Random Political Thread

[Michael]

This thread is for the posting of random political news stories from around the world that may not be worthy of their own thread discussion, but may be interesting, thought provoking or otherwise amusing. :)

[Michael]

Here's our first entry...

A hidden camera catches an Iranian cleric committing adultery, and the video rockets around the blogosphere, where a new generation can finally skirt state censorship.
Source (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-01-09/irans-hottest-porn-video/2/)

Just a reminder that the internet has a wonderfully subversive-democratic political characteristic about it that serves as hope against autocratic regimes.

[Dominick]

Is Obama's inauguration worth watching ?
I mean if it's 90% show, I'm going to give it a pass. How important is the speech in the whole thing ?

[SMadsen]

Is Obama's inauguration worth watching ?
I mean if it's 90% show, I'm going to give it a pass. How important is the speech in the whole thing ?
You don't like shows? :shrug:

:)

[The Drunk Guy]

You don't like shows? :shrug:

:)
Heroes is better.

[Americano]

Is Obama's inauguration worth watching ?
I mean if it's 90% show, I'm going to give it a pass. How important is the speech in the whole thing ?

More like 110% show. More than 2-million people are expected to huddle outside for ten or more hours in freezing temperatures to view this event in person. My intent is to read a synopsis of any important portions of the speech on the net.

Though if you enjoy speeches I do consider Obama a gifted orator.

[Michael]

More like 110% show. More than 2-million people are expected to huddle outside for ten or more hours in freezing temperatures to view this event in person. My intent is to read a synopsis of any important portions of the speech on the net.

Though if you enjoy speeches I do consider Obama a gifted orator.
Yes, likely to be a spectacle of media talking heads on tv making fools of themselves, but otherwise a good possibility it will be the best speech of Obama's life - and he is a gifted orator - and the occasion is a symbolic and historic one, calling for something suitably uplifting.

I'll read about it or watch video clips. I'm not the type for symbolic spectacles. :)

[partofme]

I'll probably watch the him being sworn in and the speech and that's about it. From the looks of the musicians playing the concert tonight it isn't going to be anything I would enjoy.

[SMadsen]

Heroes is better.
I dunno, the last 8 seasons of the show Dominick refers to have been seriously entertaining.

[Michael]

Its official now.

Barack Obama is the 44th President of the United States of America.

[dilettante]

Its official now.

Barack Obama is the 44th President of the United States of America.

Apparently Biden was President for about 5 minutes.

Bush's term ended at noon, but Obama himself wasn't sworn in until shortly after.

[Michael]

By the standards of FDR's "you have nothing to fear but fear itself", or JFK's "ask not what you can do for your country" (delivered at their respective inaugural addresses) Obama's inaugural address was quite bland, boring and uninspiring.

Btw, I just don't understand why people praise Obama's oratory. Is the state of political oratory in USA so bad that anyone who can deliver a decent speech is considered a master?

That's the third speech I've watched Obama give. I have to fight to stay awake for them and start to figit about about 5 minutes of the drone. Totally lame speeches. What am I missing here since EVERYONE agrees that Obama is a brilliant and masterful orator and I see nothing of the kind - just a decent speech reader (great delivery, boring pedestrian content).

[Michael]

Btw, the massive propaganda efforts to assert that Obama is symbolic of the USA finally crossing the racial divide only just reinforces the fact that the USA has a very serious racial divide and it hasn't gone away at all.

[dilettante]

By the standards of FDR's "you have nothing to fear but fear itself", or JFK's "ask not what you can do for your country" (delivered at their respective inaugural addresses) Obama's inaugural address was quite bland, boring and uninspiring.

Btw, I just don't understand why people praise Obama's oratory. Is the state of political oratory in USA so bad that anyone who can deliver a decent speech is considered a master?

That's the third speech I've watched Obama give. I have to fight to stay awake for them and start to figit about about 5 minutes of the drone. Totally lame speeches. What am I missing here since EVERYONE agrees that Obama is a brilliant and masterful orator and I see nothing of the kind - just a decent speech reader (great delivery, boring pedestrian content).

I found his speech quite adequate, though nothing jaw-dropping or awe-inspiring. I was much more impressed by the speech on race he gave in Philadelphia during the campaign.

But keep in mind, the US has just had 8 years under a singularly inarticulate head of state...

[Michael]

I found his speech quite adequate, though nothing jaw-dropping or awe-inspiring. I was much more impressed by the speech on race he gave in Philadelphia during the campaign.
Yes, I understand that was one of Obama's best.

But keep in mind, the US has just had 8 years under a singularly inarticulate head of state...
This is what I'm afraid of. Half the celebration going on right now is the "end of Bush".

Bush's Presidency has 'lowered the bar' on just about everything. Celebrating Obama for being 'above' a very low bar is faint praise and potentially dangerous.

I'd love to praise Obama for doing something good. I'm just not seeing anything to celebrate other than "end of Bush".

Indeed, Obama's speech struck me as a promise to continue the War on Terror to the end of time as well as a potential walk-back on universal healthcare. That's what I heard. That's the kind of crap I'm expecting and would love to be disappointed.

[Michael]

Btw, a minor controversy has broken out in Canada over the fact that Ayers was just denied entry into Canada yesterday.

Seems like every hardcore lefty blogger (US or Canadian) has their knickers in a knot over this.

Seems like routine stuff. Canada has always enforced our border according to orders from the US. US-listed criminals and terrorists are routinely denied entry.

Why anyone thinks Canada is obliged to let Ayers into Canada is beyond me. We've blocked radical clerics from the Middle East, Britain and France several times. Any person who publically espouces violence against the state is pretty much garenteed to be denied entry into Canada. Ayers fits that bill.

Canada is under no obligation to let ANY American in (just like the USA is not obliged to let any given Canadian to enter the USA).

[The Drunk Guy]

Btw, a minor controversy has broken out in Canada over the fact that Ayers was just denied entry into Canada yesterday.

Seems like every hardcore lefty blogger (US or Canadian) has their knickers in a knot over this.

Seems like routine stuff. Canada has always enforced our border according to orders from the US. US-listed criminals and terrorists are routinely denied entry.

Why anyone thinks Canada is obliged to let Ayers into Canada is beyond me. We've blocked radical clerics from the Middle East, Britain and France several times. Any person who publically espouces violence against the state is pretty much garenteed to be denied entry into Canada. Ayers fits that bill.

Canada is under no obligation to let ANY American in (just like the USA is not obliged to let any given Canadian to enter the USA).
Thanks for the heads-up. Guess I won't be stopping by for minestrone any time soon! :eek:

[The Sister]

Obama's inaugural address was quite bland, boring and uninspiring.

Btw, I just don't understand why people praise Obama's oratory. Is the state of political oratory in USA so bad that anyone who can deliver a decent speech is considered a master?

That's the third speech I've watched Obama give. I have to fight to stay awake for them and start to figit about about 5 minutes of the drone. Totally lame speeches. What am I missing here since EVERYONE agrees that Obama is a brilliant and masterful orator and I see nothing of the kind - just a decent speech reader (great delivery, boring pedestrian content).

I was moved to tears. I thought his speech and the whole day was brilliantly done.

I think what you are missing his ability to give the speech that is needed. His speech at the 2004 convention was 'jaw droppingly different' and got him noticed, his race speech was brilliant and quelled the 'black church' questions, his election night speech was meant to cool down the crowd/expectations and did, today he needed to tell the world that a there is a new kid on the block and tell the American people what he and they need to do on the edge of a depression - and he did. And then he tipped his hat to all the other interests.

I think his - dare I say - his second inaugeration will be the speech of a lifetime.

[Americano]

I was moved to tears. I thought his speech and the whole day was brilliantly done.

I think what you are missing his ability to give the speech that is needed. His speech at the 2004 convention was 'jaw droppingly different' and got him noticed, his race speech was brilliant and quelled the 'black church' questions, his election night speech was meant to cool down the crowd/expectations and did, today he needed to tell the world that a there is a new kid on the block and tell the American people what he and they need to do on the edge of a depression - and he did. And then he tipped his hat to all the other interests.

I think his - dare I say - his second inaugeration will be the speech of a lifetime.

You're referring to Obama? Abraham Lincoln, with oratory skills far more admired than any other past US president, is Obama's hero.

Here's an article describing Lincoln's adjustment to commander-in-chief of the US military:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Commander-in-Chief.html

Let's hope Obama has the strength of his hero to resolve a far more complicated and difficult problem with the US military-industrial complex.

[Americano]

Yes, I understand that was one of Obama's best.


This is what I'm afraid of. Half the celebration going on right now is the "end of Bush".

Bush's Presidency has 'lowered the bar' on just about everything. Celebrating Obama for being 'above' a very low bar is faint praise and potentially dangerous.

I'd love to praise Obama for doing something good. I'm just not seeing anything to celebrate other than "end of Bush".

Indeed, Obama's speech struck me as a promise to continue the War on Terror to the end of time as well as a potential walk-back on universal healthcare. That's what I heard. That's the kind of crap I'm expecting and would love to be disappointed.

More of the same is not the required direction. We know that's a dead-end road. He could well be just another party dog. We'll see.

[Michael]

Apparently an order went out under Obama's name by 1pm yesterday ordering a "stay" in all judical cases underway regarding Guantanamo Bay holding camp.

If Obama does only one thing as President, let it be the closing of Gitmo and a full restoration of Habeus Corpus and the Geneva Convention to the status of 'inviolate laws'. These barbarisms must end immediately - no price is too high to pay to restore the 'rule of law' in the USA - particularly with respect to international legal norms.

Even if the US is 'forced' to release some detainees into the USA - this must be accepted. Even if it costs millions of dollars to put police 'tails' on them to watch them (that are supposedly dangerous). This is a better solution than anything involving Gitmo or a kangaroo court.

[Michael]

The Height of Power
As other American fiefdoms fade, Washington looms larger than ever

Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/23/AR2009012302310.html?sid=ST2009012601095&s_pos=)

The article, written by a political science professor who likes to pretend he's a journalist, and was flagged to me by another political science grad who is also a journalist.

