the website. It's happened every time!

And Now for Something Completely Different

2007-10-11T16:28:00.001-07:00

The true political crazies....check 'em out:

We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children.

HA NOI — Nong Duc Manh, General Secretary of the Communist Party of Viet Nam, welcomed the leader of the US Communist Party in Ha Noi yesterday, discussing ways for the Vietnamese and American parties to promote bilateral relations.

09.10.2007 WASHINGTON, DC -- Greens will use their presence in various antiwar demonstrations and other events throughout September and October to press the Green Party's demand for immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

The following data on the population of Massachusetts in the 1647 will surprise a few anti-Southern hypocrites! Lets see if those who were so obsessed with stealing Our True Georgia Flag demand that Massachusetts change theirs now! Perhaps Gloucester, Massachusetts with a non-freeman percentage of 74% should be thrown out of the Union! Look at Springfield, non-freemen percentage of 84%.

For these reasons we call for social ownership and democratic control of productive resources, for a guarantee to all of the right to participate in societal production, and to a fair share of society's product, in accordance with individual needs.

Front Summation

2007-10-11T10:17:00.000-07:00

I think the reason we're getting so heated over this is that conservatives believe in individual responsibility and think that it's lacking here; liberals believe in things flowing from the government and see a poster case here to defend.

Nuff said.

Exactly

2007-10-10T18:41:00.000-07:00

This is what I have been trying to say:

Yes, the Frost children are victims, but not of conservatives. They look more like victims of a couple of mostly spoiled brats who became parents and never felt compelled to take responsibility for themselves when it came to the bottom line on that. There are poor people in America who need help, particularly as regards Health care. The point is, the family above shouldn't be and simply aren't among them. Call Dad next time you want some bucks FH. And kindly leave the rest of America's collective wallet the hell alone.

Or, hey, get a second job with benefits. I've done that more than once in my life when I needed the cash. And do it before you let Graeme tell the media how much you struggle to take care of him, because there are enough people in America who really do struggle with these issues. And when they take a look at your lot in life they are left far from impressed and unmoved to cough up one thin dime so you can enjoy afternoons playing with your lathe, or whatever the hell else it is you do in your factory.

I don't see someone who needs my help in F Halsey Frost. I see a simpleton and a loser who had more kids than he could afford and doesn't appear to have given up very much in life to deal with that situation. Who knows, maybe Dad figured it out, too and cut him off. What the hell, there's always welfare, right?

Where's the Indignation?

2007-10-10T00:01:00.000-07:00

In my earlier post, I think I proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Frost family doesn't have health insurance for their family because of personal choices and priorities.

The Democratic Party could have, to protest Bush's veto, found an honest-to-God needy family to deliver their message. Instead, they chose a family who is - apparently - politically active and more than capable of buying health insurance.

I call on my progressive friends on this blog to show some principles. Where is your outrage? Doesn't coverage for the truly needy, not just needy by choice, deserve more than a cheap political trick?

Don't you realize that an honest assessment of what the truly poor need is subverted by shit like this?

Update:

More here to really frost your ass if you truly care.

Where is your outrage????

Probable treason, but Bush will get away with it.

2007-10-09T17:10:00.000-07:00

Leak severs link to al-Qaeda’s secrets

Firm says Bush administration’s handling of video ruined its spying efforts

Bush gives the film to Fox News before the FBI even gets it. Imagine if Clinton had done this.

These guys make me sick.

Something Smells With This "Poor Kid"

2007-10-09T15:12:00.000-07:00

Garrett, I'm seeing some evidence that this kid's lack of healthcare may be due to some poor judgement and misprioritization of his family. I'll update this post when I have something substantial...you know, proof, something the Left isn't really big on.

If what I'm starting to find is true, Garrett, you should be just as outraged as I will be.

Otherwise I'll update this post and say "never mind".

Update 1:

This might be easier than I thought. Here's what a Freeper found. In the interest of fair disclosure I might add that elsewhere it was stated that their private school tuition might be partially or completely subsidized.

Update 2:

The "poor" family has a home worth a lot of money. The husband owns his own business so, technically, the media was right about not getting insurance through his employer (hahaha). He also owns an industrial rental property.

Oh, and they could get medical insurance for about $650 a month

Something else to consider: If the wife works a mid-level position at a publications firm, don't they offer insurance? And if the reported household income is $45,000 it would seem the lion's share is her income? If her husband is a woodworker, how much unreported income are they bringing in (my best man at my wedding is a woodworker and has TONS of unreported income)?

FINAL UPDATE:

Researching is not "stalking". If you had done a modicum of research yourself with an open mind, Garrett, you wouldn't have fallen for this obvious Democratic mendacity. There's a word for people like you, buddy: SHEEP

Stalking 12-year-olds

2007-10-09T11:07:00.000-07:00

Apparently, even twelve-year-olds who speak out against the president are Fair Game.

The CoS would be proud. :-(

Pretend to Be All You Can Be

2007-10-04T16:18:00.000-07:00

From Ann Coulter (sometimes she isn't ranting):

Pretend to Be All That You Can Be
by Ann Coulter
Posted 10/03/2007

Not content to wait for my book to come out, Senate Democrats are demanding a censure resolution against Rush Limbaugh. Ah, the memories ...

In my experience, having prominent Democrats censure you on the Senate floor is the equivalent of 50 book signings. Or being put on the cover of The New York Times magazine 20 years ago when people still read The New York Times magazine. They should rename Senate censure resolutions "Harry Reid's Book Club."

Liberals are hopping mad because Rush Limbaugh referred to phony soldiers as "phony soldiers." They claim he was accusing all Democrats in the military of being "phony."

True, all Democrats in the military are not phony soldiers, but all phony soldiers seem to be Democrats.

If we are to believe the self-descriptions of callers to talk radio and the typical soldier interviewed on MSNBC, the military is fairly bristling with Moveon.org types.

The reality is quite the opposite. While liberals have managed to worm themselves into every important institution in America, from the public schools to the CIA to charitable foundations, they are shamefully absent from the military.

As noted in that great book that came out this week, "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans":

"According to a Military Times survey taken in September 2004, active-duty military personnel preferred President Bush to Kerry by about 73 percent to 18 percent. Sixty percent describe themselves as Republican and less than 10 percent call themselves Democrat (the same 10 percent that MSNBC has on its speed-dial). Even among the veterans, Republicans outnumber Democrats 46 percent to 22 percent."

So there aren't a lot of anti-war military types for the media to turn into this month's "It Girl." (If conservatives ran the media, there would be a constant stream of government employees admitting to sloth and incompetence, welfare recipients admitting to being welfare cheats and public schoolteachers who support school vouchers.) Sometimes liberals get desperate and have to concoct Tawana Brawley veterans.

In addition to famous fake soldiers promoted by the anti-war crowd, like Jesse MacBeth and "Winter Soldier" Al Hubbard, even liberals with actual military experience are constantly being caught in the middle of some liberal hoax.

Al Gore endlessly bragged to the media about his service in Vietnam. "I took my turn regularly on the perimeter in these little firebases out in the boonies. Something would move, we'd fire first and ask questions later," he told Vanity Fair. And then we found out Gore had a personal bodyguard in Vietnam, the most dangerous weapon he carried was a typewriter, and he left after three months. Although to his credit, Gore did not put in for a Purple Heart for the carpal tunnel syndrome he got from all that typing.

Speaking of which, John Kerry claimed to be a valiant, Purple Heart-deserving Vietnam veteran, who spent Christmas 1968 in Cambodia -- until he ran for president and more than 280 Swift Boat Veterans called him a liar. We've been waiting more than 20 months for Kerry to make good on his "Meet the Press" pledge to sign form 180, which would allow the military to release his records.

Then there was Bill Burkett, who gave CBS the phony National Guard documents; Scott Thomas Beauchamp, The New Republic's fantasist anti-war "Baghdad Diarist"; and Max Cleland, whose injuries were repeatedly and falsely described as a result of enemy fire.

Liberals will even turn a war hero like Pat Tillman into an anti-war cause celebre posthumously -- so he can't disagree. Tillman died in a friendly fire incident that occurred -- unlike Max Cleland's accident -- during actual combat with the enemy.

Because they are screaming, hysterical women, liberals treat friendly fire like a drunk driving accident. But friendly fire has been a part of war from time immemorial.

Liberals have an insane, litigious view of the military: There's been an accident in warfare, let's sue! It's as mad as the line from "Dr. Strangelove": "Gentlemen! No fighting in the War Room!" Golly jeepers, accidents can't happen in a war!

Contrary to the insinuations of his family, we don't know what Pat Tillman would say about the war he volunteered for, but we do know that he was a patriot until death. And we know what other patriots have said about friendly fire during a war.

In his book Faith of My Fathers, John McCain describes how demoralized American prisoners of war in Vietnam were when they didn't hear any bombing for years. Finally, after a long bombing halt, Nixon renewed aerial bombing of North Vietnam in December 1972.

Our bombers couldn't know with precision where the enemy was holding (and torturing) our troops. McCain and the rest of those POWs could easily have been hit and killed by an American bomb.

But the POWs weren't denouncing the U.S. military for risking their lives with "friendly fire." They weren't crying Mommy, investigate this! Get me a trial lawyer! If their camp had been hit by American bombs, it would have been as the POWs were shouting: "God bless President Nixon!"

That's from their own mouths; that's what's in their hearts. Friendly fire -- to a nation that hasn't lost its wits -- is part of waging war.

If Democrats don't want to hear about "phony soldiers," maybe they should stop trying to edify us with these bathos-laden hoaxes.

It's lIke Yelling "Moron!" and See Who Turns Around

2007-10-04T08:58:00.001-07:00

From IMAO:

You've probably heard of the phony controversy of Rush Limbaugh's "phony soldiers" comment in which he was talking about people falsely pretending to be soldiers to speak against the war, i.e., not real soldiers but phony ones. Some reason, anti-war vets like Jon Soltz (last seen shouting down a man in uniform speaking in favor of his mission) assumed Rush was talking about him, which is somewhat psychologically revealing. It's like how no one actually questions John Kerry's patriotism but he kept assuming everyone was.

Anyway, I find it interesting that with there being millions of men and women in both active and reserves, liberals still feel the need to use made up soldiers like Jesse Macbeth to find enough vets to speak out against the Iraq war. I think that's because most real Americans don't want to have anything to do with the Kwazy Kos Krowd. Also, with all their blatant disdain for the troops, it seems you'd have to be a bit self-loathing to be both in the military and associated with those freaks.

The New Blacklist

2007-10-03T12:15:00.000-07:00

From the Wall Street Journal. The emphasis at the bottom is mine:

In recent weeks we've seen how the MoveOn.org Democrats have aped the tactics of Joe McCarthy, including character assassination of military officials and childish wordplay on people's names ("Senator Half Bright"; "General Betray Us"). Fox News reports on the latest effort to imitate old Tailgunner Joe:

The owner of the company that airs Rush Limbaugh's show has come to his defense, telling Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that while he isn't certain to whom Limbaugh was referring when he used the term "phony soldiers," the radio talk show host has a long history of supporting U.S. troops.

Mark P. Mays, president of Clear Channel, the parent company of Limbaugh's broadcast, on Tuesday responded to a letter signed by 41 Democrats that called on the network "to publicly repudiate" comments made by Limbaugh "that call into question" the service and sacrifice of troops who oppose the war in Iraq.

As National Review's Byron York explains, when Limbaugh talked about "phony soldiers," he was referring to phony soldiers--that is, to men like Jesse Macbeth, an "antiwar" activist who claimed to have served in Iraq, received a Purple Heart and killed innocent civilians, when in fact the Army discharged him before he even completed basic training.

If Democrats want to support the phony troops, it is their right to do so. But when they try to interfere with Limbaugh's livelihood, that amounts to an effort at creating a McCarthy-style blacklist.

The Fox report says that 41 Democratic senators signed this letter, which means that 9 or 10 did not (depending on how you count Joe Lieberman). Will they speak out against their colleagues' intimidation efforts? And where are the Republicans in all this? With the Democratic Party increasingly in thrall to hate groups like MoveOn and Media Matters, America urgently needs politicians of either party with the courage to take a stand for decency.

Hillary's Support

2007-10-02T14:20:00.000-07:00

OK, riddle me this: Why is Hillary Clinton the leading Democratic candidate? As far as I can tell, few people come out in support of her. The progressives dislike her, conservative Democrats dislike her.

Here's a rather scathing article in The Nation. The Nation is way liberal.