The remarkable point here is that between the two of them, neither made any reference to Alex de Toqueville's Democracy in America - which has as one of its strongest themes, the argument that the strength and vitality of "regional fiefdoms" found in America are one of the strongest reasons USA hasn't (and likely won't) degenerate into fascism.

I guess I'm just gobsmacked that these two supposedly educated people with degrees in American political science are ignorant of this.

I'm doubly disturbed by this additional fascism trend. Looks like EVERY point de Toqueville raised as a reason that USA would not turn fascist have all reversed themselves in the last twenty years or so. The trend projection there looks very ugly indeed.

[Michael]

Dr. King

This was cited in another thread here. I've seen this many times.

Was Martin Luther King Jr., a medical doctor? If not, then it is considered highly pompus to formally refer to him as "Doctor King".

If Martin Luther King Jr. is entitled to be "Dr. King" then there are literally millions of other Americans that are entitled to the same honorific (besides medical doctors).

I suspect it is 'political correctness' requires this label be applied to MLK. This is what gives political correctness a bad name. This is not about correcting sexist language (which is what 'political correctness' properly refers to). This is pure political games-playing.

[dilettante]

This was cited in another thread here. I've seen this many times.

Was Martin Luther King Jr., a medical doctor? If not, then it is considered highly pompus to formally refer to him as "Doctor King".

If Martin Luther King Jr. is entitled to be "Dr. King" then there are literally millions of other Americans that are entitled to the same honorific (besides medical doctors).

I suspect it is 'political correctness' requires this label be applied to MLK. This is what gives political correctness a bad name. This is not about correcting sexist language (which is what 'political correctness' properly refers to). This is pure political games-playing.

King had a PhD in systematic theology from Boston University. I don't think there's any political games-playing here. Is it not customary to address people with doctorates as "Dr. So-and-so" outside the US?

[wphelan]

This was cited in another thread here. I've seen this many times.

Was Martin Luther King Jr., a medical doctor? If not, then it is considered highly pompus to formally refer to him as "Doctor King".

If Martin Luther King Jr. is entitled to be "Dr. King" then there are literally millions of other Americans that are entitled to the same honorific (besides medical doctors).

I suspect it is 'political correctness' requires this label be applied to MLK. This is what gives political correctness a bad name. This is not about correcting sexist language (which is what 'political correctness' properly refers to). This is pure political games-playing.

When I was in junior high, the superintendent at my school completed her doctorate. She insisted on being referred to as Dr. Tucker-Ladd from that point forward. I thought it was pompous then and still do.

[Americano]

King had a PhD in systematic theology from Boston University. I don't think there's any political games-playing here. Is it not customary to address people with doctorates as "Dr. So-and-so" outside the US?

In the US the only exposure I'm familiar with where doctor of any discipline other than medicine is commonly used as a title in conversation is academia, civil service and entertainment (including TV news).

[Americano]

When I was in junior high, the superintendent at my school completed her doctorate. She insisted on being referred to as Dr. Tucker-Ladd from that point forward. I thought it was pompous then and still do.

Academia is a structured profession where titles establish an immediate pecking order. Military, government, business, most professional structures observe the structure with recognition of earned titles. Outside one's realm it's a pompous demand.

[Greendruid]

I'm a doctor in the sense that I have a PhD (latin for philosophiae doctor) and completed a doctoral degree. I distinguish myself in academia from my colleagues and students who have not achieved this because the distinction has a weight of authority in my particular field of study. I don't go to the farm store, grocery store or even bank and demand to be given any title other than "Mr." The term has limited uses.

To probe your thoughts a little more though consider this: Medical doctors have less education than a PhD generally. Their profession has only recently been of actual value as well, since about 1850. Before this time it really wasn't too difficult to have what we would now consider equal medical knowledge. Without the invention of the microscope and an understanding of microscopic human physiology, I would have trusted the village medicine man sooner than a doctor before that time. I don't think medical doctors are any more or less valuable as a certain class of human than any other profession. To frame the use of the word doctor as a special term reserved only for those holiest enough to bear the knowledge of the medical profession is classist and itself an expression of pompousness that I find, offensive. It is one of the many things that evolved in the industrial age of Europe and we in North America are the lucky recipients of. The lawyers are sometimes in this category too. Both professions of the priviledged.

[wphelan]

Academia is a structured profession where titles establish an immediate pecking order. Military, government, business, most professional structures observe the structure with recognition of earned titles. Outside one's realm it's a pompous demand.

I figured the fact she was known as the superintendent established the pecking order well enough. I understood that the superintendent was above the principal and vice-principal. I didn't see why being called doctor was so important.

That said, I understand your point. Of course, there's a reason I'm not so fond of academia.

[wphelan]

To clarify, it makes sense if a person is publishing or teaching to formally use their title as doctor. I just know of some people who use it outside of that context, and it rubs me the wrong way. That's all.

[Donkey]

I'm putting this here because I'm hoping it will stay just a random piece...

http://www.sarahpac.com/

[Donkey]

One of my best friends here at school is the son of the head of the psych department. He greatly dislikes people who insist on being called Dr. all the time. I heard him introduce himself to one of our friends today as "Mike." I generally call him Mr. Dwyer.

I reserve "doctor" for professors with whom I am dealing academically. (Although for a lot just have us use their first name.) One quirky peeve of mine is trying to talk to professors that don't have their doctorates. Mr./Mrs. Just doesn't feel right in the academic setting.


ETA: I suspect that one of the reasons people use "Dr. King" is that it just sounds cool.

[dilettante]

I reserve "doctor" for professors with whom I am dealing academically. (Although for a lot just have us use their first name.) One quirky peeve of mine is trying to talk to professors that don't have their doctorates. Mr./Mrs. Just doesn't feel right in the academic setting.


I've noticed that I address professors in a similar way. If it's in an official capacity or if I don't know them it's always "Dr. ---", if it's a professor I'm familiar with I'll just use their first name, and if I'm talking informally about a professor with another student, then I just use their last name without any title (e.g. "Have you done the reading for Smith yet?")

[Michael]

Lets hope that the Democrats can pass their stimulus package today and end the long running media drama that seems to be driven entirely by Republican talking points and Obama's poor political judgement.

This ain't pretty. Obama's first political foray has been a disaster. Has this guy got ANY experience dealing with Congressional Republicans? Obama's acting like some first term innocent hick from nowhere and he's getting taken for a ride and looking like a fool.

[drgoodtrips]

One of my best friends here at school is the son of the head of the psych department. He greatly dislikes people who insist on being called Dr. all the time. I heard him introduce himself to one of our friends today as "Mike." I generally call him Mr. Dwyer.

I reserve "doctor" for professors with whom I am dealing academically. (Although for a lot just have us use their first name.) One quirky peeve of mine is trying to talk to professors that don't have their doctorates. Mr./Mrs. Just doesn't feel right in the academic setting.


ETA: I suspect that one of the reasons people use "Dr. King" is that it just sounds cool.

It might be an age thing. I just call all of my professors by their first name. My buddy's girlfriend recently got her PhD and started as a professor, and that seems to kick the point home that I don't view people with PhD's as necessarily deserving of any appellate (I could have one by now too, had I passed up the private sector for more academia).

I was interested to note that some students in my class use "Professor X" while others, including me, just use first names. When I was an undergrad, I used the appellate unless told otherwise.

[Donkey]

It might be an age thing. I just call all of my professors by their first name. My buddy's girlfriend recently got her PhD and started as a professor, and that seems to kick the point home that I don't view people with PhD's as necessarily deserving of any appellate (I could have one by now too, had I passed up the private sector for more academia).

I was interested to note that some students in my class use "Professor X" while others, including me, just use first names. When I was an undergrad, I used the appellate unless told otherwise.
Maybe... all of the theater professors (I've never actually taken a theater class here, but I know most of them) go by their first name. My oldest professor, at 73, goes by Charlie (good thing too, because he doesn't have a doctorate, see: above pet peeve).

Between students we often as not have nicknames for the profs, T-Sut and Javi-baby come to mind.

[Americano]

Lets hope that the Democrats can pass their stimulus package today and end the long running media drama that seems to be driven entirely by Republican talking points and Obama's poor political judgement.

This ain't pretty. Obama's first political foray has been a disaster. Has this guy got ANY experience dealing with Congressional Republicans? Obama's acting like some first term innocent hick from nowhere and he's getting taken for a ride and looking like a fool.

Today is also Obama's first formal meeting as commander-in-chief with Gates and the chiefs at the Pentagon. We know he realistically can't take the badly needed needed knife to 'defense' spending when jobs are one of the major current dilemmas, so I'd think it'll be the usual blather of more troops for Afghanistan.

[Michael]

Apparently, Obama has ordered a halt to the plans for the US to install missile defenses in Poland (a favorite policy of the Bush Administration).

Russia has matched the announcement by freezing plans to install lots of new nuclear missiles on the Polish border.

Looks like a win-win situation. Sure is nice not having a moron in the Whitehouse.

Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7855216.stm)

[Americano]

Apparently, Obama has ordered a halt to the plans for the US to install missile defenses in Poland (a favorite policy of the Bush Administration).

Russia has matched the announcement by freezing plans to install lots of new nuclear missiles on the Polish border.

Looks like a win-win situation. Sure is nice not having a moron in the Whitehouse.

Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7855216.stm)

This will be his first real confrontation with the MIC. Next comes the inevitable 'we need more money to protect the US from terrorism' Pentagon and Homeland Security supporters.

[Michael]

Lets hope that the Democrats can pass their stimulus package today and end the long running media drama that seems to be driven entirely by Republican talking points and Obama's poor political judgement.

This ain't pretty. Obama's first political foray has been a disaster. Has this guy got ANY experience dealing with Congressional Republicans? Obama's acting like some first term innocent hick from nowhere and he's getting taken for a ride and looking like a fool.
Well, the stimulus bill passed the House with ZERO Republican votes.