The Monkeysphere

2007-10-01T14:59:00.001-07:00

Informative, funny as hell, and explains politics, Rush, and trashmen....

http://www.cracked.com/index.php?name=News&sid=2417

A Side Thought

2007-10-01T14:44:00.000-07:00

Isn't it disturbing that Congress actually enters resolutions into the record condemning MoveOn and Limbaugh?

Forget the content of what either said, isn't Congress condemning free speech?

Food for thought....

Limbaugh v. the Left

2007-10-01T14:09:00.000-07:00

I believed this was bullshit about his supposedly demeaning the military. It appears likely I was right.

http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2007/09/rush-limbaugh-phony-soldiers-flap-abc.html

Here's an excerpt from another post on the same blog:

Limbaugh's best point is this (Bill O'Reilly, take note): critics of conservative talk radio, especially in the mainstream media, never actually listen to these shows. They simply accept the Media Matters spin as gospel without actually tuning in. O'Reilly and Limbaugh cannot emphasize this point enough.Limbaugh was actually talking about the story of Jesse MacBeth, a fake "soldier" who never made it out of boot camp, yet was utilized by the anti- war left as a "veteran" who agreed with Iraq opponents.

Now, there are accusations all around that both sides have selectively edited audio and transcripts.

Considering MacBeth's conviction had just occurred and MacBeth was a loud, anti-war voice, I think if more likely it referred to him and the other handful of ex-military who have lied about their experiences in the Gulf to anti-war crowds and interviews.

Update:

Here's the transcript from MediaMatters:

CALLER 2: Yeah, and, you know what --
LIMBAUGH: "Save the -- keep the troops safe" or whatever. I -- it's not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.
CALLER 2: No, it's not, and what's really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.
LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.
CALLER 2: The phony soldiers. If you talk to a real soldier, they are proud to serve. They want to be over in Iraq. They understand their sacrifice, and they're willing to sacrifice for their country.

Now, c'mon, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to surmise he was referring to, if not MacBeth, then any number of supposed Iraq war vets who have turned out to be phonies.

Yeah, the MM piece is a hit piece. Slimeballs.

Update 2:

So these guys are whom Rush was referring to. Yup, phony soldiers. Be fun to cross-reference this list with the speakers at antiwar demonstrations.

PBS: The War

2007-10-01T10:47:00.001-07:00

Man, is this good. Ken Burns deserves an Emmy. Michael Moore could learn a few things from this guy.

http://www.pbs.org/thewar/?campaign=war_blog_blogads

Liberal Media, yeah right

2007-09-30T09:34:00.000-07:00

When it comes to the Presidential campaigns, it's pile on the Democrats, ignore the same issues - or worse - with Republicans:
----------------------------------
You've heard of Norman Hsu -- why not Robert Lichfield?
by Jamison Foser

As of 11 a.m. today, a Nexis search for "Norman Hsu AND Clinton" returns 1,252 hits. The nation's leading news organizations provide a substantial portion of those results:
The New York Times: 26
Los Angeles Times: 20
The Washington Post: 16
USA Today: 2
Chicago Tribune: 9
The Boston Globe: 8
Associated Press: 47
Newsweek: 2
Time: 1
U.S. News & World Report: 2
CNN: 45
Fox News: 29
NBC News: 14
NPR: 14
ABC News: 6
CBS News: 5
MSNBC: 6
(The actual number of news reports by those organizations, particularly the television outlets, is certainly higher than the Nexis results indicate.)
To date, 137 different newspapers have written about Hsu and Clinton in a total of 591 articles, according to Nexis, and 132 broadcast and cable news transcripts mention Hsu and Clinton.

By contrast, a Nexis search for "Alan Fabian AND Romney" yields a total of only 21 hits. Here's how they break down for the news organizations listed above:
The New York Times: 0
Los Angeles Times: 0
The Washington Post: 1
USA Today: 1
Chicago Tribune: 0
The Boston Globe: 0
Associated Press: 0
Newsweek: 0
Time: 0
U.S. News & World Report: 0
CNN: 0
Fox News: 0
NBC News: 0
NPR: 0
ABC News: 0
CBS News: 0
MSNBC: 0

That's a whole lot of zeros. Of those 21 results, seven are reports that also mention Hsu. The Washington Post report, for example, contained 97 words about Romney and Fabian in the midst of a 1,457 word front-page article about controversial donors to presidential campaigns. Those 1,457 words included the grand total of 137 about Romney donors. No other Republican candidate was mentioned. The vast majority of the article focused on Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. So, even when Fabian has been mentioned, it has often been only in passing, as part of a report about controversial donors to Democratic campaigns.

Given the disparate media coverage of Norman Hsu and Alan Fabian, you probably know who Hsu is. But by now, you're probably wondering who Alan Fabian is. Alan Fabian was a Romney bundler until his recent indictment on 23 counts of fraud, money laundering, perjury, and obstruction of justice. At his arraignment today, Fabian pleaded not guilty to all the charges against him.

The indictment of a top Romney bundler has resulted in essentially no coverage from the same news organizations that have obsessed over the controversy surrounding a Clinton bundler. And remember, when the media first began focusing on Hsu, it was not yet known that he had any legal woes, so they don't explain the media's interest in Hsu and disinterest in Fabian.

But maybe Hsu and Fabian aren't perfectly comparable. Sure, Fabian has been indicted on 23 counts of fraud, money laundering, perjury, and obstruction of justice, while Hsu wasn't known to have been charged with a crime when the media frenzy about him began. But Hsu, for reasons that may relate to his name (The American Spectator's R. Emmett Tyrrell charmingly referred to "The Clintons' Chop Suey Connection"), was immediately seen as a sexy story. Mail fraud is just so very dull, particularly in comparison to a donor with a Chinese surname.

But there's nothing dull about allegations against Robert Lichfield, who until recently was Romney's Utah finance co-chairman and helped organize a February event that raised $300,000 for the campaign.

On June 20, The Hill reported:
In a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, 133 plaintiffs have alleged that Robert Lichfield, co-chairman of Romney's Utah finance committee owned or operated residential boarding schools for troubled teenagers where students were "subjected to physical abuse, emotional abuse and sexual abuse."
The complaint, which plaintiffs amended and resubmitted to the court last week, alleges children attending schools operated by Lichfield suffered abuses such as unsanitary living conditions; denial of adequate food; exposure to extreme temperatures; beatings; confinement in dog cages; and sexual fondling.

A second lawsuit filed by more than 25 plaintiffs in July in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of New York alleges that Lichfield and several partners entered into a scheme to defraud them by operating an unlicensed boarding school in upstate New York. The suit does not allege physical or emotional abuse.
These are two active lawsuits against Lichfield. Several others suits have alleged child abuse on behalf of dozens of plaintiffs, but judges have thrown out the suits for procedural reasons. As a result, the merits of the allegations have not been weighed. In some suits, plaintiffs have settled their cases for undisclosed amounts of money.

News reports about Clinton and Hsu have often featured various reporters or pundits expressing incredulity that Clinton's vetting operation didn't raise red flags about Hsu or about the ability of donors connected to Hsu to make campaign contributions. But campaigns don't have access to donors' bank records, making some of that criticism unfair.
Romney's campaign, on the other hand, would only have had to spend a few moments with Nexis to discover allegations against Lichfield. Among the news reports that Romney staff could have easily found prior to the February fundraiser that Lichfield helped organize:

• An April 21, 2005, Deseret Morning News article reported on "persistent allegations of child abuse and claims of questionable business practices surrounding the World Wide Association of Speciality Schools (WWASPS) founded by Robert Lichfield."

• An August 19, 2005, Deseret Morning News article reported that a school connected to Lichfield "has been ordered to refund more than $1 million to parents and stop misrepresenting itself." The school had no authority to issue high school diplomas, but issued 113 anyway, and falsely claimed to have been accredited by the Northwest Association of Accredited Schools. An Associated Press article the same day also covered the order.

So: How much media coverage has there been of the troubles facing Romney's (now-former) Utah finance co-chairman?

A Nexis search for "Robert Lichfield and Romney" returns only 27 hits. None in The New York Times. One brief mention in The Washington Post. Nothing for USA Today or the Associated Press. Nothing for ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC.

I can already hear the excuses for the wildly disparate coverage of controversial campaign fundraisers connected to Clinton and Romney. Foremost among them will no doubt be the old standby: Republicans just push these stories more, so it's only natural that there are more media reports about Democrats.
Nonsense.

First, journalists shouldn't be stenographers for political parties and other partisans any more than they should be stenographers for war-hungry presidents. If the indictment of a Romney bundler on 23 counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, money laundering, and fraud is newsworthy if the DNC sends out a press release, it is newsworthy if the DNC doesn't send out a press release, too.

Second, the DNC did send out a press release. In fact, of the 14 Nexis hits for "Alan Fabian AND Romney" that do not mention Hsu, eight of them are Democratic Party press releases, fact sheets, or other materials. Eight press releases, out of 14 hits. The "Democrats aren't pushing this" excuse doesn't hold up to even the most cursory scrutiny. The Democrats are pushing it. Reporters aren't covering it.
To be perfectly clear: I am not suggesting media shouldn't have reported the Norman Hsu story (though some of the coverage went overboard and seemed to be more about embarrassing the man than providing the public useful information). There does, however, appear to be a troubling disparity in the amount of coverage given controversial supporters of Republicans.

And that disparity is not new. Looking back over the last few presidential elections, there are numerous examples of wildly disparate coverage of analogous controversies. Bill Clinton's draft record received a huge amount of coverage in 1992; George W. Bush's was given little attention in 2000. A years-old investment in which the Clintons lost money was hyped as Watergate and Teapot Dome and the Kennedy assassination all rolled into one, then the media completely ignored newly revealed evidence during the 2000 campaign that suggested Bush had insider information for a stock sale in which he made about $800,000. Al Gore's lies, which weren't, were a dominant theme in campaign coverage that year, while George W. Bush's, which were, were ignored. Same for flip-flops in the 2004 campaign.

During a recent washingtonpost.com online discussion, Post reporter John Solomon was asked about his paper's failure to cover Fabian's connections to Romney. Solomon replied, in part, "[I]f you have any doubts about the Post's commitment to vet and examine leaders of both political parties, you only need to examine the front pages of the last few weeks that have included stories by myself and my colleagues exposing Karl Rove's 'asset deployment team,' the role of Dick Cheney's chief lawyer in pressing anti-terrorism policies that troubled some in government and our extensive coverage of the attorney general and Larry Craig controversies."
It is perhaps telling that none of the examples Solomon gave had anything to do with anyone running for the Republican presidential nomination.

phony intel to scare Congress into giving Bush what he wants?

2007-09-27T14:52:00.001-07:00

Rep. Jane Harmon thinks so.

http://video.msn.com/?mkt=en-us&brand=msnbc&tab=c1149&rf=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/&fg=&from=00&vid=5d71eafd-d2a4-400f-80ca-3e517ee6e192&playlist=videoByTag:mk:us:vs:0:tag:Source_Countdown:ns:MSNVideo_Top_Cat:ps:10:sd:-1:ind:1:ff:8A

and click on "Playing the Fear Card" item.

Hmmm.

2007-09-26T17:49:00.000-07:00

This might be a good way to raise some money and make sure the girls are properly taken care of...

A Trip Down Memory Lane

2007-09-25T17:10:00.001-07:00

Yay, we all get to make fun of Dan Rather again!

Healthcare Costs

2007-09-24T15:47:00.000-07:00

It's not the insurers who are the bad guys....

In August, I had to go to the Emergency Room because I had a serious sinus infection that had moved to my lungs and I couldn't breathe. Unfortunately, my personal insurance coverage had lapsed so I was uninsured.

I went to the hospital about 10 PM....a nurse took my vitals. Then they did x-rays of my lungs. I was put on oxygen. A few hours later I spoke with a doctor briefly and then a respiratory therapist came in and put me on an inhaler. Afterwards I was released.

The bill was $975.

By my calculations I used up:

1/2 hour nurse time
1/4 hour doctor time
1/2 hour respiratory therapist time
Perhaps $10 in oxygen
Perhaps $20 in medicines
Perhaps $10 for the x-ray paper and miscellaneous

I was in the hospital for 5 hours but most of that was waiting. After you subtract out the material costs, that stay cost me about $175 per hour or a gargantuan $700 per hour of professional services time.

That's 4 times what the best attorney in town would cost.

And that, my friends, is the real problem.

Private industry and health care - this is another reason why it shouldn't be

2007-09-22T21:56:00.000-07:00

Habana Health Care Center, a 150-bed nursing home in Tampa, Fla., was struggling when a group of large private investment firms purchased it and 48 other nursing homes in 2002.

The facility’s managers quickly cut costs. Within months, the number of clinical registered nurses at the home was half what it had been a year earlier, records collected by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services indicate. Budgets for nursing supplies, resident activities and other services also fell, according to Florida’s Agency for Health Care Administration.

The investors and operators were soon earning millions of dollars a year from their 49 homes.

Residents fared less well. Over three years, 15 at Habana died from what their families contend was negligent care in lawsuits filed in state court. Regulators repeatedly warned the home that staff levels were below mandatory minimums. When regulators visited, they found malfunctioning fire doors, unhygienic kitchens and a resident using a leg brace that was broken.

“They’ve created a hellhole,” said Vivian Hewitt, who sued Habana in 2004 when her mother died after a large bedsore became infected by feces. (click on link to read the entire article)
More Profit and Less Nursing at Many Homes

Analyzing the Data

For this article, The New York Times analyzed trends at nursing homes purchased by private investment groups by examining data available from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, a division of the Department of Health and Human Services.

The Times examined more than 1,200 nursing homes purchased by large private investment groups since 2000, and more than 14,000 other homes. The analysis compared investor-owned homes against national averages in multiple categories, including complaints received by regulators, health and safety violations cited by regulators, fines levied by state and federal authorities, the performance of homes as reported in a national database known as the Minimum Data Set Repository and the performance of homes as reported in the Online Survey, Certification and Reporting database.

Single-Payer Plans

2007-09-19T20:11:00.001-07:00

Here's an op-ed from last year by Michael Kinsley, not exactly a neocon. He reflects my opinion about 90%. Suzie, read this:

Before We Go 'Single Payer'
Insurance Reforms We Should Try
By Michael Kinsley
Friday, March 17, 2006

In the March 23 New York Review of Books, Paul Krugman makes the case for a health care system that is not only "single payer," meaning that the government handles the finances, but in some respects "single provider," meaning that the government supplies the service directly.

Krugman and his co-author, Robin Wells, correctly diagnose the problem with the Bush administration's pet health care solution of encouraging people (with tax breaks, naturally) to pay for routine care a la carte, instead of through insurance. Like Willie Sutton in reverse, this notion goes where the money isn't. Annual checkups and sore throats aren't what's bankrupting us: It's the gargantuan cost of treating people who are seriously ill. People who can get insurance against that risk would be insane not to, and the government would be insane to encourage them not to.

Most lucky Americans with good insurance are doubly isolated from financial reality: They don't pay for their health care, and they don't even pay for most of their insurance -- their employer or the government pays. Of course, one perversity of the current system is that you can lose your insurance either by losing your job, if you've got one, or by taking a job (and losing Medicaid), if you don't.

Krugman and Wells are persuasive -- it's not a hard sell -- about the nightmarish complexity and administrative costs of the current fragmented system. But they don't do much more than simply assert that a single, government-run insurance program would be more efficient. Even the most competitive industry can seem wasteful and inefficient when described on paper. Dozens of computer companies making hundreds of different, incompatible models, millions spent on advertising: Wouldn't a single, government-run computer agency producing a few standard models be more efficient? No, it wouldn't.

Krugman and Wells duck the issue of rationing -- saving money by simply not providing effective treatments that cost too much. They say, let's try single-payer first. So I say: Let's try some more modest reforms before plunging into single-payer.

Krugman and Wells note repeatedly that 20 percent of the population is responsible for 80 percent of health care costs. But that doesn't explain why health insurance should be different from other kinds. The small fraction of people involved in auto accidents in any year is responsible for almost all of the cost of auto insurance. You insure against the risk of being in that group.

What's different about health insurance is the opposite: Much of it isn't insurance at all but a subsidy. The value of the subsidy is the difference between what the individual pays and what the insurance would cost in the free market. If people were buying health care or insurance with their own money, they might or might not spend too much -- whatever "too much" is -- but no one else would need to care if they did.

A subsidy has to take from someone and give to someone else. Everybody can't subsidize everybody. Or, to put it another way, society cannot give the average citizen better health care than the average citizen would choose to buy on his or her own. And this is what people want.

Krugman and Wells believe that the average citizen will be sated by whatever bonus comes out of single-payer efficiencies. In this day of $100,000-a-year pills, I doubt it.

Even though we don't do it, most Americans surely think we ought to guarantee decent health care to everyone. In fact, most would probably be uncomfortable saying it's okay to have anything less than equal health care for everybody. Should a poor child die because her family can't afford a medicine that an insured, middle-class parent can pick up at the drugstore? Current government programs don't protect poor people very well against the cost of becoming sick. They do much better at protecting sick people against the risk of becoming poor. People who can afford insurance ought to protect themselves against a catastrophic health expense. But subsidizing this insurance for them is not only unnecessary, it is futile and unfair. No one is better able to afford health care for people of average means or above than they are themselves.

Krugman and Wells say that private insurance is flawed by "adverse selection": Insurance companies will avoid riskier customers. Only a single payer (that is, an insurance monopoly) can insure everybody, and spread the risk. But anyone is insurable at some price -- a price that reflects the cost he or she is likely to impose on the insurer. Adverse selection is only a problem to the extent that insurance is not really insurance but rather a subsidy.

If you're not as hopeful as Krugman and Wells about being able to avoid rationing, you face this question: Should people be allowed to opt out of rationing if they can afford it? That is, if the system (private or single-payer) won't pay for the $100,000 pill, should you be able to pay for it yourself? Fear that this would not be allowed helped to kill the Clinton health care reform 13 years ago. But explicitly granting some people life and health while denying these things to others is hard, even though this disparity has existed throughout history and is probably unavoidable. In fact, a serious defect of single-payer is that it makes all sorts of unbearable trade-offs explicit government policy, rather than obscuring them in complexities.

There are the makings of a deal here. Better-off or better-insured people could be told, individually or as a group: Give up your health care subsidy and you may opt out of any rationing-type restrictions that the system imposes. And if a few smaller reforms like that don't work, maybe it will be time for single-payer.

HillaryCare: The Return

2007-09-18T14:13:00.000-07:00

Here we go again.

In 1993, Hillary severely damaged her husbands political capital with her universal healthcare plan and may have been a major contributor to the GOP takeover of Congress in 1994.

Now she has a plan to make purchasing private insurance mandatory and to support it via tax subsidies to the poor and tax increases aka eliminating cuts to the rich. She estimates the cost to be about $120 billion a year. When asked for the justification, she equates this to mandatory auto insurance laws in most states.

This whole plan makes me uncomfortable on multiple levels. And I would be it will make a lot of other people wary as well.

First ... is this Constitutional? The Federal Constitution is fairly rigid about what the Feds can mandate.

Second ... what would be the month to month costs for lower income families? Since the tax code is regressive, poor families might have to lay out cash on a monthly basis, painfully, and not reap the subsidy until the end of the year when filing.

Third ... I don't buy the $120 billion a year figure. I don't see anything in her plan addressing medical cost containment. Average family annual premiums run about $11,500, individuals $4400, and rates increase by anywhere from 6% to 15% annually.

Assuming the 45 million uninsured is accurate, of which perhaps 30 million are families, the annual cost would be about $550 BILLION dollars.

I don't see much in the way of employer contributions rising because I would surmise that most of the current uninsured don't have plans to participate in or there are no employer contributions. So where is the additional $400+ billion coming from? Certainly not the inidigent themselves...if they could afford it they'd already have it.

But let's compromise and assume the cost to the government ends up around $200 billion. Our current GDP growth is slowing down from the 4% it recently enjoyed. But, again, let's be wishful and assume that the GDP continues to rise at 4% in spite of the counterindications.

Also, bear in mind that Hillary wants to force the insurance companies to accept pre-existing conditions and limit their ability to actuarialize their policy holders. This will undoubtedly accelerate the cost of premiums.

So, we're looking at a boondoggle that will cost as much as the war in Iraq and that cost will increase by at least 2 to 11% per year after GDP tax growth estimates - $4 to 24 billion growth each year. What will that do to taxes and economic growth?

Assuming she's the nominee her opponents are going to have a field day with this.

This reminds me of the monorail debacle in Seattle. A good idea that is unworkable and dangerously expensive.

The MoveOn Archives?

2007-09-18T09:36:00.000-07:00

Heh. Expand to read.

Found on Craig's list SF

2007-09-16T13:35:00.000-07:00

From an angry soldier

Subsidizing Sedition

2007-09-14T09:12:00.001-07:00

Investor's Business Daily is hopping mad

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=274575840416598

Today's Cartoon

2007-09-12T13:54:00.001-07:00

MM on Syndicated Columnists

2007-09-12T13:04:00.000-07:00

Hey, MM can do an objective study! Who knew?

Their conclusions are misleading, though I have to give them credit for posting the data that shows where they are wrong.

By sheer circulation, conservatives lead progressive columnists and that is the basis for their contention of "conservative dominance". However, the last chart showing commentators by average newspaper circulation clearly shows a majority of large papers lean more liberal.

Furthermore, I would argue that the larger newspapers, ie the NY Times, is far more influential than the 20 small or medium papers carrying conservatives that when combined would equal their circulation.

Also, here's something to consider: Newspapers are subscription based, unlike the airwaves, people have to go out and buy papers. Therefore, isn't it likely that the papers will carry the columnists that they believe will appeal to their subscriber base and locale?

P.S. - I hope Suzie sits down before she reads this as I'm not often praising MM.

Top Democrat Vows to Block Possible Bush Nominee

2007-09-12T12:39:00.000-07:00

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1227215020070912?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true

Monkeys in cages throwing feces.

Somebody should find something wrong with him besides being a Republican or STFU. I've never heard a negative comment of any merit against him.

Update: In the interest of fairness, I should note that Olsen's alleged involvement in the highly partisan Arkansas Project has never been fully vetted.

Vladimir the Great?

2007-09-02T13:02:00.000-07:00

An interesting article about Russia's Vladimir Putin by Jay Winik. He compares Putin with Catherine the Great.

The author is a very respected historical writer. A few years back he wrote April 1865: The Month That Saved America which was one of the best books about the end of the Civil War I've ever read. It was turned into a documentary for the History Channel.