I think this makes Obama look like a fool and a failure. Obama made a HUGE deal about appealing to the Republicans for bipartisan support, made major concessions to them, and they just flipped him off (no suprise there). That Obama even tried is a major sign of weakness that the Republicans will certainly capitalize on.

Not a good way to start.

From a 'Congressional' point of view, this was a "win-win" scenario for the Republicans.

[Michael]

Btw, does anyone here think Obama is digging himself a hole on the issue of prosecutions of illegal activity by Bush officials?

The ACLU is already demanding information releases. These can and likely will form the basis of a civil suit. And once that happens, the demand for actual government investigation will rise. And then if Obama opens an investigation at that time, it will serve only to 'quash' the civil suit, thus putting the Obama Administration into the position of protecting criminal activity by Bush officials.

That's a major political quagmire that is likely to errupt just in time for the 2012 election. It seems awfully foolish to put one's self out in front of this issue like this.

I think Obama is running a huge political risk on this issue and I think it makes him look very small. He has afterall pledged to uphold the constitution. That oath does not admit of arbitrary exceptions.

Lawbreaking is lawbreaking. As far as I'm concerned, lawbreaking by police or government officials is much worse than any other category of lawbreaking. I have zero tolerance for government illegal acts.

The Democratic party needs to learn that the Republicans are going to play hardball no matter what. They wouldn't blink for an instant about pushing for charges against Democratic officials - heck, they will push fake, trumped up charges if they can. There is no good political reason to hold back here. If laws were broken (and this has been admitted) then criminal charges ought to follow. It really is that simple.

[Donkey]

Btw, does anyone here think Obama is digging himself a hole on the issue of prosecutions of illegal activity by Bush officials?

The ACLU is already demanding information releases. These can and likely will form the basis of a civil suit. And once that happens, the demand for actual government investigation will rise. And then if Obama opens an investigation at that time, it will serve only to 'quash' the civil suit, thus putting the Obama Administration into the position of protecting criminal activity by Bush officials.

That's a major political quagmire that is likely to errupt just in time for the 2012 election. It seems awfully foolish to put one's self out in front of this issue like this.

I think Obama is running a huge political risk on this issue and I think it makes him look very small. He has afterall pledged to uphold the constitution. That oath does not admit of arbitrary exceptions.

Lawbreaking is lawbreaking. As far as I'm concerned, lawbreaking by police or government officials is much worse than any other category of lawbreaking. I have zero tolerance for government illegal acts.

The Democratic party needs to learn that the Republicans are going to play hardball no matter what. They wouldn't blink for an instant about pushing for charges against Democratic officials - heck, they will push fake, trumped up charges if they can. There is no good political reason to hold back here. If laws were broken (and this has been admitted) then criminal charges ought to follow. It really is that simple.
I haven't heard anything about this?

[Michael]

I haven't heard anything about this?
What haven't you heard about?

Obama's repeated promises NEVER to prosecute Bush Administration criminals?

Documentary proof of illegal activity by Bush Administration officials?

Or the ALCU's filing of requests for information (re: the documents)?

Or the strong support for criminal investigations? (gets bigger polling support than Obama got on election day)

That's all there is to the story. Put two and two together and you will see that Obama is setting himself up to get punked again. I can't imagine the ACLU not proceeding with a civil suit if they get their hands on sufficient documentation. And that creates a whole new dynamic that is out of Obama's control.

[Michael]

Btw, could someone PLEASE explain to Obama the facts of life about Washington Republicans?

Bill Clinton tried in his first term to be 'bipartisan' and govern by consensus (remember the Welfare Bill?). In return, the Republicans went to war against Clinton's signature campaign issue and then proceeded to make all out war on anything Clinton tried to do.

It was only in Clinton's 2nd term, after Clinton gave up trying to appease the Republicans that Clinton's popularity soared.

Also remember the example of 2001/2002 where the Democratic party supported just about everything Bush did. The Democrats got slaughtered in 2002 midterms and then lost in 2004.

The Democrats only achieved some success by turning against Bush in 2005.

Lesson for Obama - trying to be bipartisan is a surefire recipe for political suicide in Congress. Bipartisanship is a well known electoral losing policy.

Obama has already blown a big wad of political capital and got ZERO for his trouble. A couple more games like this and Obama won't have any political capital left.

[Michael]

Second note to Washington Democrats. Ignore Rush Limbaugh. He's a crackpot, drug addict and a crank. He feeds on the attention that he's given.

Don't give him anything. Just dismiss him for the crackpot he is.

Either go on his show and beat him at his own game or ignore him. Anything else just makes the Democrats look like fools and little children complaining that "johnny doesn't play nicely".

Every time a Democrat complains about Rush Limbaugh, Rush Limbaugh laughs at the Democratic party. And so do most of his listeners.

Don't feed the trolls.

[Donkey]

What haven't you heard about?

Obama's repeated promises NEVER to prosecute Bush Administration criminals?

Documentary proof of illegal activity by Bush Administration officials?

Or the ALCU's filing of requests for information (re: the documents)?

Or the strong support for criminal investigations? (gets bigger polling support than Obama got on election day)

That's all there is to the story. Put two and two together and you will see that Obama is setting himself up to get punked again. I can't imagine the ACLU not proceeding with a civil suit if they get their hands on sufficient documentation. And that creates a whole new dynamic that is out of Obama's control.
Oh. I was confused by your post. I thought that Obama had done something towards investigation or something.

[Americano]

Second note to Washington Democrats. Ignore Rush Limbaugh. He's a crackpot, drug addict and a crank. He feeds on the attention that he's given.

Don't give him anything. Just dismiss him for the crackpot he is.

Either go on his show and beat him at his own game or ignore him. Anything else just makes the Democrats look like fools and little children complaining that "johnny doesn't play nicely".

Every time a Democrat complains about Rush Limbaugh, Rush Limbaugh laughs at the Democratic party. And so do most of his listeners.

Don't feed the trolls.

He's a DJ who made the big time, nothing else. Unfortunately, millions of Americans rely on him to form their ideological opinions, proving how lacking our educational system actually is. Any attempt at discussion with those disciples is as circular as an agnostic exchanging opinions with a Christian or Islamic fundamentalist.

[Michael]

Well, a new statue has been erected in Iraq in honor of G.W. Bush...

Source (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/01/29/2009-01-29_saddams_hometown_unveils_statue_dedicate.html)

[Donkey]

Well, a new statue has been erected in Iraq in honor of G.W. Bush...

Source (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/01/29/2009-01-29_saddams_hometown_unveils_statue_dedicate.html)
I saw that. Hearts and minds, folks, hearts and minds.

[Dominick]

I've been reading the Bill. My first question is why is it so gigantic (647 pages). Is that always like that ? I mean, it puts Euro-bureaucracy to shame.

[Americano]

I've been reading the Bill. My first question is why is it so gigantic (647 pages). Is that always like that ? I mean, it puts Euro-bureaucracy to shame.

The US has more lawyers than the rest of the world combined.

[Dominick]

The US has more lawyers than the rest of the world combined.
Covering their ass, are they ? :)

Gotta love the lingo.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law and in a manner consistent with other provisions in this Act, all laborers and mechanics employed by contractors and sub-contractors on projects funded directly by or assisted in whole or in part by and through the Federal Government pursuant to this Act shall be paid wages at rates not less than those prevailing on projects of a character similar in the locality as determined by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with subchapter IV of chapter 31 of title 40, United States Code. With respect to the labor standards specified in this section, the Secretary of Labor shall have the authority and functions set forth in Reorganization Plan Numbered 14 of 1950 (64 Stat. 1267; 5 U.S.C. App.) and section 3145 of title 40, United States Code.

It would probably take an employer half a day to figure out exactly which standards apply.

[Michael]

I've been reading the Bill. My first question is why is it so gigantic (647 pages). Is that always like that ? I mean, it puts Euro-bureaucracy to shame.
Why would you be doing that? :ummm:

I read a few Bills back in university days - not for the faint of heart that sport is.

[Dominick]

Why would you be doing that? :ummm:

I read a few Bills back in university days - not for the faint of heart that sport is.
To know what it's all about, as simple as that. If the first hand source is available, that's what I'll be reading. Second hand sources such as the media are less useful everyday.
I'm unimpressed with it so far. It's simultaneously too ambitious and not ambitious enough. It covers so many projects that the resources for each individual project seem hardly adequate despite the impressive overal figure.
Since we're talking politics here I think it would have been far better had the Bill focused on a few big projects that would catch the eye of the media and thus of the general population and thus of the voters. For instance, a project to address the weakness of the Gulf Coast (call it War on Hurricanes :D) in a comprehensive manner. Something on the scale and ambition of Holland's Delta Plan but magnified to American scale. Much easier to promote and market, the results would be much easier to see than all these small marginal projects and the secondary and tertiary effects to the economy of the Gulf States would have as much chance of happening as when they are hidden on page 406, section 1111c (random numbers) of the Bill.
Nope, this Bill ain't sexy enough.

[Michael]

To know what it's all about, as simple as that. If the first hand source is available, that's what I'll be reading. Second hand sources such as the media are less useful everyday.
I'm unimpressed with it so far. It's simultaneously too ambitious and not ambitious enough. It covers so many projects that the resources for each individual project seem hardly adequate despite the impressive overal figure.
Since we're talking politics here I think it would have been far better had the Bill focused on a few big projects that would catch the eye of the media and thus of the general population and thus of the voters. For instance, a project to address the weakness of the Gulf Coast (call it War on Hurricanes :D) in a comprehensive manner. Something on the scale and ambition of Holland's Delta Plan but magnified to American scale. Much easier to promote and market, the results would be much easier to see than all these small marginal projects and the secondary and tertiary effects to the economy of the Gulf States would have as much chance of happening as when they are hidden on page 406, section 1111c (random numbers) of the Bill.
Nope, this Bill ain't sexy enough.
The problem with what you say is that the USA is just too big. A big project for the Gulf Coast will produce ZERO benefit for 75% of the country. Why would 3/4 of the country want to pay for that?