If World War 2 was a MMORPG

2007-09-01T12:15:00.000-07:00

Hysterical

*Hitler[AoE] has joined the game.
**Eisenhower has joined the game.
**paTTon has joined the game.
**Churchill has joined the game.
**benny-tow has joined the game.
**T0J0 has joined the game.
**Roosevelt has joined the game.
**Stalin has joined the game.
**deGaulle has joined the game.
*Roosevelt: hey sup
T0J0: y0
Stalin: hi
Churchill: hi
Hitler[AoE]: cool, i start with panzer tanks!
paTTon: lol more like panzy tanks
T0J0: lol
Roosevelt: o this fockin sucks i got a depression!
benny-tow: haha america sux
Stalin: hey hitler you dont fight me i dont fight u, cool?
Hitler[AoE]: sure whatever
Stalin: cool
deGaulle: **** Hitler rushed some1 help
Hitler[AoE]: lol byebye frenchy
Roosevelt: i dont got crap to help, sry
Churchill: wtf the luftwaffle is attacking me
Roosevelt: get antiair guns
Churchill: i cant afford them
benny-tow: u n00bs know what team talk is?
paTTon: stfu
Roosevelt: o yah hit the navajo button guys
deGaulle: Eisenhower ur worthless come help me quick
Eisenhower: i cant do **** til rosevelt gives me an army
paTTon: yah hurry the fock up
Churchill: d00d im gettin pounded
deGaulle: this is fockin weak u guys suck
*deGaulle has left the game.
*Roosevelt: im gonna attack the axis k?
benny-tow: with what? ur wheelchair?
benny-tow: lol did u mess up ur legs AND ur head?
Hitler[AoE]: ROFLMAO
T0J0: lol o no america im comin 4 u
Roosevelt: wtf! thats bullsh1t u fags im gunna kick ur asses
T0J0: not without ur harbors u wont! lol
Roosevelt: u little biotch ill get u
Hitler[AoE]: wtf
Hitler[AoE]: america hax, u had depression and now u got a huge fockin army
Hitler[AoE]: thats bullsh1t u hacker
Churchill: lol no more france for u hitler
Hitler[AoE]: tojo help me!
T0J0: wtf u want me to do, im on the other side of the world retard
Hitler[AoE]: fine ill clear you a path
Stalin: WTF u arsshoel! WE HAD A FoCKIN TRUCE
Hitler[AoE]: i changed my mind lol
benny-tow: haha
benny-tow: hey ur losing ur guys in africa im gonna need help in italy soon sum1
T0J0: o **** i cant help u i got my hands full
Hitler[AoE]: im 2 busy 2 help
Roosevelt: yah thats right biznitch im comin for ya
Stalin: church help me
Churchill: like u helped me before? sure ill just sit here
Stalin: dont be an arss
Churchill: dont be a commie. oops too late
Eisenhower: LOL
benny-tow: hahahh oh sh1t help
Hitler[AoE]: o man ur focked
paTTon: oh what now biotch
Roosevelt: whos the cripple now lol
*benny-tow has been eliminated.
*benny-tow: lame
Roosevelt: gj paTTon
paTTon: thnx
Hitler[AoE]: WTF Eisenhower hax hes killing all my sh1t
Hitler[AoE]: quit u hacker so u dont ruin my record
Eisenhower: Nuts!
benny-tow: wtf that mean?
Eisenhower: meant to say nutsack lol finger slipped
paTTon: coming to get u hitler u paper hanging hun cocksocker
Stalin: rofl
T0J0: HAHAHHAA
Hitler[AoE]: u guys are fockin gay
Hitler[AoE]: ur never getting in my city
*Hitler[AoE] has been eliminated.
*benny-tow: OMG u noob you killed yourself
Eisenhower: ROFLOLOLOL
Stalin: OMG LMAO!
Hitler[AoE]: WTF i didnt click there omg this game blows
*Hitler[AoE] has left the game
*paTTon: hahahhah
T0J0: WTF my teammates are n00bs
benny-tow: shut up noob
Roosevelt: haha wut a moron
paTTon: wtf am i gunna do now?
Eisenhower: yah me too
T0J0: why dont u attack me o thats right u dont got no ships lololol
Eisenhower: fock u
paTTon: lemme go thru ur base commie
Stalin: go to hell lol
paTTon: fock this sh1t im goin afk
Eisenhower: yah this is gay
*Roosevelt has left the game.
*Hitler[AoE]: wtf?
Eisenhower: sh1t now we need some1 to join
*tru_m4n has joined the game.
*tru_m4n: hi all
T0J0: hey
Stalin: sup
Churchill: hi
tru_m4n: OMG OMG OMG i got all his stuff!
tru_m4n: NUKES! HOLY **** I GOT NUKES
Stalin: d00d gimmie some plz
tru_m4n: no way i only got like a couple
Stalin: omg dont be gay gimmie nuculer secrets
T0J0: wtf is nukes?
T0J0: holy sh*tholysh*thoylshti!!!111
*T0J0 has been eliminated.
**The Allied team has won the game!
*Eisenhower: awesome!
Churchill: gg noobs no re
T0J0: thats bullsh*t u fockin suck
*T0J0 has left the game.
**Eisenhower has left the game.
*Stalin: next game im not going to be on ur team, u guys didnt help me for ****
Churchill: wutever, we didnt need ur help neway dumbarss
tru_m4n: l8r all
benny-tow: bye
Churchill: l8r
Stalin: fock u all
tru_m4n: shut up commie lol
*tru_m4n has left the game.
*benny-tow: lololol u commie
Churchill: ROFL
Churchill: bye commie
*Churchill has left the game.
**benny-tow has left the game.
*Stalin: i hate u all fags
*Stalin has left the game.
*paTTon: lol no1 is left
paTTon: weeeee i got a jeep
*paTTon has been eliminated.
*paTTon: o sh1t!
*paTTon has left the game.

Time on Edwards

2007-08-31T09:03:00.000-07:00

Time responds to the hypocrisy charges that you brought here the other day.

Another challenge is that much of the attention he's gotten recently has been the unflattering kind, stories that question his sincerity and assail his image as a fighter for the little guy by focusing on his pricey haircuts, huge house and hedge-fund job. These viral attacks, spreading from the Drudge Report and other blogs to newspapers everywhere, make a dumb argument. They assume that someone who's wealthy can't be a sincere advocate for poor and working people. By that logic, the healthy can't speak on behalf of the sick, or whites on behalf of people of color. But in politics, of course, dumb arguments can hurt you, which is why some Edwards aides urged him not to build such a big house. Their effort failed because the Edwardses—having battled cancer and lost a son, Wade, in an automobile accident 11 years ago, when he was 16—wanted to enjoy the luxuries they could afford. "We live our lives," says Elizabeth. "We're not pretending to be anything we're not. People have said, Don't do this or that. How would it look? But I honestly don't know how much time I've got. So we're going to live our lives."

Here's what would truly be hypocritical: if Edwards spoke out on behalf of the disadvantaged while pushing policies that benefit the rich. This he does not do. He favors boosting the capital-gains tax rate for families earning over $250,000 and closing the loophole that allows fund managers—like those at Fortress Investment Group, where he earned almost $500,000 in 2006—to get taxed at just 15%. "He wants to take money away from the people who paid him," says deputy campaign manager Jonathan Prince. "That's not hypocrisy. That's sincerity."

But once a politician is branded as inauthentic, however unfairly, it's hard to shake the label. (Ask Gore.)

The Horror!

2007-08-29T16:11:00.000-07:00

From the Weekly Standard. Excerpt:

The fascists are coming! Or rather, they're already here, installed in the White House, planning like mad to subvert the Constitution and extend their reign in perpetuity, having first suppressed and eviscerated all opposition and put all of their critics in jail. Thus goes the rant of America's increasingly unhinged left. If only, sigh many Bush partisans, wondering when this administration will get out of the fetal position and show some fighting spirit. To them, as to most reasonable observers, the White House shows the chronic fatigue of a two-term presidency reaching its final year. Nonetheless, paranoia about what Bush and Co. are up to preys on the minds of many progressives, who have progressed, in this case at least, beyond reason.

John Edwards PSA

2007-08-29T16:06:00.001-07:00

This is too funny. From IMAO.

http://www.imao.us/archives/008568.html

Affordable Health Care

2007-08-29T15:19:00.000-07:00

This is a continuation of ideas raised in Garrett's SCHIP post.

Is there an affordable healthcare crisis in America? Yes. Is there a simple, root cause for this; i.e., "evil" insurance companies. No.

There are many factors that conspire to create an environment of spiraling healthcase insurance premiums which are growing, by some estimates, at 15% a year.

Note that a lot of the following constitutes my opinion based on many years of consulting to the insurance and emergency services industries. And some of it is conjecture. I have not seen "Sicko" nor wish to since "balance" and "Moore" are rarely on the same page.

Medical liability. Doctors seem to fear making educated guesses about problems, probably due to the many liability lawsuits flying around. Therefore, it seems to me that a patient is subjected to much more expansive and expensive testing when being treated for CYA purposes. And medical liability premiums to protect from lawsuits are ridiculously expensive, forcing medical professionals to charge more for services. There's also my second point....
...federated services. Many doctors have stakes in testing facilities and send a patient to be tested even when not strictly necessary. Since there's a faceless insurance company paying, the expense is desensitized and the doctor does not have to worry about financial impact to his patient.
Hidden true costs of treatment. Many people seek medical attention for trivial reasons because they are insured and are insulated from the actual cost of the services. If a policy covers a procedure than the patient is far more likely to undergo it, even if elective, than they would if paying for it directly. This drives up the cost of insurance premiums.
Hospitals are required to treat all people, regardless of ability to pay. While admirable, the hospital must charge the people who can pay much more to cover these costs.
Personal accountability. Many people gamble on not buying insurance because it would require limiting other expenditures. Folks are over-extended in credit not because they used their Visa to buy a root canal, but to buy a new HD TV. The insurance isn't prioritized. To these people, insurance is not "affordable" because it would require undesirable lifestyle adjustments.
Choices. People do not, sometimes cannot, avail themselves of the choices of healthcare out there. For example, many employers offer healthcare benefits with low deductibles and a high benefit payout which increases premium costs. Sometimes, an individual would be better off with a high deductible policy and a small monthly investment into a Flexible Savings Account to cover that deductible.

Insurance companies do make a profit and that's why they are in business. Many of these companies are traded publicly, which means anyone can go over to the SEC Edgar website and get an Annual Report. What you will see, generally speaking, is that profits (and losses) are in line with corporations as a whole. Also, insurance companies are required to maintain huge cash reserves in case of catastrophic claims. This is money that, in general, they can't touch and setting reserves detracts from profits.

Insurance companies pay claims within the structure and guidelines of UCR (usual and customary) service costs which are determined by HICFA or other organizations annually. When a patient has a horror story it's usually due to one of several reasons:

The service charged far outside the usual costs and is disallowed.
The patient did not follow policy procedure before taking treatment.
The service provider is not an approved provider.
The insured's coverage had lapsed.

In you look analytically at some of these horror stories and not emotionally, you'll see a lot of "Yes, but's" coming from the claimant. And it's generally one of the reasons I listed. Insurance companies exist to service people and make a profit. Not rip people off.

The SCHIP efforts are a great effort to make healthcare coverage available to as many people as possible but there have to be stringent guidelines as to who can be accepted into the programs. It's unfair to the truly indigent to accept a family into the program who simply can't live without their HBO and that, I think, is one of the concerns alluded to in Garrett's post.

Finally, there are ripoff "healthcare clubs" out there who will sell you memberships that are nothing more than price negotiation services - but you'd never know until push comes to shove that they are not really selling insurance. These are the true slimeballs.

My Response

2007-08-29T12:51:00.001-07:00

...is humor :-)

Goldberry@Kos nails it

2007-08-29T08:49:00.000-07:00

Dear Republican Lurkers:

Yes, YOU. We know you're out there, scoping the lefty blogosphere to see how we're chortling with glee over Larry Craig's fall from grace. Read wmtriallawyer's diary for our true sentiments on the issue. Larry Craig is gay, not that there's anything wrong with that. It wasn't the gay part that got him into trouble. It was the hiding it part. We're not celebrating that. We're just having a bit of schadenfreude at his expense. It will pass pretty quickly.

No, the Craig Scandal has once again turned the spotlight on the biggest problem the GOP has these days: You have your priorities all wrong.

Take a good look at the frontpage. See that pic of George Bush and John McCain with the birthday cake? In the diary that commemorates the day we lost one of our most beloved cities? Oh, you missed it? No surprise there.

Good For Him

2007-08-28T21:07:00.001-07:00

Sen. Johnson is almost completely recovered from his stroke. Good for him.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20479466/

An O'Rourke Moment

2007-08-28T13:57:00.001-07:00

Greatest political satirist alive...

"The second item in the liberal creed, after self-righteousness, is unaccountability. Liberals have invented whole college majors--psychology, sociology, women's studies--to prove that nothing is anybody's fault. No one is fond of taking responsibility for his actions, but consider how much you'd have to hate free will to come up with a political platform that advocates killing unborn babies but not convicted murderers. A callous pragmatist might favor abortion and capital punishment. A devout Christian would sanction neither. But it takes years of therapy to arrive at the liberal view." -- P.J. O'Rourke

Texas to EU : FOAD

2007-08-28T10:07:00.001-07:00

Statement by Robert Black, spokesman for Texas Governor Rick Perry, concerning the European Union’s appeal that Texas enact a moratorium on the death penalty:

“230 years ago, our forefathers fought a war to throw off the yoke of a European monarch and gain the freedom of self-determination. Texans long ago decided that the death penalty is a just and appropriate punishment for the most horrible crimes committed against our citizens. While we respect our friends in Europe, welcome their investment in our state and appreciate their interest in our laws, Texans are doing just fine governing Texas.”

Putin the Terrible

2007-08-28T09:57:00.000-07:00

Nice article about the growing nationalism in Russia. IMHO this is something we should be paying more attention to.

http://www.macleans.ca/world/global/article.jsp?content=20070903_109073_109073&page=1

"Brownie's Law"

2007-08-28T07:54:00.000-07:00

It's a crying shame that this is considered newsworthy, instead of a given...

Passing "Brownie's Law," so agencies like FEMA get the job done: Edwards will enact a new requirement - "Brownie's Law" - ensuring that senior political appointees actually are qualified to perform the job to which they are appointed. Brownie's Law will require that heads of executive agencies and other senior officials have demonstrated qualifications in the field related to their job.

Clinton's Terror Fears

2007-08-25T11:02:00.000-07:00

From the NY Post:

August 25, 2007 -- Meanwhile, the senator also made it abundantly clear that even in the worst of times - like a 9/11-style attack on America - rank partisan politics is uppermost in her mind.
Campaigning in New Hampshire the other day, Hillary tried to make the case that she would be "the best of the Democrats to deal with" the "horrible prospect" of another terrorist attack against the United States.

Why would it be so horrible?

Said Clinton: Another attack "will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again."

Amazing. And so typically Hillary.

Some might have thought of the possibility of a repeat of the horrendous loss of life at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and aboard United Flight 93.

Others might have imagined the tremendous destruction of property - or the crushing psychological effect such an attack could have on all Americans.

Not Hillary.

Nope, as far as she's concerned, the worst thing about a terrorist attack is that it might possibly give the GOP a leg up in the elections and keep her from the goal that she has sought for years: becoming president.

And she says Republicans are obsessed with partisanship and divisive politics?

Where are the Good Candidates?

2007-08-23T11:19:00.000-07:00

The author finds killer weaknesses in both Democratic and Republican Presidential candidates. Could 2008 be the year of the big surprise?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/08/23/do2302.xml

Excerpt:

That's how the election will work, in principle. The trouble is, at the moment it's impossible to see how we get from here to there in practice. By this, I don't mean that something will prevent the primaries or the election from taking place. Other than starting a little early (I know, it's getting worse and worse) this campaign is so far progressing smoothly, from a technical point of view. The problem isn't the procedures, but the nature of the candidates, each one of whom, not necessarily for obvious reasons, seems wholly unelectable.

Making Crazy People Crazier

2007-08-23T09:55:00.000-07:00

From IMAO

I kinda like how IMAO doesn't anger left wing blogs that often. We're a happy site, so who could be angry at us? Still, I sometimes envy the power of other people to enrage the other side, to get them screeching and jumping around like monkeys who just had their cage shaken.

I thought Jonah Goldberg's recent column was fairly innocuous. It's about that, while lefties dominate the web now, that's more due to them being on the offensive and things were different back when Clinton was president and will be different when a Democrat becomes President again. A simple, reasoned point with hardly an insult to the left thrown in it. Yet he got a giant post on the front page of Daily Kos dedicated to tearing him to shreds. Yes, a front page post; for the new "center" of the American pubic, there apparently is nothing more important than attacking Jonah Goldberg for pointing out the cyclical nature of political momentum. For about five or six paragraphs, Hunter writes, "I hate Jonah Goldberg. Jonah Goldberg is stupid. I hate Jonah Goldberg." over and over before even mentioning anything in the article he disputed (and his first objection to the article was a purely semantically one; Goldberg said writing professionally on the internet since 1998 make him old in newcomer years and Hunter says it makes him a "newcomer"). Actually, Hunter barely quotes any of the article and just rants for pages and pages. That's crazy hatred right there... near BDS level even.

That's almost like a superpower being able to drive the left into an irrational frenzy without even trying. What if Goldberg purposely tried to anger them and wrote something like, "Everyone at Kos smells and is ugly."? They'd go so crazy, they might miss that an election is going on.

SCHIP

2007-08-22T13:24:00.000-07:00

*headdesk*

Tommy Thompson, 2001:

So, working with the President, we've developed a new program that will provide better health care for the millions of Americans who lack medical insurance or access to affordable care. The President announced the program a short time ago on his weekly nationwide radio address, and I'm here today to outline to you how it will work.

It's called the Health Insurance Flexibility and Accountability Initiative. This new model waiver program makes it faster, easier, and simpler for states to expand access to health insurance to low-income citizens through Medicaid and through SCHIP demonstrations.

The program is budget neutral, and it's a partnership between Washington and the states. It's not top- down. We want to work with you, in partnership, to expand health insurance to the most vulnerable and needy members of our society, most especially, to those whose incomes are under 200 percent of the poverty level.

You know what works best in your home states. You know the specific needs of your people. We've designed the model waiver program to give you the tools and the flexibility you need to advance benefits and quality care to those back home who need it the most.

Mark McClellan, 2006:

To provide States with the ability to structure their SCHIP plans to improve coverage and the quality of services available to beneficiaries, the Secretary has the authority to waive aspects of the Federal statute and regulations governing SCHIP. This allows States to amend their programs to increase health insurance coverage and encourage innovation. Using section 1115 of the Social Security Act, States can more effectively tailor their programs to meet local needs and can experiment with new approaches to providing health care services. These demonstrations have been used to provide health insurance to uninsured children, parents, caretaker guardians, and pregnant women. For example, CMS recently extended a demonstration in Minnesota that allows the State to use SCHIP funds to provide coverage to those with incomes from 100 to 200 percent of FPL who are parents and relative caretakers of Medicaid- and SCHIP-eligible children. Extending coverage to parents and caretaker relatives not only serves to cover additional uninsured individuals, but it may also increase the likelihood that they will take the steps necessary to enroll their children. Extending coverage to parents and caretakers may also increase the likelihood that their children remain enrolled in SCHIP. For example, in New Jersey, which covers parents through a section 1115 demonstration, the State found that having one parent enrolled increased the likelihood that a child remains enrolled.

Dennis Smith, 2007:

In addition, to ensure that expansion to higher income populations does not interfere with the effective and efficient provision of child health assistance coordinated with other sources of health benefits coverage, and to prevent substitution of SCHIP coverage for coverage under group health plans, we will ask for such a State to make the following assurances:
Assurance that the State has enrolled at least 95 percent of the children in the State below 200 percent of the FPL who are eligible for either SCHIP or Medicaid (including a description of the steps the State takes to enroll these eligible children);
Assurance that the number of children in the target population insured through private employers has not decreased by more than two percentage points over the prior five year period; and
Assurance that the State is current with all reporting requirements in SCHIP and Medicaid and reports on a monthly basis data relating to the crowd-out requirements.

We will continue to review all State monitoring plans, including those States whose upper eligibility levels are below an effective level of 250 percent of the FPL, to determine whether the monitoring plans are being followed and whether the crowd-out procedures specified in the SCHIP state plans are reasonable and effective in preventing crowd-out.

Sim Us

2007-08-17T13:25:00.000-07:00

This would explain a lot...

http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

Johnny Hypocrite Rides Again

2007-08-17T13:20:00.000-07:00

John Edwards is, by far, the most hypocritical, bald-faced lying major candidate in the 2008 race from either party:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118728685546999884.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news&apl=y

The Volokh View on Padilla

2007-08-17T13:14:00.000-07:00

Orin Kerr agrees with the Kos post Garrett cross-posted pretty much but much less effiminate and whiny hand-wringing.

He also notes and agrees with what I have been saying all along insofar that the Padilla prosecution broke new legal ground and, doubtlessly, opens up the question of what should be done with U.S. citizens who plot with foreign terrorist organizations.

I think Tim McVeigh showed us what we do with homegrown terrorists.

[Orin Kerr, August 16, 2007 at 3:48pm] Trackbacks
What Does the Padilla Verdict Mean?: Here's my take. In the short term, the major significance of the Padilla verdict is that the Administration won't have to face the question of what to do next in this case. A guilty verdict only settles this one case, but this one case otherwise could have gone on for a long time and likely would have ended up back at the Supreme Court. In the longer term, this case adds one data point in favor of using the criminal justice system to prosecute terrorist suspects. Every case is different, and no one verdict can settle very much in this debate; each verdict can only be a single data point in a broader set. But this case adds a data point in favor of using the criminal justice system. Beyond that, though, this verdict doesn't settle very much. Most importantly, it doesn't change how Padilla has been treated all this time; it doesn't erase the last six years. So while this one case is over, the questions it raised should and will continue.

We're so screwed.

2007-08-16T11:54:00.000-07:00

Over five years after his arrest, multiple trips to the Supreme Court, and being held for years in a military brig without charge, counsel or judicial review--Padilla is found guilty. It's a jury verdict that has been so de-legitimized by the Administration's shenanigans in this case, that it's rendered practically (if not legally) meaningless. And we should all feel guilty for allowing a U.S. citizen to be subjected to this.

The jury ruling has been so de-legitimized by the twisted path to "justice" of the Padilla case that I search in vain for the meaning. He was arrested in May 2002 on a "material witness" warrant. Two days before the District Court was to rule on the validity of continuing to hold him, Bush designated him an "enemy combatant." He petitioned for habeas corpus to the Supreme Court, which dismissed his petition on technical grounds for being filed in the wrong court against the wrong person. He refiled in the proper court and got a favorable decision. But then a panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Bush DOES have the authority to detain him without charges indefinitely. Meanwhile, the Administration released highly-inflammatory information alleging that Padilla was planning to blow up apartment buildings here in the U.S. (He was originally said to have wanted to set off a radiological "dirty bomb.") Padilla again appeals to the Supreme Court. A few days before Bush has to file arguments, Padilla is indicted in Miami on charges that he conspired to "murder, kidnap and maim" people overseas--charges totally unrelated to what the government used to justify holding him without charges.

So, he and his two co-defendants are found guilty of "support of terrorism" charges--not a big surprise given the jury's quick return from its day-and-a-half deliberations (never a good sign) following a 3-month trial.

But the conviction is a really a reflection on us. We are all guilty for letting a U.S. citizen be subjected to this kind of "justice."

Sunday Comix

2007-08-13T01:06:00.003-07:00

Heh. You gotta admit this is good-natured humor.

Very smart commenter at TPMmuckraker

2007-08-01T09:02:00.000-07:00

This guy seems to know what he's talking about. You have to do a lot of scrolling to find his posts, but it's worth it.

Yes, and there's a rule about that as well: ORCON, it's illegal go classify evidence of illegal activity.

Which takes us back to the dispute over Cheney's assertion that "that" EO "didn't apply." The "EO that did or didn't apply" contains the rules on ORCON.
It doesn't matter whether the "_EO_" did or didn't apply, the _32 CFR 2800_ does apply: It has OVP name on it. It can be enforced through prosecutions; and that CFR _does_ list EOs which _do_ apply.

Whether the _standards listed_ does or does not apply is meaningless; the issue is whether the _requirement_ regardless which standard is used, ignored, or explained away is _legally enforceable_. Arguing over which EO does or doesn't apply is a distraction from [a] the ORCON requirements which prohibit classification of that data; and [b] the data which _must_ be protected per the applicable CFR: 38 CFR 2800.
- - - -
This takes us back to the RNC e-mails. Recall, the White Hose legal counsel did something very stupid:
1. Determined that the information would be protected by privilege
2. Created an illegal backup database
3. Destroyed that database

Here's the problem, and why we know legal counsel was involved: Once someone assumes a database will "never" see the light of day; they have a choice: Do they talk candidly; or do they use that "to be forever hidden" database to hide illegal activity?

Here's how we know something very important: Once the evidence of illegal activity was _known_ to be revealed; and that _claims_ of executive privilege would _fail_, then they had a problem: The backup e-mail could be detected; and the _existence_ and content of that backup e-mail could be breached.
In other words, one does not destroy evidence in the RNC e-mails unless they believe that privilege would fail; but then contradict themselves and say, "But we have executive privilege". That defies reason. Again, if the _expectation_ of privilege -- going forward from time of creation -- were real, then there would have been [wait for it] [a] no reason to have a backup systems; no reason to have an e-mail system that violated the law; and no reason to _destroy_ the very thing that would "forever" enjoy a shield of privilege.
- - -

Rule: Privilege isn't a power: It's a _claim_ that the _court_ doe snot have to recognize. If a claim of privilege has been abused; or adverse inferences _about missing data_ suggest that the evidence was _illegally destroyed_, the claim of privilege is one that the court is _not required_ to recognize. A defendant can do things that will make the claim meaningless, without effect, or irrelevant: By disclosing that information in an e-mail, as Miers did with the DoJ e-mail.
Executive privilege isn't something the _court_ is required to recognize. It can be claimed, asserted, and demanded as a "right" but that's meaningless: It is a _court recognized_ claim that the court -- for whatever reason it chooses -- can refuse.

ETA: One of the Kos posters went through and pulled all of Anon's posts into one diary.

Silly Kos Kids, Politics Is for Adults

2007-07-30T11:57:00.001-07:00

From imao.us

O'Reilly's has been hammering DailyKos for being a hate site, something obvious to anyone who has scanned the front page. This light shined on the cockroaches caused JetBlue to pull sponsorship on YearlyKos, DailyKos's once a year event where the writers of DailyKos emerge from their parents' basements and sit in circles and defecate on each other while Democrats pretend to listen to their insane blather.