Thus, they have to spread the grease around the country, leaving less for big projects with big impacts.

In many ways, when it comes to domestic policy, the USA really is a collection of 50 little countries, each with thier own priorities and demands. Think of the EU with twice as many members!

[Donkey]

The problem with what you say is that the USA is just too big. A big project for the Gulf Coast will produce ZERO benefit for 75% of the country. Why would 3/4 of the country want to pay for that?

Thus, they have to spread the grease around the country, leaving less for big projects with big impacts.

In many ways, when it comes to domestic policy, the USA really is a collection of 50 little countries, each with thier own priorities and demands. Think of the EU with twice as many members!
The US is altogether too big in many ways, I think.

[Dominick]

The problem with what you say is that the USA is just too big. A big project for the Gulf Coast will produce ZERO benefit for 75% of the country. Why would 3/4 of the country want to pay for that?

Thus, they have to spread the grease around the country, leaving less for big projects with big impacts.

In many ways, when it comes to domestic policy, the USA really is a collection of 50 little countries, each with thier own priorities and demands. Think of the EU with twice as many members!
You just made me a Republican :lol:

Or a libertarian more precisely.

It's not an issue of scale. Not all Dutch profit directly from the Delta plan either. Neither are a myriad of other things, such as any insurance system. It's about solidarity, which by the way is fully compatible with the notion of rational self-interest. The organizational scale of solidarity should coincide with the scale at which people self-identify. If the mentality is so provincial then there is no point in having a federal state issuing forced solidarity and certainly not if it's done in this haphazard way of handing out a bit here and there. It's either too little or too much, this is a Belgian compromise and that's not a positive.

[Michael]

Is anyone else getting sick of Obama's 'holier than thou' bullshit on Washington lobbyists and corruption? Obama makes a big thing about running a clean show. Fine - let him put his money where his mouth is.

But Obama is now in the process of defending the THIRD hand-picked appointee to run afoul of Obama's ethics rules. Apparently these rules only apply to low level staffers. High level staffers who are personal friends of Obama are exempt.

Which is of course the traditional Washington Beltway-insider way to deal with things.

Lets just say that preaching about 'cleanliness in government' then loading up the executive branch with known tax-dodgers, cheats and liars is an insult to the voter.

I'd sure like to know how & why people keep telling me that Obama has good political smarts. Seems like he's on the wrong side of every issue that has come up so far.

And this much bullshit in the first two weeks of his Administration doesn't bode well at all. If it starts with bullshit, you can be certain that it will only get worse over time.

Just remember that Presidential Administrations NEVER improve over time. The best you will ever get from them comes in the first 100 days.

[Michael]

The morning news not looking good on the economics front.

While I must applaud the Obama Adminstration so far on foreign policy issues, on the economic, domestic and political side I'm not liking ANYTHING as I watch things go from 'ugly' to horrific!

I'll post later on today about the nasty 'stimulus' package (what a waste of money) to the new Treasury proposals for the banking sector (back to Paulson's original 'free money' plan). Seems like the Obama administration is as in bed with Wall Street as the Bush administration always was.

[partofme]

The morning news not looking good on the economics front.

While I must applaud the Obama Adminstration so far on foreign policy issues, on the economic, domestic and political side I'm not liking ANYTHING as I watch things go from 'ugly' to horrific!

I'll post later on today about the nasty 'stimulus' package (what a waste of money) to the new Treasury proposals for the banking sector (back to Paulson's original 'free money' plan). Seems like the Obama administration is as in bed with Wall Street as the Bush administration always was.

Do you think we do need some sort of stimulus spending but just do not like the specifics of this one or do you think we should ride it out with one completely?

[Michael]

Do you think we do need some sort of stimulus spending but just do not like the specifics of this one or do you think we should ride it out with one completely?
I think they should just ride it out.

Spend money only to expand unemployment insurance, welfare, foodstamps and job-training to cushion the workers from the fallout. Other than that, just let it ride.

Recessions happen for a reason. They are part of the economic cycle. Fighting against them is bad policy.

[partofme]

I think they should just ride it out.

Spend money only to expand unemployment insurance, welfare, foodstamps and job-training to cushion the workers from the fallout. Other than that, just let it ride.

Recessions happen for a reason. They are part of the economic cycle. Fighting against them is bad policy.

I think the infrastructure spending isn't such a bad thing either considering it is going to have to be done anyway. There was already talk of the need for it long before the economy soured.

[Michael]

Obama Administration Maintains Bush Position on 'Extraordinary Rendition' Lawsuit

The Obama Administration today announced that it would keep the same position as the Bush Administration in the lawsuit Mohamed et al v Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc.

The case involves five men who claim to have been victims of extraordinary rendition -- including current Guantanamo detainee Binyam Mohamed, another plaintiff in jail in Egypt, one in jail in Morocco, and two now free. They sued a San Jose Boeing subsidiary, Jeppesen Dataplan, accusing the flight-planning company of aiding the CIA in flying them to other countries and secret CIA camps where they were tortured.

A year ago the case was thrown out on the basis of national security, but today the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard the appeal, brought by the ACLU.

A source inside of the Ninth U.S. District Court tells ABC News that a representative of the Justice Department stood up to say that its position hasn't changed, that new administration stands behind arguments that previous administration made, with no ambiguity at all. The DOJ lawyer said the entire subject matter remains a state secret.
Source (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/02/obama-administr.html)

This isn't pretty.

I don't like invocations of "state security" being used to protect the ass of people who broke the law. More often than not, that is the 'state secret' that is being protected. Thirty years from now, we'll have the evidence to prove it.

Obama is really going to the wall to protect the torturers - again. Obama is kowtowing to Washington Beltway 'business as usual' style - again.

[Michael]

Fairweather poll-worshippers annoy me with their two-faced hypocrisy.

Apparently, when 70% of the US public was convinced that Saddam was the mastermind behind the 9/11 attack, that's just nonsense. When 70% of the US public supported the invasion of Iraq or President Bush, that was just nonsense.

But when 70% of the US public support the stimulus bill, this is proof that the bill ought to be passed because the people support it.

This is just silly. Either one is ruled by the whims of public opinion (which is rather easy to manipulate) or one is ruled by the principles of good public policy. One can't have it both ways - or flip back and forth on the issue depending whether or not the polls agree with your pet policy. :rolleyes:

Needless to say EVERY single leftwing blog is spouting off about how the stimulus plan has strong opinion poll numbers and are using this as "proof" that the bill must be passed. Boy, these idiots in the media sure have short memories.

If anything, the last 8 years of the Bush Administration showed that government by opinion poll leads to really, really bad public policy choices.

[Michael]

Okay... file this one under "weird"...

Apparently an elementary school in New Brunswick came to the decision not to bother with making the children sing "Oh Canada" mandatory every day (for whatever reasons they had).

Needless to say, the Canadian Conservatives (clones of Republicans) have been demagoging this all week on talk radio (yes, talk radio is as toxic up in Canada is it is in the USA).

All very typical media-political tempest in a teacup. The Conservatives are just making things up as they go and accusing people of banning the national anthem (and whatever else they can dream up). This ranks right up there with the "Obama lapel pin controversy" of 2008.

Nothing to see here folks... EXCEPT... just one particular parent at the school - and the one who formally lodged a complaint about it and has pushed the topic onto rightwing hate-radio programs...

This particular parent is apparently quite upset about the lack of a mandatory singing of "Oh Canada" and cites the fact that they no longer recite the pledge as reasons for his further concern here.

:rofl:

The Conservatives who are ginning up the issue don't seem to have noticed this glaring piece of absurdity at the heart of their fake symbolism game.

Indeed, some symbols speak louder than others... and the Americanization of the Conservative party is the one symbol that sneaks through the haze - even when the Conservatives are trying to play 'symbolic patriot games' (which no one cares about up here).

Btw, that's what is so weird about the Americanization of the Conservative party up here... they just recycle US Republcan talking points on US issues and shovel it up here.

Like I said, "weird".

[partofme]

Okay... file this one under "weird"...

Apparently an elementary school in New Brunswick came to the decision not to bother with making the children sing "Oh Canada" mandatory every day (for whatever reasons they had).

Needless to say, the Canadian Conservatives (clones of Republicans) have been demagoging this all week on talk radio (yes, talk radio is as toxic up in Canada is it is in the USA).

All very typical media-political tempest in a teacup. The Conservatives are just making things up as they go and accusing people of banning the national anthem (and whatever else they can dream up). This ranks right up there with the "Obama lapel pin controversy" of 2008.

Nothing to see here folks... EXCEPT... just one particular parent at the school - and the one who formally lodged a complaint about it and has pushed the topic onto rightwing hate-radio programs...

This particular parent is apparently quite upset about the lack of a mandatory singing of "Oh Canada" and cites the fact that they no longer recite the pledge as reasons for his further concern here.

:rofl:

The Conservatives who are ginning up the issue don't seem to have noticed this glaring piece of absurdity at the heart of their fake symbolism game.

Indeed, some symbols speak louder than others... and the Americanization of the Conservative party is the one symbol that sneaks through the haze - even when the Conservatives are trying to play 'symbolic patriot games' (which no one cares about up here).

Btw, that's what is so weird about the Americanization of the Conservative party up here... they just recycle US Republcan talking points on US issues and shovel it up here.

Like I said, "weird".

Hopefully it doesn't play as well up there as it does here.

[Donkey]

I hope I never find myself running for public office because then I'll start having to say the pledge again. Merp.

[Michael]

Just to drive the key point home - some Canadian was bitching about "the pledge" not being said at a Canadian school. That's what I find hilarious here.

Canada does not have any "pledge" of any kind and never has had one.

Methinks they've been watching too much US television.

(And yes, moron Canadians expect to have their "Miranda rights" read to them if they get arrested and think they get to go free if the "Miranda rights" aren't read to them at the point of arrest). :rolleyes:

And yes, some (dumb) Canadians do believe they some 'right to remain silent' and will try to cite the 5th Amendment too.

[Michael]

What a 1988 college thesis by the former vice president's daughter tells us about the Bush presidency.
Source (http://www.slate.com/id/2210084)
Warning - source is Slate (of which I have a very low opinion of - if there was any other source available, I'd prefer it. They have the same credibility and honest issues that plague TNR).

Apparently Cheney's unitary executive theory is explicated in full by his eldest daughter - a dozen years before the Bush Administration put it into practice.

[Americano]

Source (http://www.slate.com/id/2210084)
Warning - source is Slate (of which I have a very low opinion of - if there was any other source available, I'd prefer it. They have the same credibility and honest issues that plague TNR).

Apparently Cheney's unitary executive theory is explicated in full by his eldest daughter - a dozen years before the Bush Administration put it into practice.

I read the review and it certainly sounded like daddy successfully implemented his ideology into one daughter's mind. My image of Cheney will never change, the fact I consider him scum aside, a US VP who apparently had more control over foreign and domestic policy than any predecessor.

[Americano]

I hope I never find myself running for public office because then I'll start having to say the pledge again. Merp.

If you decide to become a participant in the professional political system saying the pledge will be minor damage to your personal ethics.

[Donkey]

If you decide to become a participant in the professional political system saying the pledge will be minor damage to your personal ethics.
Touche. In fairness, I've known some people running for office with some great ethics.

Inexplicably none of them have won. :ummm:

[Americano]

Touche. In fairness, I've known some people running for office with some great ethics.

Inexplicably none of them have won. :ummm:

I'd venture to say they weren't committed party dogs for one of the two major components of our single party system who periodically change leadership roles. In that world the party becomes god and country.

[Michael]

I read the review and it certainly sounded like daddy successfully implemented his ideology into one daughter's mind. My image of Cheney will never change, the fact I consider him scum aside, a US VP who apparently had more control over foreign and domestic policy than any predecessor.
I think that historians may want to refer to this period as the Cheney-Bush Administration. :D

And yes, I don't think any VP has ever dominated the Presidency before.

[Michael]

Here's a little news item, hardly worth commenting on. But I think it is symbolic of something very wrong with corporate America.

When people mention a "culture of entitlement" they are usually dissing people on welfare. When I hear the term, I can only think of corporate fatcats.

EXCLUSIVE: Postmaster got $800,000 in pay, perks
Raise came amid calls for cuts in delivery

Source (http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/17/in-hard-times-postmaster-earned-800000-in-pay-perk/)

Apparently, the US Postal Service LOST $2.8 billion in fiscal 2008. But they paid their CEO record high bonus money for 2008.

Small change by Wall Street standards, but horrific waste of the taxpayer's trust here.

Note to corporate America: higher pay doesn't attract better candidates - it only attracts a better class of salary suckers who feel entitled to have high executive pay just for showing up (and expect bonuses even if they drive the company into the red).

Indeed, Wall Street paid the highest money to America's very best and brightest and that seems to have led them all down the road to bankruptcy.

If that's what the best money buys, then perhaps there is value in paying a bit less.

To be honest, I think the US post office would benefit if they cut the salary pay of the CEO in half. That would likely make the job less attractive to the elite salary-sucking class and potentially open the job up to someone with the actual ability to run the show.

[Michael]

Looks like political support for the eventual 'nationalization' of some of the big eight US banks is starting to build (very slowly and from a micro-small and non-politically connected support base, so support could quadruple over night and you still wouldn't pick it up on an opinion poll). I certainly favor a 'Swedish' approach in the US - it is necessary.

Apparently the biggest eight banks account for 60-64% of all banking assets/deposits in the US and account for the vast majority of the present banking crisis.

The best analysis of the problem points to 'nationalizing' at least one or two of them (maybe four of them) on a temporary basis. The act of nationalization wipes out all shareholder and bondholder value. It also gives scope to replace the bank management completely. The hot buzzword of the day is to call it "pre-privatization". :D

This is EXACTLY what Sweden did and it is exactly the solution that is needed here. It is also precisely what Japan needed, was advised by the US to do, and spectacularly failed to do.

[Americano]

I think that historians may want to refer to this period as the Cheney-Bush Administration. :D

And yes, I don't think any VP has ever dominated the Presidency before.

I read where Cheney never gave up personal and written appeals directly to Bush at the end of Bush's presidency for him to pardon Scooter Libby. To the point where Bush told Cheney in front of the White House Staff the matter was closed, no pardon.

[Americano]

Looks like political support for the eventual 'nationalization' of some of the big eight US banks is starting to build (very slowly and from a micro-small and non-politically connected support base, so support could quadruple over night and you still wouldn't pick it up on an opinion poll). I certainly favor a 'Swedish' approach in the US - it is necessary.

Apparently the biggest eight banks account for 60-64% of all banking assets/deposits in the US and account for the vast majority of the present banking crisis.

The best analysis of the problem points to 'nationalizing' at least one or two of them (maybe four of them) on a temporary basis. The act of nationalization wipes out all shareholder and bondholder value. It also gives scope to replace the bank management completely. The hot buzzword of the day is to call it "pre-privatization". :D

This is EXACTLY what Sweden did and it is exactly the solution that is needed here. It is also precisely what Japan needed, was advised by the US to do, and spectacularly failed to do.

Neither Japan nor Sweden polluted the global financial system with their bad paper. Japan also had another advantage, their high rate of personal savings provided and provides a high rate of bank liquidity regardless of balance sheet failings. The US doesn't have that luxury. We're leveraged to the tits.

[Michael]

Regarding the calls for a "loud passionate liberal" to be appointed to SCOTUS, I am appalled.

That the conservatives may like their law judges to be passionately partisan is ugly, but expected (conservativism needs to rig the rules of society in their own favor to make up for the fact that conservativism is always an unpopular and minority view). In my opinion, Scalia is not to be detested because he's a passionate conservative, he ought to be detested for ruling bad law.

The solution to the problem is not more partisan hacks on SCOTUS (I'm afraid there are already too many of those) of a slightly different partisanship. That will just lead the supreme court into irrelevance and duplicate the same problem Congress suffers from. Congress is too partisan to be able to deal with many issues - thus, those issues get 'punted' off to the Supreme Court. But as SCOTUS gets turned into a clone of the partisan Congress, it will lose the ability to deal with the same hot issues that Congress can't deal with.

Fact is, ideological partisanship is the biggest weakspot in democratic government. More ideological partisanship will not improve the situation. Ideological partisanship locks in particular policies and an aversion to any alternatives. The Courts are needed to break though Congressional partisanhip, not to reinforce it.

I'll settle for just a darn good judge who follows the law. None of that 'originalist' bullshit though. That's just a sham.

[Michael]

NBC White House Correspondent Chuck Todd has a theory on why MSNBC's Hardball host Chris Matthews begged off from running for the Pennsylvania Senate seat held by Republican Arlen Specter. "Because [Chris] had a really good friend of his say to him, 'What are you going to do when you get there?' and he couldn't answer the question and he realized that, and that's why he didn't run," says Todd. "It was a childhood dream to be a senator, but he didn't know what he was going to do if he got there."
Source (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/2/22/why-chris-matthews-wont-run-for-senate.html)

I've often considered Chris Matthews to be the 'penultimate' archtype of US elite media insider type (i.e. a vain and preening ignorant moron).

And this strikes me as one of the key flaws in modern politics as it is practiced by spin doctors and PR. Candidates seem to run for office based on the fact that they think they deserve to be recognized/honored by holding that office. It is all about a reward to 'great' people.

The thought of serving the people or the nation seems to have gone out the window along with balanced budgets about a half-century ago. Nothing but ambitious Hollywood wannabes now, only in it for themselves.

Here's Eric Boehlert's comment on this issue. I think it sums up the absurdity of it all.

Matthews, who has been inside the Beltway for going on, what, four decades, who once worked on the Hill and has been commenting, non-stop, about politics for countless years, had no idea what he'd do if he were a senator.

Politics and media are just a game to these people - and a way to have million dollar salaries.

[wphelan]

I used to watch Hardball fairly often, but I got tired of the way everything was presented. It was nothing more than a game or horse race. It was everything I hate about politics with none of what I find interesting. There was no real analysis of the issues outside of how it would affect the outcome of the next election. I think there's too much focus of elections and gamesmanship as it is, but that show amplifies it to an unbearable level.

[partofme]

I used to watch Hardball fairly often, but I got tired of the way everything was presented. It was nothing more than a game or horse race. It was everything I hate about politics with none of what I find interesting. There was no real analysis of the issues outside of how it would affect the outcome of the next election. I think there's too much focus of elections and gamesmanship as it is, but that show amplifies it to an unbearable level.

It's a show about politics and that is what politics is. You are looking for a show about governance. Politics is about getting elected and governance is about what you do once in office. Personally I agree that governance is much more interesting but unfortunately not what most people care about. It's all about the game and partisanship for most people.

[Michael]

It's a show about politics and that is what politics is. You are looking for a show about governance. Politics is about getting elected and governance is about what you do once in office. Personally I agree that governance is much more interesting but unfortunately not what most people care about. It's all about the game and partisanship for most people.
Excellent point.

But, to the credit of the media here, US politics is a 7/24/365 non-stop election cycle. Thus, the media focuses on the non-stop election cycle.

The key point here is that the flaw is the non-stop US election cycle that fosters this 'election obsession' dynamic. Personally, I think that whoever invented that 2 year Congressional term cycle was a complete idiot.

Thus policy is never discussed in public. This appears to be a 'feature' not a bug.

[Michael]

So, did anyone bother to watch Obama address Congress? From what I'm reading the only speech more lame than Obama's was Jindal's reply.

Seems like a fake event to me... leaders in non-US countries tend to do this pretty much on a daily basis, so I'm inclined to consider this nothing more than a 'photo-op'.