Now, you have to understand, liberals are used to being coddled by the media, and the vitamin D deficient denizens of DailyKos have particularly thin skin. As right-wingers, we're used to being accused of every ill of mankind, but if one person suggests to a Kwazy Kos Kid that he's not quite in the mainstream, he gets apoplectic. They think that the news media is right-leaning, and you have to be quite insane to reach that viewpoint. We're talking "Psychologist Running Out of the Room Screaming, 'Don't Let Him Touch Me and Get His Crazy on Me!'" insane. So having a particular show on a news network turn against them is intolerable beyond their understanding. With the defection of JetBlue, they're less inclined to take a hard look at themselves and more open to the idea of freaking out like a bunch of rats that just had their cage shaken.

So the Kwazy Kos Kids and the rest of the Candy Land-based community are now shaking their tiny fists in impotent rage against FOX News's advertisers. Now having much combined spending power (it's the Bush economy's fault that their parents cut their allowances), they're hoping they can annoy the advertisers to death by calling them over and over (and since one of FOX News's biggest advertisers is HeadOn, I don't think they'll even consider being told the same thing over and over annoying).

Their efforts most likely won't amount to anything, but I think it would be a great idea if FOX News struck back by profiling a Kwazy Kos Kid each day thus putting the site under further spotlight for the sake of humiliation. Start with those who post on the front page and move on to the most prolific commenters and diarists. They should all be quite interesting since I sincerely doubt that any regular participant on the DailyKos is mentally stable, because why would any sane person regularly read and comment on such drivel?

"BooshH4ter4000 is against war though he thinks that violence against Republicans is sometimes justified. He believes that terrorism is simply media hype and that President Bush is going to turn America into dictatorship and refuse to leave office in 2009. He also takes pride in how much smarter he and the rest of DailyKos are than the American public. Such a proclamation was met with great agreement in the comments, a few of which were grammatically correct.
"Posting on the front page of the Daily Kos, this is one of the more prominent DailyKos members that Hillary and Obama will try to seek the approval of at YearlyKos."

Really, this would be a great service FOX News could do for America. People like everyone at DailyKos should be ridiculed away from any active participation in our government. We don't tolerate overt racists participating in the two major parties, and thus we shouldn't tolerate the Kwazy Kos Kids who are even nuttier haters. They certainly are free to have their silly little site, but participation in it should be a conscious decision to be pariahs. That's just common sense. I'm not sure how big a difference the Kwazy Kos Kids' involvement in politics makes if any and whether the Democrats patronizing them and pretending they don't think they're weird or insane has any effect on major policy, but we should at least follow principle and make sure no one outside of their weird circle even acts like they take those goobers seriously. Like all mentally unstable people, they need to be isolated for their own good... and perhaps have a large amount of voltage shot through their brains. It's the compassionate thing to do.

Let Me Sleep On It....

2007-07-30T11:52:00.000-07:00

Odd, but whenever I read an article about the News Corp attempt to take over Dow Jones, the Meatloaf song "Paradise by the Dashboard Lights" starts playing in my head.

But that's just me. Heh.

The Rise of Russian Fascism

2007-07-30T11:42:00.000-07:00

Ignore the frivolous title to this article and read the whole thing. It'll scare the hell out of you.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=471324&in_page_id=1770

Homeland Insecurity?

2007-07-25T21:16:00.001-07:00

From the WSJ:

Homeland Security as Backwater?

Here's an interesting point about the Eliot Spitzer scandal, which we noted yesterday: One of the aides to New York's governor who was implicated in the improper use of state police to gather material for a smear campaign against state Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno was William Howard, Spitzer's assistant secretary for homeland security.

Readers may remember that three years ago, New Jersey's Gov. Jim McGreevey declared himself a "gay American" and confessed to an affair with a male aide, whom the media described as his "homeland security czar." (The ex-aide, Golan Cipel, denies the affair, accuses McGreevey of sexual harassment, and says "czar" overstates his role, which was to act "as a liaison between the governor's office and the various state agencies responsible for law enforcement and homeland security.")

Homeland security is the common thread linking these two very different scandals, both involving Democratic administrations in states that were among the hardest hit by 9/11. Democrats tend to talk a lot about homeland security, because by and large they aren't wild about either military or intelligence operations. But this at least makes us wonder if they take homeland security all that seriously either.

It may be that this is a bipartisan problem, as evidenced by President Bush's abortive nomination of Bernard Kerik as secretary of homeland security. On the other hand, Kerik had held a serious homeland-security-related post, police commissioner of New York City. Then again, he served there under the man who is now the Republican front-runner for president.

Is homeland security a dumping ground for dubious political characters? It's a question worth pondering.

Interview with Bruce Fein

2007-07-23T14:06:00.001-07:00

This is the transcript of an interview Thom Hartmann did with Bruce last week. Fein.

Bruce Fein is a constitutional scholar, a lawyer, international consultant with Bruce Fein & Associates and The Lichfield Group. He's also the chairman of the American Freedom Agenda, ... an organization devoted to restoring checks and balances and protections against government abuse. He served in the Justice Department during the Reagan administration as General Counsel of the Federal Communications Commission and has been affiliated with conservative think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation, and now writes a weekly column for both the Washington Times and Politico.com. Bruce Fein, welcome to the program. He was one of the guys who authored the original articles of impeachment against Bill Clinton. He thinks Bush should be impeached and explains why in this interview. Comments?

Click here to read

Bush was against a pay raise for the troops before he was for it

2007-07-21T06:52:00.000-07:00

Bush Threatened To Veto Same Military Pay Raise That He Now Uses To Attack Anti-War Critics

In his Rose Garden address this morning, President Bush criticized the decision by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to pull the Defense Authorization bill from consideration, saying the move would deny a pay raise to soldiers serving in Iraq. “Congress has failed to act on” a bill that would “provide funds to upgrade our equipment, for our troops in Iraq and provides a pay raise for our military,” said Bush.

“Even members of Congress who no longer support our effort in Iraq should at least be able to provide an increase in pay for our troops fighting there,”

here's the link

BUT - and this is from the Army Times dated MAY:

White House: 3.5 percent pay hike unnecessary
By Rick Maze - Staff writerPosted : Wednesday May 16, 2007 17:34:13 EDT

Troops don’t need bigger pay raises, White House budget officials said Wednesday in a statement of administration policy laying out objections to the House version of the 2008 defense authorization bill.
The Bush administration had asked for a 3 percent military raise for Jan. 1, 2008, enough to match last year’s average pay increase in the private sector. The House Armed Services Committee recommends a 3.5 percent pay increase for 2008, and increases in 2009 through 2012 that also are 0.5 percentage point greater than private-sector pay raises.
The slightly bigger military raises are intended to reduce the gap between military and civilian pay that stands at about 3.9 percent today. Under the bill, HR 1585, the pay gap would be reduced to 1.4 percent after the Jan. 1, 2012, pay increase.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/05/military_payhike_whitehouse_070516/

Patriotism (Again)

2007-07-21T00:52:00.000-07:00

Jeez, Louise. From opinionjournal.com

Mrs. Clinton's Patriotism Problem

Hillary Clinton has joined the list of Democratic politicians who have publicly raised questions about their own patriotism. ABC News has the story:

[Mrs.] Clinton, D-N.Y., a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has since May requested a briefing from Pentagon officials as to whether they have undertaken any serious planning for a future withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

On Thursday she received a response from the Pentagon that she told ABC News was "outrageous and offensive."

The letter from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Eric Edelman did not mince words. "Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies," he wrote.

"I deeply resent the administration's continuing effort to impugn the patriotism of those of us who are asking hard questions," Clinton told ABC News.

Well, here is the letter; and this is the offending passage:

Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon, and Somalia. Such talk understandably unnerves the very same Iraqi allies we are asking to assume enormous personal risks in order to achieve compromises on national reconciliation, amending the Iraqi constitution, and other contentious issues. Fear of a precipitate U.S. withdrawal also exacerbates sectarian trends in Iraqi politics as factions become more concerned with achieving short-term tactical advantages rather than reaching the long-term agreements necessary for a stable and secure Iraq.

There's not a word in there (or anywhere else in the letter) about Mrs. Clinton's patriotism or lack thereof. Edelman only argues that it is harmful for politicians to make public demands for early withdrawal because such demands tend to embolden the enemy. He is making a claim about the wisdom and likely consequences of her actions, not about her motives.

In the early days of the Cold War, before liberal Democrats decided to bug out of Vietnam, there was an adage that "politics ends at the water's edge"--that America's political parties, whatever their differences on domestic policy, were obliged to present a united front to the outside world.
Today's liberal Democrats would invert this principle. They assert the moral right not only to undermine U.S. foreign policy but to do so with impunity--that is, they wish to be immune from criticism for their statements and actions.

We suppose it's nice work if you can get it, but we'll never understand why they think that defensively denying that they lack patriotism is a winning approach.

Public opinion polls during WWII

2007-07-18T09:22:00.000-07:00

Percent approving of the way FDR was doing his job: never below 65%.

Percent believing Allies winning: after November 1942, never below 75%.

Percent willing to make peace with Hitler: never above 25%.

What about that up or down vote?

2007-07-18T08:00:00.000-07:00

Remember how the Repugs used to scream that the Dems were "obstructionists"? and they threatened to "nuke" the filibuster?

How about now? What about that up or down vote they used to scream about? Now they want to switch on a "permanent filibuster"! Go ahead and defend that, Gonzo.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/17/filibuster-conservatives/

"The same conservatives filibustering tonight were singing a different tune two years ago. When Democrats held up the confirmation of a few of President Bush’s right-wing judicial nominees, conservatives repeatedly complained of “obstructionism.”
Senate conservatives had threatened to deploy the “nuclear option,” which would have eliminated the traditional Senate practice of filibustering.
Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS): “[Filibustering] is wrong. It’s not supportable under the Constitution. And if they insist on persisting with these filibusters, I’m perfectly prepared to blow the place up.”
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) spokesman: “Senator McConnell always has and continues to fully support the use of what has become known as the ‘[nuclear]’ option in order to restore the norms and traditions of the Senate.”
Today, however, these conservatives are proposing the exact opposite of the nuclear option — a permanent filibuster. The Washington Post reports today that McConnell has requested that all Iraq amendments meet a 60 vote threshold, an effort designed to quietly block withdrawal legislation from ever passing the Senate:
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell responded to Reid with a counteroffer: an automatic 60-vote threshold for all key Iraq amendments, eliminating the time-consuming process of clearing procedural hurdles. … [A]ll the controversial war-related votes held since Democrats took control of the Senate in January have required 60 “yeas” to pass.
“It’s a shame that we find ourselves in the position that we’re in,” McConnell said. “It produces a level of animosity and unity on the minority side that makes it more difficult for the majority to pass important legislation.”
Conservatives who decried obstructionism when advocating for an up-or-down vote on Bush’s right-wing judicial nominees today stand in the way of an up-or-down vote on withdrawing troops from Iraq..."

Murder in Tacoma

2007-07-13T19:54:00.001-07:00

I know, I know. I have said that I would not post Michelle Malkin's invective here. But her links and genuine outrage in this piece about the murder of a 12 year old in Tacoma are heartfelt.

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/07/13/bloody-consequences-of-open-borders-the-kidnapping-and-murder-of-zina-linnik/

Bush Has Lost Noonan

2007-07-13T19:32:00.000-07:00

Peggy Noonan, Reagan's speechwriter, weighs in on Bush and the vox populi. Interesting reading.

I suspect people pick up with Mr. Bush the sense that part of his drama, part of the story of his presidency, is that he gets to be the romantic about history, and the American people get to be the realists. Of the two, the latter is not the more enjoyable role.

Americans have always been somewhat romantic about the meaning of our country, and the beacon it can be for the world, and what the Founders did. But they like the president to be the cool-eyed realist, the tough customer who understands harsh realities.

With Mr. Bush it is the people who are forced to be cool-eyed and realistic. He's the one who goes off on the toots. This is extremely irritating, and also unnatural. Actually it's weird.

Kos gets one right

2007-07-13T08:45:00.000-07:00

Link: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/7/12/212119/987

God Hates Nickels
by Hunter

Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 06:50:23 PM PDT

Having a Hindu chaplain give a routine invocation in the United States Senate turns out to be one of the more traumatic things that's happened to American fundamentalists of late. From the perennially outraged and aggressively creepy American Family Association, via John at AMERICAblog:

"In Hindu, you have not one God, but many, many, many, many, many gods," [David Barton] explains. "And certainly that was never in the minds of those who did the Constitution, did the Declaration [of Independence] when they talked about Creator -- that's not one that fits here because we don't know which creator we're talking about within the Hindu religion."

Hmm...

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1782

Dumbasses. I guess they're going to have to boycott Jefferson now.

Why I like Edwards

2007-07-12T12:30:00.000-07:00

David Mizner sums it up over at Kos:

Also because we sense in Edwards a freedom that's rare for a top-tier presidential candidate. He's relatively free from the ties that normally bind candidates. Conventional wisdom, the approval of the Establishment, pressure from big donors: none of this is constraining him.

He's a liberated poltician, and a liberated politician, dear Kossacks, is a beautiful and dangerous thing.

A Great Lady Passes

2007-07-11T22:10:00.000-07:00

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19717425/

Character counts

2007-07-06T08:30:00.000-07:00

If Fred Thompson does get in I hope this information is plastered all over the place. He'd be Nixon->Bush all over again. WE CAN'T AFFORD ANOTHER SLEEZE LIKE THIS!

Not all would put a heroic sheen on Thompson's Watergate role

We're All Failures

2007-07-05T21:53:00.000-07:00

I should have posted this earlier but I wanted to think about what I could add to it.

http://www.politico.com/rogersimon/

...and there's not much I can. Simon is dead-on. This country was founded by and sustained by failures and rejects.

America is great because of the fabric of ideas that comprise the whole cloth. There is vision in things that Suze and Garrett promote that I don't see at all and the reverse I believe is true. Eventually some of their ideas become a thread and some of mine do, too, and another cross-stitch is added to the cloth.

I'd like the libs to agree with me on more issues and they'd like me to do likewise. But, perhaps, it's best if we don't. Perhaps it's what makes us strong - we hold to the same ideals but with different interpretations.

We're a junkyard dog with a lot of different genes. I think it makes us better.

A memo for David Brooks

2007-07-05T12:25:00.000-07:00

David Corn thinks David Brooks may be a little off in his op-eds.

He claimed his trip proved Iraq had made no such attempts, though his own report said nothing of the kind.
He did not claim his trip had "proved"--your word--the matter. He wrote that after speaking with past and present officials of Niger and "people associated with the country's uranium business," he had concluded that "it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place." (We can forward you a copy of his op-ed.) And, as you know, columnists of the Times are not fact-checked. But we would point out that in his Times op-ed, Mr. Wilson did not claim, as you state, that "his trip proved Iraq had made no such attempts" to purchase uranium. He maintained that "there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired." And--not to belabor what might be a fact-checking issue--according to a Senate intelligence committee investigation, the report written by the CIA on Mr. Wilson's trip "described how the structure of Niger's uranium mines would make it difficult, if not impossible, for Niger to sell uranium to any rogue states."

Libby Bruhaha

2007-07-05T06:44:00.000-07:00

I think this sums up my feelings pretty well:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19603636/

Relevent quote:

What about all the Republican politicians who defied public sentiment and insisted that President Clinton be impeached for lying under oath about his affair with Monica Lewinsky? Many of them now minimize Libby's perjury.

What about all those Democrats who thought public shame was punishment enough for Clinton lying under oath, basically the position adopted today by Libby's supporters? Many of those Democrats now think Libby should go to jail for his perjury.

"There appears to be rank hypocrisy at work here on both sides of the political spectrum," said Joe Gaylord, a GOP consultant who worked for House Speaker Newt Gingrich during impeachment. "It causes Americans to shake their heads in disgust at the political system."

Think Limbaugh is Bad?

2007-06-30T14:56:00.000-07:00

Don't know whether to laugh or cry at this one. From CNN.com

--------------------------

GAZA CITY (AP) -- A Mickey Mouse lookalike who preached Islamic domination on a Hamas-affiliated children's television program was the victim of a pretend beating death in the show's final episode Friday.

In the final skit, the "Farfour" character was killed by an actor posing as an Israeli official trying to buy Farfour's land. At one point, the mouse called the Israeli a "terrorist."

"Farfour was martyred while defending his land," said Sara, the teen presenter. He was killed "by the killers of children," she added.

The weekly show, featuring a giant black-and-white rodent with a high-pitched voice, had attracted worldwide attention because the character urged Palestinian children to fight Israel. It was broadcast on Hamas-affiliated Al Aqsa TV.

Station officials said Friday that Farfour was taken off the air to make room for new programs.
Station manager Mohammed Bilal said he did not know what would be shown instead.

Israeli officials have denounced the program, "Tomorrow's Pioneers," as incendiary and outrageous.

The program was also opposed by the state-run Palestinian Broadcasting Corp., which is controlled by Fatah, Hamas' rival.

Healthcare Food For Thought

2007-06-30T14:46:00.001-07:00

If the Cuban healthcare system is so great, as Moore intimates, why does my wife's family have to send money and medicine to their relatives down there to literally keep them alive?

MediaMatters 1888

2007-06-29T20:24:00.000-07:00

MediaMatters for America has uncovered that the San Francisco Examiner has uncritically published the statement by Samuel Clemens that, "It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native criminal class except Congress."

MediaMatters has debunked this false allegation by showing that no less than four members of Congress have no criminal record whatsoever. Furthermore, Clemens wrote this commentary under the alias Mark Twain which, in our opinion, intends to confuse the reader as to the actual author.

-------------------------------------------------

Silly, eh? Now go back and read the MM Coulter piece.

Bullshit Abounds

2007-06-28T22:00:00.000-07:00

From an MSNBC article....

"A half century of desegregation law _ and racial tension _ was laid bare for the Democrats hours before they met. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court clamped historic new limits on school desegregation plans."

Utter crap. SCOTUS actually used Brown v. Brown and the 14th Amendment to make today's ruling. There were no limits established; rather the opposite. Desegregation was upheld but racial imbalances, incorrectly applied, were shot down.

This was a correct decision as anyone would reading the 178 page opinions and ruling would surmise.

Deconstructing a Media Matters Post

2007-06-28T15:00:00.000-07:00

Suze issued the challenge and I'm taking it. I am posting this as a new post because I need the full-text editing features. So let's start:

On the June 28 edition of NBC's Today, guest host and NBC News chief White House correspondent David Gregory uncritically repeated the false claim made by right-wing pundit Ann Coulter on the June 26 edition of MSNBC's Hardball that Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards received "big money to speak in front of a poverty group." Gregory used the claim during an interview with Edwards' wife, Elizabeth, to argue: "If you strip away some of the inflammatory rhetoric [by Coulter] against your husband and other Democrats, the point she's trying to make about your husband ... is in effect that he's disingenuous, especially on the signature issue of poverty, whether it's a $400 haircut or taking big money to speak in front of a poverty group." Gregory asked, "[I]s that a real point of vulnerability that you have to deal with in this campaign?"

What's wrong here? Gregory is asking a question, as a journalist, about the effect of what Coulter says and he paraphrases her. What's he supposed to do, say "What are the effects of what that woman said?" He's not supposed to editorialize.

And what's with the stilted, Pravda-esque phrasing, "uncritically repeated the false claim". If MM takes itself seriously, why use the hyperbole? It destroys the objectivity of their claim.

Let's continue. I'm having fun here. The next paragraph is truly a theater of the absurd:

However, as Media Matters for America noted, in claiming that Edwards "charge[d] a poverty group $50,000 for a speech," Coulter appeared to be distorting the earlier disclosure that Edwards received $55,000 for a January 2006 speech at the University of California-Davis. While Edwards reportedly "chose to speak on 'Poverty, the great moral issue facing America,' " there is no evidence that he was speaking to a "poverty group" at the university. Furthermore, as Media Matters documented at the time, the widely repeated claim that Edwards "charged" UC-Davis for the speech ignored the fact that there was an admission fee to the event, which, combined with sponsorships, offset Edwards' speaking fee, according to his campaign.

MM is right that he wasn't speaking to a poverty group, apparently his speech was part of a Distinguished Speakers program sponsored by Western Health Advantage. But it's really funny that they're critical of Coulter's claim of $50,000 when it was actually $5,000 higher.

And I'm reasonably sure they are essentially correct about where that $55,000 came from, why use "charged" in quotations. $55,000 was charged for the affair. That's not a lie - it's the damn truth.

So, to conclude:

Gregory uses a legitimate interviewing technique as a reporter. MM goes insane because Coulter makes an off-hand comment that was, in important particulars, was pretty close to the truth. The important takeaways are that Edwards charges (or is offered) a helluva lot of money to speak at a college and gets $400 haircuts. These are legitimate things to question for a journalist.

So MM tries to paint the scoreboard as Coulter - Bad, Gregory - Bad, Mrs. Edwards - No Opinion, John Edwards - Good.

The true scorecard is Coulter - Bad, Gregory - Doing His Job, Mrs. Edwards - No Opinion, John Edwards - Questionable.

And that, dear friends, is propaganda.

Media Matters gets it right

2007-06-28T14:20:00.000-07:00

Each time I get something from Media Matters I'm going to ask you to show me the "lie" or the "distortion". This way the topic is current, it's one topic, and there's no hard work to prove them wrong. No more excuses for you, Gonzo.

I just took the first one that came in:
NBC's Gregory repeated Coulter falsehood on Today

Joe Klein on Iraq

2007-06-28T09:49:00.000-07:00

I usually don't like this guy but in this article he paints a very good assessment of what the deal is in Iraq.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1638128-1,00.html

Stossel on Big Government Conservatives

2007-06-28T09:37:00.000-07:00

An interesting examination of the difference in Hamiltonian versus Jeffersonian principles as they apply to education. John Stossel is right, as usual.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/06/biggovernment_conservatives.html

Great SCOTUS Ruling

2007-06-28T09:25:00.000-07:00

Supreme Court strikes down voluntary integration in Seattle and Louisville public schools.

http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2007/06/court_strikes_d_1.html

Justice Roberts puts it the right way:

"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race," Roberts wrote. On the two school plans, the majority found that the districts have "failed to provide the necessary support for the proposition that there is no other way than individual racial classifications to avoid racial isolation in their school districts."

Return to "Fairness"

2007-06-27T10:48:00.000-07:00

You have got to be kidding me. I thought that it was a joke, that no one was serious about this.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/gop-preps-for-talk-radio-confrontation-2007-06-27.html

Last I looked no one was holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to listen to talk radio. Stupid-ass liberals. Almost no one likes to hear their whiney, bizarro-world shit so they try to find ways to force them to.

Amnesty for Illegal Liberal Radio

2007-06-26T21:11:00.000-07:00

Very funny. For those who can take a joke. From IMAO....
------------------------------------------

At the end of the Liberal-Reagan Airwave War, the Limbaugh Treaty clearly established AM talk radio as being the sovereign territory of conservative shows & hosts. Since that time there have been legal procedures in place to allow liberals to appear on radio, but too often, these laws have been flouted. Before examining a real solution, it's important to understand the problem of illegal liberal talk radio immigration.

Stealing jobs - It's often said that liberals are just "doing the jobs conservative radio talk show hosts won't do". At first glance, this seems true, since most liberal talk shows suck and end up at the bottom of the ratings heap.

Conservatives wouldn't want to do that, right?

But the thing is, most of these are low-skill, entry-level positions and would be filled by people just entering the work force. Unlike liberals, conservatives would eventually get better and move up, making room for the next generation.

Crime - Some people claim that "liberals are people, too". Interesting theory, but studies have shown that whenever liberals get illegally involved in talk radio, the crime rate skyrockets. Writing bad checks, stealing from children's charities, strangling kittens... the list of their heinous misdeeds goes on and on.

Welfare abuse - Let's lay to rest the myth of "the hard-working liberal". Most liberals who come to our airwaves illegally waste no time getting on the public dole where they are content to receive fat checks from NPR which they squander on crack, tofu, and hemp-based clothing items.

Disgraceful!

These criminals are aided and abetted by their liberal buddies in congress who propose to "solve" this problem with the so-called "Immigration Fairness Reform Doctrine Act", currently being touted by Senator Kucinich (D - Mind Control Space Laserton). I'll spare you all the legalistic mumbo-jumbo. What it boils down to is that it's just amnesty for the liberals who are already on talk radio, plus it reduces the barriers to letting more of them in.

And how will this new crop of tree-hugging patchouli-ferrets get their jobs?

By stealing them from hard working conservatives, that's how!
If that happens, talk radio will once again become the barren wasteland of lunacy it was before conservatives made the ideological desert of the airwaves bloom with laughter, song, and coherant thought.