[Michael]

Poll hypocrisy from the Democrats is getting really annoying.

Apparently, when 70% of Americans believed that Saddam was behind 9/11, that just showed how biased the media was and you can't take this kind of crap seriously.

But when 60% of Americans express support for some Obama-legislation, that's democracy in action and the people must be obeyed.

Fact is, both numbers are a product of media manipulation (and always will be). Government by opinion poll sucks regardless of whether the opinion poll support your pet policies or not.

[Michael]

Note to Democratic Party & Obama: If you guys don't want to be accused of being secret socialists intent on re-making America into a socialist paradise, then perhaps you ought to stop with the "capitalism has failed, now is the time for a bold new national strategy for the economy" type pronouncements. This is doubly important given the context of Obama presiding over the most massive government intervention in the economy since WW2 and a Democratic Congress setting whole new records for spending and deficits.

(It took Bush several years to turn a balanced budget into a $600 billion deficit. It took only a couple of weeks for Obama to turn that $600 billion deficit into a $2 trillion one.)

2nd Note: The banking-financial crisis was NOT caused by high levels, or increasing levels, of income inequality. It was not caused by the adventure in Iraq. It was not caused by a refusal to sign on to Kyoto Accord. It was not caused by abjuring the Geneva Convention or Habeas Corpus. It wasn't even caused by Bush's tax cuts. Ergo, reversing these things won't make one whit of difference to the banking crisis. If you want to prevent a banking crisis, all one has to do is fully apply all the rules & regulations that are presently on the books. That's it, that's all. Coming up with ideas and policies 'towards a great new society' sounds as dangerous to society as Reagan-Clinton-Bush regulation-busters have proven to be.

[phungus420]

What about for those of us who would actually like to see a more socialist approach to the economy? In my opinion Top earner wages should be capped at 100 times what the lowest payed employee of a corp or it's subsidiary makes, and since Public corporations and publicly traded stocks only exist because the government allows them to, through law, it is well within The State's perogative to do so. If a CEO or Board of Directors doesn't like it, they can buy up all the shares and go private, but as long as your stock is publicly traded, I consider your corporation to be a government supported entity anyway. Might as well regulate it more apropriatly.

Also nationalize all the Oil wells within our boarders, let companies pump the oil, but make them pay to do so, and there is nothing wrong with a government run agency pumping the oil either, if The State can raise more money that way.

Finally privatized Health Care needs to go. Nationalize it.

So long as the The State doesn't try to take over the day to day decisions of private enterprise, and still allow entrepranuership, I'm all for a more socialized approach to the economy. Though to be honest the nationalization of banks that seems to be occuring worries me, I do not think the state should have direct control of buisness, not even the financial sector. Doing so puts too much power in the hands of The State, I mainly would just like to see a rational aproach to publicly traded companies (rational salary caps, caps on stock options etc.) so that the income gap goes back to what it was in the 50s.

[Michael]

What about for those of us who would actually like to see a more socialist approach to the economy? In my opinion Top earner wages should be capped at 100 times what the lowest payed employee of a corp or it's subsidiary makes, and since Public corporations and publicly traded stocks only exist because the government allows them to, through law, it is well within The State's perogative to do so. If a CEO or Board of Directors doesn't like it, they can buy up all the shares and go private, but as long as your stock is publicly traded, I consider your corporation to be a government supported entity anyway. Might as well regulate it more apropriatly.

Also nationalize all the Oil wells within our boarders, let companies pump the oil, but make them pay to do so, and there is nothing wrong with a government run agency pumping the oil either, if The State can raise more money that way.

Finally privatized Health Care needs to go. Nationalize it.

So long as the The State doesn't try to take over the day to day decisions of private enterprise, and still allow entrepranuership, I'm all for a more socialized approach to the economy. Though to be honest the nationalization of banks that seems to be occuring worries me, I do not think the state should have direct control of buisness, not even the financial sector. Doing so puts too much power in the hands of The State, I mainly would just like to see a rational aproach to publicly traded companies (rational salary caps, caps on stock options etc.) so that the income gap goes back to what it was in the 50s.

My point is that if Obama and the Democratic party wants to succeed, they need to change the subject of discussion. Arguing about socialism is a losing prospect in US politics.

Now I think its pretty obvious that the US is already filled with various 'socialistic' type policies and Americans seem to have little problem with that as long as the dreaded "socialist" word is avoided. Hence, my advice.

In other words, one doesn't have to avoid socialism in the USA, only talking about it. Social security, medicare, corporate welfare and progressive income tax are all very socialistic policies.

[Michael]

Today's random political thought:

I don't know Prime Minister Harper's wife's name. I also don't know how many children he has, let alone their names.

Come to think of it, I don't know former Prime Minister Martin's wife's name either. I have no idea if he has any children or not. Likewise with Prime Minister Chretien - I think his wife was named Arlene (who was interviewed on one news episode when some intruder actually broke into 24 Sussex Drive). I have no idea if former PM Chretien had any children at all.

And I don't know former Prime Minister Mulroney's wife's name either. I didn't even know he had any kids until a few years ago when Ben Mulroney showed up to host Canadian Idol.

My only point here is to draw attention to the obsessive coverage of Obama's wife and children. I've probably seen several dozen news stories and news reports about her. This is celebrity culture worship at its worst. Indeed, I can certainly name the wife of the last half-dozen US Presidents - given the heavy media coverage of them. This has to be one of the most 'jarring' facts about US politics to an 'outside' observer. Obsessive coverage of the President's wife, and not a peep about public policy. That's the American media!

[dilettante]

Today's random political thought:

I don't know Prime Minister Harper's wife's name. I also don't know how many children he has, let alone their names.

Come to think of it, I don't know former Prime Minister Martin's wife's name either. I have no idea if he has any children or not. Likewise with Prime Minister Chretien - I think his wife was named Arlene (who was interviewed on one news episode when some intruder actually broke into 24 Sussex Drive). I have no idea if former PM Chretien had any children at all.

And I don't know former Prime Minister Mulroney's wife's name either. I didn't even know he had any kids until a few years ago when Ben Mulroney showed up to host Canadian Idol.

My only point here is to draw attention to the obsessive coverage of Obama's wife and children. I've probably seen several dozen news stories and news reports about her. This is celebrity culture worship at its worst. Indeed, I can certainly name the wife of the last half-dozen US Presidents - given the heavy media coverage of them. This has to be one of the most 'jarring' facts about US politics to an 'outside' observer. Obsessive coverage of the President's wife, and not a peep about public policy. That's the American media!

It's certainly true that the American media tends to make a celebrity out of the President's wife, and especially and unusually so with Michelle Obama. But its worth nothing that the First Lady has generally been involved to some extent in public policy (usually championing some sort of feel-good social cause) and so is by now expected to be in the news.

Also, the US president, unlike the Canadian prime minister, is the head-of-state as well as the head of government. The First Family has to fill in as the closest we have to a Royal Family.

[Dominick]

^^
Same here. I know former PM Leterme owned goats because a lot of jokes were made about that, but not whether he had kids or not, or whether he was married or not. I know what the wives of some of the cabinet members look like, but only from liberal members because those happen to have real lookers as wives (trophy wives I guess).
Of the current PM I know nothing about his personal life except that he has a brother but that's only because he's in top politics too.

But on the other hand, there's a part of the media that is obsessed with the ins and outs of the Saxe-Coburgs (you know, the :silly: royals).

[Michael]

It's certainly true that the American media tends to make a celebrity out of the President's wife, and especially and unusually so with Michelle Obama. But its worth nothing that the First Lady has generally been involved to some extent in public policy (usually championing some sort of feel-good social cause) and so is by now expected to be in the news.
Actually, no.

First Lady Elenor Rooseveldt was the first to do it and she took lots of heat for it. Next one to play that game was Nancy Reagan. Apparently it was fine for her. It was war over Hillary though. I'm not aware of any other wife of a President doing anything other than nominal-figurehead support for uncontroversial causes.

So I have to conclude that 'first lady' activism is really, really rare. Only done by one first lady in the 20th century without causing howls of protest.

And 95% of the news reports I've seen about Michelle Obama have not had any policy or charity cause involved at all. It was all just celebrity worship stuff (like what school will the children go to?).

Also, the US president, unlike the Canadian prime minister, is the head-of-state as well as the head of government. The First Family has to fill in as the closest we have to a Royal Family.
Well, Canadians must be some kind of weird then because we don't get any Royal Family coverage in Canada at all (zero!). And no one even knows the Governor-General's name, so that doesn't count either.

And in reality, the PM is the totality of political power in Canada. For all intents and purposes, he is the head of state and the head of government in all matters (except pure legal theory).

Fact is, Canadian media just doesn't have a celebrity obsession and everything seems to work just fine. This shows that celebrity worship of the head of state is not some ingrained thing. It is just US media policy to do it.

Indeed, I doubt the Queen ever gets mentioned down in Oz either, and I doubt the Aussies know the name of their PM's wife either.

How about the Euros, do you get celebrity coverage of your Head of State? France certainly, but France is very, very American in both politics and political culture and thus, anything found in US politics is usually found in French politics too. But how about Germany? Can anyone even name the Head of State there? Does he get on the tv very often?

[Americano]

My wife was watching TV news and called me in to look at a clip on Laura Bush. She is, at best, the epitome of ex-librarian frumpy. Our (US) 'royalty' seldom includes first ladies with their own signatures.

[Michael]

My wife was watching TV news and called me in to look at a clip on Laura Bush. She is, at best, the epitome of ex-librarian frumpy. Our (US) 'royalty' seldom includes first ladies with their own signatures.

Well, Eleanor Rooseveldt, Jackie Kennedy, Nancy Reagan and Hillary Clinton certainly all commanded 'signature' media profiles, though all four women are (or were) clearly strong women in their own rights.

[Americano]

Well, Eleanor Rooseveldt, Jackie Kennedy, Nancy Reagan and Hillary Clinton certainly all commanded 'signature' media profiles, though all four women are (or were) clearly strong women in their own rights.