But don't despair. There's a better solution. We could have REAL reform in four simple steps.
1) Protect the borders. We need to immediately set up fences around our radio stations. Fences with pointy barbed wire, and dog runs between them filled with rabid German Shepherds. And a minefield. Maybe a moat. Moats are cool. And we could put rabbits in the moat. Big, vicious swamp rabbits. Liberals are afraid of rabbits.

2) Mass deportation. Any liberals who are on our airwaves illegally should immediately be deported to whichever liberal arts campus or community college they came from. There they can go back to earing their PhD in Tolkein Mythology Studies or whatever they were working on before they got really stoned one night and accidentally signed up for Broadcast Communications classes. Plus, I hear the McDonald's in the student commons is hiring.

3) Take corporate greed out of the equation. Companies like the Corporation for Public Broadcasting know they can get away with hiring desperate, talentless liberals for pennies a day. There should be harsh fines and penalties for this sort of exploitation.

4) A real path to radio citizenship: learning English. It's simply not fair to radio audiences for them to have to put up with incomprehensible liberal monkey-jabber phrases like "Bush lied" or "global warming" or "conservative media bias". NO one understands what that garbage means! If they can't even master simple English grammar like not using the word "but" after the phrase "I support the troops", they have no business in the communications industry.
Sane, sensible, simple.

And although the illegal liberal problem seems insurmountable, common sense airwave reform IS possible. Contact your Senators and congressmen now and tell them to vote NO on the "Immigration Fairness Reform Doctrine Act".

The kitten you save may be your own.

The Sun is Hot

2007-06-22T14:55:00.001-07:00

From imao.us

An MSNBC study found that journalists' political donations are 9 to 1 to Democrats and liberals. Journalists responded by vowing to hunt down that 1. Actually, there's this whole website Media Matters devoted to finding and destroying the insidious bias of that 1.

What I wonder about are the liberals who insist that the media isn't liberal despite all the evidence. There are even some who argue it's biased towards conservatives. That's pretty much like arguing the sun is cold.

LIBERAL: I hate the sun! It's so cold!
NORMAL PERSON: Um... the sun is hot.
LIBERAL: Really? Then give me one example of the sun being hot!
NORMAL PERSON: It's always hot. Right now, as we're speaking, the sun is hitting us with its heat.
LIBERAL: It's not hot; it's corporate biased... and it's cold!

Liberals are so stupid. Sometimes I want to burn them with fire -- which is hot. Before anyone misconstrues my point, I'm not saying that liberals should be burned with fire, I'm just saying that I find it entertaining when pain is inflicted upon them.

Ummm...Which Troops?

2007-06-22T12:03:00.000-07:00

This is too funny.

On the Speaker's website, Pelosi mentions strengthening veteran's aid and has a picture of a serviceman speaking with a doctor.

Unfortunately, the serviceman is Canadian. It says "Canada" on the shoulder epaulets. There are other blogs that have the closeup picture.

The site's already been changed but several bloggers managed to get a screenshot before the change.

The Bloomberg Effect

2007-06-22T11:44:00.000-07:00

Let's assume that Bloomberg is going to make an independent run for the Presidency and uses a good chunk of his personal $5 billion fortune to finance it.

Which side does this hurt the most?

While he has been a Republican for a few years his tenets are generally moderate to liberal. He's pro-gay marriage, anti-gun, and has signed into law in NYC several laws that would be considered "nanny state".

Something else to consider: He was elected by switching parties and then riding Rudy's coattails. If he's now going to go head-to-head with Rudy, if Rudy gets the nod, do folks gravitate from Rudy to Michael? Or do they stick with Rudy?

Here's my take: Bloomberg would become the Democratic Party's version of Ross Perot. Perot was very strongly pro-business and I think it's pretty clear that he drew more Republican votes than Democratic. Arguably he cost Bush Sr. the 1992 election.

Bloomberg may draw more heavily from moderate Democrats and independents than from the GOP depending on how moderate the GOP nominee is. If someone hardcore like Thompson or Romney gets the nod, Bloomberg picks up moderate Republican votes. I don't see it if Rudy is the choice.

On the Democratic side, I think Bloomberg would be either Hillary's or Obama's worst nightmare. Forget Edwards, snowballs chance in hell there.

You might end up with an election night split of 35% Dem, 40% GOP, 25% Ind. (Bloomberg).

Or maybe, if the electorate continues to be disgusted with Congress and the White House, he could actually win.

Ideas? Thoughts?

Worst Poll Numbers Ever Across the Board

2007-06-21T14:36:00.000-07:00

Gallup reports that approval ratings for Congress are polling at the lowest level ever recorded by that orgranization. 14%.

On a specific issue, immigration, it gets even worse. According to a Zogby poll, Congress gets 3 (yes, THREE) percent support (Bush gets 9%). Wow. With a 1.1% margin it may even be worse.

Meanwhile, those wondrous students of honest criticism, Kos, killed a lot of innocent pixels today (I stole that phrase from Garrett) chortling about Bush's 26% rating; of course without mentioning how badly, much worse than Bush, the Democratic controlled Congress is viewed.

Way to go American people! You elect a bunch of clowns who are thought of even more badly than the clowns they replaced.

And Then There's Bloomberg on the Horizon Yet

2007-06-19T22:04:00.001-07:00

He quietly changed his party affiliation to NOTA recently (!)

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0607/4560.html

A Great Speech

2007-06-19T21:54:00.000-07:00

This is a great speech by Fred Thompson. This is oratory as an art form. You may not agree with everything he says but he says it with style, composure, and diplomacy. Please read and comment.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/06/remarks_to_policy_exchange_in.html

Here are some excerpts:

When the president of Iran shares his nightmare visions before cheering crowds, those are not just the fanatic's version of an empty applause line. The only safe assumption is that he means it. If we know anything from modern history, it is that when fanatical tyrants pledge to "wipe out" an entire nation, we should listen. We must gather our alliance, and do all in our power to make sure that such men do not gain the capability to carry out their evil ambitions.....

We've been through a lot together, our two nations - and not just in the storied exploits of our parents' generation. Though there are many moments in British political history from which leaders today can take instruction, there is one in particular that I've always admired in the career of Sir Winston Churchill.

It was when Neville Chamberlain died in November 1940. In memorializing in the House of Commons his longtime adversary, Churchill pronounced the bitter controversies put to rest. He said, quote, "History with its flickering lamp stumbles along the trail of the past, trying to reconstruct its scenes, to revive its echoes, and kindle with pale gleams the passion of former days."

In the end, he reflected, "The only guide to a man is his conscience; the only shield to his memory is the rectitude and sincerity of his actions." We are "so often mocked by the failure of our hopes and the upsetting of our calculations; but with this shield, however the fates may play, we march always in the ranks of honour."

Maybe it's the actor in me that admires this scene so much. It's a moment that no script-writer could improve upon. I am struck by its spirit, the magnanimity and generosity of the man ... the willingness to let old arguments go, and move on to great objectives held in common.

The Facts, Period

2007-06-19T00:02:00.001-07:00

Can we all agree that articles or op-eds that start off with assertions that are demonstrably false are counter-productive to the general discourse?

That Blumenthal piece was thinly disguised propaganda building ideas on nonsense.

You can do better....I hope.

Kos and the Facts

2007-06-15T18:15:00.000-07:00

It appears on this occasion that those little weenies you guys share kool-aide with were caught out. Enjoy. I don't expect comments, of course, since it fucks with your worldview.

http://frankwarner.typepad.com/free_frank_warner/2007/06/did_daily_kos_w.html

Bush's European Disaster

2007-06-14T08:32:00.000-07:00

by Sidney Blumenthal

Bush's European Disaster

selected quotes (boldface text is mine, italics are from the original):

High officials of European governments describe U.S. influence as squandered and swiftly eroding (one minister went down a list of Bush administration officials, rating them according to their stupidity), the country's moral authority nil. Lethal power vacuums are emerging from Lebanon to Pakistan, and Europeans are incapable on their own of quelling the fires that burn far closer to them than to the United States through their growing Muslim populations and proximity to the Middle East. ... Their faint hope -- and it is only a hope -- is that they have already seen the worst and that it is not yet to come. Even worse than Bush, from their perspective, would be another Republican president who continued Bush policies and also appointed neoconservatives. That would toll, if not the end of days, then the decline and fall of the Western alliance except in name only, and an even more rapid acceleration of chaos in the world order.

In Rome, on June 9, a reporter asked Bush about setting a deadline for Kosovo independence. "What? Say that again?" "Deadline for the Kosovo independence?" "A decline?" "Deadline, deadline." "Deadline. Beg your pardon. My English isn't very good." Bush then declared, "In terms of the deadline, there needs to be one. This needs to come -- this needs to happen." The next day, asked when he would set a deadline, he replied, "I don't think I called for a deadline." Reminded of his previous statement, Bush said: "I did? What exactly did I say? I said, 'Deadline'? OK, yes, then I meant what I said."

...Bush's proposal to put tracking stations for a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic gave Putin his opening. In response, he offered a radar site in Azerbaijan to be jointly operated by the United States and Russia. Bush had deployed the wrong tactic on behalf of the wrong strategy. Bush's missile shield has not been proved to work, has cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and has an uncertain purpose. Is the plan meant to reassure eastern European nations of the former Warsaw Pact, Donald Rumsfeld's "new Europe," against Russia, or is it a short-term ploy to rally support in the one region in the world that still likes Bush because of deep residual pro-Americanism? If Bush intended to persuade Putin to temper his authoritarianism, he only succeeded in antagonizing the Russian leader. As Bush's "freedom" agenda has collapsed, he has reverted to a Plan B for a new ersatz Cold War. His ham-handed move allowed the adroit Putin to change the subject and corner him. Meanwhile, the engagement of Russia in areas of mutual interest -- containing Iran -- languishes.

Right-wing contradictions

2007-06-14T06:59:00.000-07:00

Jerome a Paris@Kos points out an interesting contradiction in a recent FT op-ed.

NordicStorm also noted that Klaus did not have qualms using the following two sentences (which directly contradict one another) in the same article:

The scientists should help us and take into consideration the political effects of their scientific opinions.

Let us resist the politicisation of science

This is their mindset. Science that agrees with our ideology is objective; science that disagrees is politicized, manipulated or debatable. Reality is not acknowledged.

Throw Da Bums Out

2007-06-13T22:39:00.000-07:00

I was looking at the confidence numbers for Congress and the President today and they both show terrible approval ratings. Absolutely bad. Now, Bush is term-limited and is gone anyway next year but Pelosi and her new majority have got to be concerned about this. Or maybe not, maybe the agenda outweighs the popularity numbers. But I digress.

We were lied to in 1994. One of the tenets of the "Contract With America" was the imposition of Congressional term limits. It never happened. Instead, the new guys decided they liked pork and power and stayed around. A few backed out after a term or two on principle but that wasn't the rule.

Before I continue I'd like to say that I exempt the Senate from this idea because that's a more august, deliberative body and I'm not sure term limits are a good idea there.

Here's the idea: ALWAYS support the candidate either Dem or GOP as meets your principles running against any incumbent running for a third Congressional term. And I mean ALWAYS. I'd dearly love to organize a grassroots for this and perhaps someone can and will, but on general precepts can we agree that perpetual incumbancy is a BAD thing? I think we can.

Let's get rid of the insiders.

Blast from the past

2007-06-13T13:15:00.000-07:00

I was just cleaning up my saved emails, when I came across the following comment on my blog from last year.

I can't believe you pulled the Plame incident into this, seeing as how the original story has been completely discredited. Turns out that it was all a lie, Garrett. And, as folks you don't care to believe have said all along, Joe Wilson is a partisan-motivated liar.

Why don't you try a bit harder to seek the truth in matters rather than rely on partisan rhetoric? At least it'll make these discussions interesting rather than ... as usual ... having me bitch-slap you in the end.

So, Gonzo, have you finally acknowledged that she was a covert agent when she was outed, or are you relying on Toensing's insistence that she was not "covert under the meaning of the act"?

Politics Outweighs the Public Good

2007-06-13T07:01:00.000-07:00

County wants to rescind deal with radio station on broadcasting emergency info because it air's conservative content.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/broward/sfl-churricane13jun13,0,4183214.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines

What the article doesn't mention (why not?) is that WIOD is a blowtorch; one of the if not the most powerful AM transmitter in South Florida

Maybe The Guy Is Human After All

2007-06-08T19:13:00.000-07:00

Fascinating story on Moore and his detractors..

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113385/site/newsweek/