Not a real high percentage for a ruling 'family'. I'd include Ladybird Johnson in that group. Without her and were he alive Lyndon would still be stuffing county election ballot boxes.

[partofme]

So last year the republicans put up a vice presidential nominee that was video taped participating in a ceremony in a church to protect her from the influence of witches. Not it seems that Bobby Jindal who gave the republican rebuttal to Obama's speech the other night and who is seen as a rising star in the party as governor of Louisiana has claimed to have taken part in a exorcism. What is even more amazing is that so many Americans take this sort of thing seriously and see it as a good thing.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-02-24/bobby-jindals-secret-past

[Americano]

So last year the republicans put up a vice presidential nominee that was video taped participating in a ceremony in a church to protect her from the influence of witches. Not it seems that Bobby Jindal who gave the republican rebuttal to Obama's speech the other night and who is seen as a rising star in the party as governor of Louisiana has claimed to have taken part in a exorcism. What is even more amazing is that so many Americans take this sort of thing seriously and see it as a good thing.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-02-24/bobby-jindals-secret-past

What floats the fundie boat never fails to amaze me. Texas has legislation pending that will make an ultrasound and the mother looking at the image required to obtain an abortion. Two hours prior to the abortion.

[Donkey]

So Sebelius will be the Secretary of Health...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7917235.stm

I don't know a lot about her. Thoughts?

[drgoodtrips]

What floats the fundie boat never fails to amaze me. Texas has legislation pending that will make an ultrasound and the mother looking at the image required to obtain an abortion. Two hours prior to the abortion.

Hmm... I think these stories are related. Perhaps in the South, women wanting abortions should ask for exorcisms. No fuss, no muss... :ummm:

[Americano]

Hmm... I think these stories are related. Perhaps in the South, women wanting abortions should ask for exorcisms. No fuss, no muss... :ummm:
A no questions asked abortion in Mexico would probably make better sense.

[Michael]

So Sebelius will be the Secretary of Health...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7917235.stm

I don't know a lot about her. Thoughts?
Competent and successful Democratic governor of a red state. She was on everyone's short list for just about EVERYTHING (VP, Commerce, etc.).

I'd much prefer to see her run for the Senate than some cabinet secretary, though HHR ought to be lively post with a universal healthcare initiative on the table. Just about anyone is better than "Lord of the Lobbyists" Daschele.

[Michael]

One of the most bizarre characteristics of US politics that I've ever encountered has to be the obsession with the Roman republic. Admittedly, this trend has become somewhat muted lately, but it has always been a major theme of US politics going right back to the Founding Fathers.

Tom Palaima discovers how the US uses Roman history to defend and challenge its own identity

Source (http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=405343)

This is just so weird. Like, doesn't anyone realize that the Roman Republic failed due to the incredible corruption & incompetence of the ruling class and was ultimately replaced by a military dictatorship that is the very origin and definition of the meaning of "fascism"?

Trying to 'emulate' the Roman Republic seems like an awfully odd thing to do. I just can't understand how otherwise educated persons can be so obtuse as to consciously try to emulate the Roman Republic.

What is really bizarre, is that as this 'farce' called history repeats itself, and the US Republic nudges ever closer to imperial fascism, the analogies with Rome seem now to be banished from the public sphere. Double odd that is.

[Michael]

Todays random political comment: sure is fun watching the Republicans getting 'bitch-slapped' by Democrats these days.

The 'bitch-slap' technique, previously perfected by Republicans and used to great effect against Democrats for twenty years is now being used against Republicans for the first time and its fun to watch. :)

I wonder how long it will take the Republicans to realize they are being 'bitch-slapped'? And having Rush Limbaugh deliver the slap is the best part of all!

(For those who are unfamiliar with this term in US politics, it refers to the game when, for example, some black radical says something that the media 'centerists' consider politically toxic. They then go around to all the major Democratic leaders and ask them to either 'endorse' or 'deny' the statements made by the obscure radical - the whole game is designed to make the Democrats either deny liberalism or look like an idiot.

The present game involves Rush Limbaugh being the 'unofficial leader' of the Republican party. Rush is the radical crackpot that all Republican leaders are now being asked to either endorse or refute. This is a lose-lose proposition for Republicans since to endorse Rush Limbaugh makes you look like an idiot, but to refute Limbaugh is to send the rightwing base into ballistics and going for your head.)

As I said, fun game to watch. There is of course no substance to this game, but there is never any substance to any US political game - it is all style all the time. Thus, the 'bitch-slap' is serious politics.

Essentially, the Democrats are successfully pinning the Rush Limbaugh 'albatross' collectively around the Republican party's neck. It is the Rush Limbaugh party now and that's going to hurt the Republicans come election time. This kind of trope has legs. Only a matter of time now before Republcans just get dismissed on the basis that if we want to know what they think about anything, we'll just tune into Rush's show.

[partofme]

Todays random political comment: sure is fun watching the Republicans getting 'bitch-slapped' by Democrats these days.

The 'bitch-slap' technique, previously perfected by Republicans and used to great effect against Democrats for twenty years is now being used against Republicans for the first time and its fun to watch. :)

I wonder how long it will take the Republicans to realize they are being 'bitch-slapped'? And having Rush Limbaugh deliver the slap is the best part of all!

(For those who are unfamiliar with this term in US politics, it refers to the game when, for example, some black radical says something that the media 'centerists' consider politically toxic. They then go around to all the major Democratic leaders and ask them to either 'endorse' or 'deny' the statements made by the obscure radical - the whole game is designed to make the Democrats either deny liberalism or look like an idiot.

The present game involves Rush Limbaugh being the 'unofficial leader' of the Republican party. Rush is the radical crackpot that all Republican leaders are now being asked to either endorse or refute. This is a lose-lose proposition for Republicans since to endorse Rush Limbaugh makes you look like an idiot, but to refute Limbaugh is to send the rightwing base into ballistics and going for your head.)

As I said, fun game to watch. There is of course no substance to this game, but there is never any substance to any US political game - it is all style all the time. Thus, the 'bitch-slap' is serious politics.

Essentially, the Democrats are successfully pinning the Rush Limbaugh 'albatross' collectively around the Republican party's neck. It is the Rush Limbaugh party now and that's going to hurt the Republicans come election time. This kind of trope has legs. Only a matter of time now before Republcans just get dismissed on the basis that if we want to know what they think about anything, we'll just tune into Rush's show.

I am absolutely loving it. If there is anything I hate it is right wing radio. The only thing is I wish it actually happened closer to election time.

[partofme]

I am glad to know that nationally Rush is a liability. You wouldn't know it where I live. Here in red state Kentucky in a fairly small town we have him broadcasted both on a a.m. station here in town and also a f.m. station that covers the whole area. Those same two stations also carry Hannity, O'Reilly, Levin, Beck, and a few others.

[Michael]

I am glad to know that nationally Rush is a liability. You wouldn't know it where I live. Here in red state Kentucky in a fairly small town we have him broadcasted both on a a.m. station here in town and also a f.m. station that covers the whole area. Those same two stations also carry Hannity, O'Reilly, Levin, Beck, and a few others.
Rush's audience, GOP base and Bush's 25% hardcore supporters are all the same thing. If you are inside that echo chamber, it looks and sounds very impressive and dominating. Given the 'inside the bubble' character, its easy for them to pretend they are a majority.

[drgoodtrips]

Rush's audience, GOP base and Bush's 25% hardcore supporters are all the same thing. If you are inside that echo chamber, it looks and sounds very impressive and dominating. Given the 'inside the bubble' character, its easy for them to pretend they are a majority.

Of course, it's also necessary to endure cognitive dissonance in that case. The right wing simultaneously claims that it is the "great silent majority" while treating us to tales of how white Christian men are the unjustly oppressed minority. It simultaneously claims that it is the mainstream view in America after getting resoundingly thumped in elections for a couple of cycles.

Of course, this is all explained away in two words: "Liberal Media". The Liberal Media somehow brainwashes enough of the largely conservative American populace into electing Democrats and turns a historically oppressive majority into a repressed minority.

If you want a chuckle, when you see a right-winger talk about Liberal Media, substitute in "Illuminati" or "God" or "Freemasons". It makes the read a lot more entertaining and, impressively, doesn't lose any of the meaning.

[Americano]

Always interesting to point out who owns that 'liberal media'.

[partofme]

Of course, it's also necessary to endure cognitive dissonance in that case. The right wing simultaneously claims that it is the "great silent majority" while treating us to tales of how white Christian men are the unjustly oppressed minority. It simultaneously claims that it is the mainstream view in America after getting resoundingly thumped in elections for a couple of cycles.

Of course, this is all explained away in two words: "Liberal Media". The Liberal Media somehow brainwashes enough of the largely conservative American populace into electing Democrats and turns a historically oppressive majority into a repressed minority.

If you want a chuckle, when you see a right-winger talk about Liberal Media, substitute in "Illuminati" or "God" or "Freemasons". It makes the read a lot more entertaining and, impressively, doesn't lose any of the meaning.

Mostly people site the reason for the calling the media liberal that they do not treat their positions as being the settled default. Because they treat gay marriage as an issue rather than as automatically being between a man and a woman then that means they are ignoring the excepted definition by their estimation. They assume that their position is right and to question it is to try and change that and make it a controversy in order to change it and turn it towards adopting the liberal agenda. According to them everything is liberal if it doesn't assume Christianity is the correct religion, abortion is murder, government never works, etc...

[Americano]

I am glad to know that nationally Rush is a liability. You wouldn't know it where I live. Here in red state Kentucky in a fairly small town we have him broadcasted both on a a.m. station here in town and also a f.m. station that covers the whole area. Those same two stations also carry Hannity, O'Reilly, Levin, Beck, and a few others.

Go to almost any public political forum and you've identified the gods of extremist conservative posters, spoken or not.

[partofme]

Go to almost any public political forum and you've identified the gods of extremist conservative posters, spoken or not.

It amazes me how many there are in comparison to any other point of view of ideology. I guess that's how they get their message out.

[Michael]

Go to almost any public political forum and you've identified the gods of extremist conservative posters, spoken or not.
Except this one... :angel:

[Michael]

Actually, the only ideological 'glue' that holds the American rightwing together is an apparent obsession with hating anything to do with liberalism. Liberalism is of course defined as anything they hate.

Quite entertaining logic these people demonstrate - if it wasn't for the fact that so many people (Iraqi citizens for example) end up getting dead because of it.

[Michael]

Just to keep the balance here, the leftwing has its follies too. And endless deficit spending appears to be one of them.

Listening to leftwing bloggers offering defenses of deficit spending during a recession tends to remind me of the situation circa 1974. At that time, we were again bombarded with endless justifications for endless deficit spending. That was just a short time before interest rates hit 18%...

Fact of the matter is it sure looks like the 'fiscally responsible' wing of the party that was represented by Bill Clinton is entirely dead these days. Bill Clinton was an anomoly - a responsible and pragmatic liberal. Alas.

Personally, I have serious issues about shovelling debt onto one's grandkids to pay for today's consumption addiction. That strikes me as morally and economically indefensible.

[partofme]

Actually, the only ideological 'glue' that holds the American rightwing together is an apparent obsession with hating anything to do with liberalism. Liberalism is of course defined as anything they hate.

Quite entertaining logic these people demonstrate - if it wasn't for the fact that so many people (Iraqi citizens for example) end up getting dead because of it.

The one thing that is impressive about their tactics is the way they can make the word "liberal" be seen as a negative in general and "conservative" as a positive. By repeating the word liberal over and over as a insult and bragging about being conservative they pretty much made them synonyms with good and bad to most people that don't think about it. I know democrats that voted for Obama and mostly democratic candidates across the board that call themselves conservative democrats and their only complain about the democratic party is that it's too liberal with out defining what that means to them. Nobody ever likes to call themselves liberal and if one does people assume they spend all their time at Phish concerts dropping acid and practicing gay sex with minors or something. One of the newest things is making the word democrat into a negative and when speaking at CPAC republicans always called it the democrat party instead of the democratic party. It might help if anybody that isn't a hard core right winger started using the word conservative constantly in a negative light but it might not matter now that "conservatives" have set it one way in the general public's mind.

[Michael]

The one thing that is impressive about their tactics is the way they can make the word "liberal" be seen as a negative in general and "conservative" as a positive. By repeating the word liberal over and over as a insult and bragging about being conservative they pretty much made them synonyms with good and bad to most people that don't think about it. I know democrats that voted for Obama and mostly democratic candidates across the board that call themselves conservative democrats and their only complain about the democratic party is that it's too liberal with out defining what that means to them. Nobody ever likes to call themselves liberal and if one does people assume they spend all their time at Phish concerts dropping acid and practicing gay sex with minors or something. One of the newest things is making the word democrat into a negative and when speaking at CPAC republicans always called it the democrat party instead of the democratic party. It might help if anybody that isn't a hard core right winger started using the word conservative constantly in a negative light but it might not matter now that "conservatives" have set it one way in the general public's mind.
The irony is that the only person whom I'd consider both to be a "personal friend" and a "political conservative" just happens to spend a heck of a lot of time at Phish concerts, dropping acid and trying to have gay sex with minors... :rofl:

Yes, he's a bit odd, but it takes all kinds to make the world go round. When he's not doing that, he works in bond trading...

That being said, you are correct that the key here is the wierdo definitions that the Republican media has adopted to support the Republican party. This makes the battle and uphill climb - and that's the point of the strategy I guess. They are a minority and always will be - the need to handicap the left just to stay even.

[Americano]

Except this one... :angel:

We need some of that fresh meat to drive post count.

[partofme]

The irony is that the only person whom I'd consider both to be a "personal friend" and a "political conservative" just happens to spend a heck of a lot of time at Phish concerts, dropping acid and trying to have gay sex with minors... :rofl:

Yes, he's a bit odd, but it takes all kinds to make the world go round. When he's not doing that, he works in bond trading...

That being said, you are correct that the key here is the wierdo definitions that the Republican media has adopted to support the Republican party. This makes the battle and uphill climb - and that's the point of the strategy I guess. They are a minority and always will be - the need to handicap the left just to stay even.

Now that's just awesome. :rofl:

I have noticed that even though people will defend the term conservatism I run into less opposition if I say right wingers. For some reason that makes people think of a hard core Dick Cheney neo-con type so people don't get as defensive unless they really hard part of the base.

[partofme]

I used to watch Hardball fairly often, but I got tired of the way everything was presented. It was nothing more than a game or horse race. It was everything I hate about politics with none of what I find interesting. There was no real analysis of the issues outside of how it would affect the outcome of the next election. I think there's too much focus of elections and gamesmanship as it is, but that show amplifies it to an unbearable level.

Not only that but I think Chris Matthews is fucking nuts and getting crazier all the time. Some of the random things that come out of his mouth are unbelievable. I seriously think the guy isn't stable and I'm not talking about his politics.

[Americano]

The one thing that is impressive about their tactics is the way they can make the word "liberal" be seen as a negative in general and "conservative" as a positive. By repeating the word liberal over and over as a insult and bragging about being conservative they pretty much made them synonyms with good and bad to most people that don't think about it. I know democrats that voted for Obama and mostly democratic candidates across the board that call themselves conservative democrats and their only complain about the democratic party is that it's too liberal with out defining what that means to them. Nobody ever likes to call themselves liberal and if one does people assume they spend all their time at Phish concerts dropping acid and practicing gay sex with minors or something. One of the newest things is making the word democrat into a negative and when speaking at CPAC republicans always called it the democrat party instead of the democratic party. It might help if anybody that isn't a hard core right winger started using the word conservative constantly in a negative light but it might not matter now that "conservatives" have set it one way in the general public's mind.

When one considers that for a social conservative 'sin' is as as bad as it gets, all dogmatic words and actions relating to perceived sin are easily absorbed, retained and commonly used.

[Michael]

Note to Democratic Party: Please remember that the last US politician to publically assert that "deficits don't matter" was named Dick Cheney.

Listening to a bunch of leftwing bloggers going on about "deficits don't matter" really strikes a chord - and a warning. People who believe that tend to cause HUGE problems to the economy.

I'm thinking of 'branding' anyone who dismisses deficits as coming from the "Cheney school".

[Americano]

Note to Democratic Party: Please remember that the last US politician to publically assert that "deficits don't matter" was named Dick Cheney.

Listening to a bunch of leftwing bloggers going on about "deficits don't matter" really strikes a chord - and a warning. People who believe that tend to cause HUGE problems to the economy.

I'm thinking of 'branding' anyone who dismisses deficits as coming from the "Cheney school".

Michael that is so true. As a confirmed cynic I'm convinced people making such statements have no clue about finance. They're as bad as the advocates of higher wages and standard of living in a nation that consumes far, far more than it produces.

[Donkey]

Except this one... :angel:
Though I wouldn't say that this one is extremely left wing, either. I don't know what everybody's positions are, but there seems to be a general left-of-center jaunt.

I suspect a fair few of us are pretty "off the chart" in that we don't fit the traditional left-right spectrum.

[Michael]

Though I wouldn't say that this one is extremely left wing, either. I don't know what everybody's positions are, but there seems to be a general left-of-center jaunt.

I suspect a fair few of us are pretty "off the chart" in that we don't fit the traditional left-right spectrum.
I'll agree with that.

I might add that by normal European political standards, myself, drgoodtrips, wphelan, dilettante and Americano (to name just a few) would all likely be considered fairly 'rightwing' (or neoliberal as they like to say over there), though I agree, most at DWF seem rather 'left of center' by US standards.

That just goes to show how far the US standards are out of whack. :ummm:

[Americano]

Though I wouldn't say that this one is extremely left wing, either. I don't know what everybody's positions are, but there seems to be a general left-of-center jaunt.

I suspect a fair few of us are pretty "off the chart" in that we don't fit the traditional left-right spectrum.

Their electoral votes serve a governing purpose. A party dog is a party dog.

I've been most impressed with the advances of political forecasting software. The developers have to have so many issue variables with poll information support to come so close to results it boggles my mind.

[Dominick]

According to international standards this board is center-right, mostly populated by classical liberals (but certainly not neo-liberals; that's as far off as neo-con is from traditional conservatism).
Luckily, the accumulation of all that slight rightism is balanced by one extreme left weight :angel:

Though one would actually need at least a six-dimensional Calabi-Yau (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Calabi-YauSpace.html) shape to start plotting the different positions on different subjects.

[Donkey]

Their electoral votes serve a governing purpose. A party dog is a party dog.

:o Guilty.

Though my attitude toward government means that a lot of what needs to be done will either have to be done around the government, or despite the government.

[Donkey]

Server bloop?

The post in which I just responded to Americano was definitely posted AFTER Michael's post about neo-liberal labels in Europe.

[Donkey]

Server bloop?

The post in which I just responded to Americano was definitely posted AFTER Michael's post about neo-liberal labels in Europe.


(I also just tried to quick reply this and it failed.)


(And again.)

[Michael]

According to international standards this board is center-right, mostly populated by classical liberals (but certainly not neo-liberals; that's as far off as neo-con is from traditional conservatism).
Luckily, the accumulation of all that slight rightism is balanced by one extreme left weight :angel:
So Europeans are now acknowledging us classical liberals again and not calling us neo-liberals? That's refreshing.

Methinks that 'neo-liberal' label is as ugly and as meaningless as 'neo-conservative'.

Us classical liberals haven't changed - we've been there in the middle all along. It is the world of political labels that keeps morphing around us, depending on current fads and fashion it seems. :D

[Donkey]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7927025.stm

Engagement seems really the only logical thing. *shrug*

[Michael]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7927025.stm

Engagement seems really the only logical thing. *shrug*
Seems only proper. UK has had diplomatic and political contacts with Sein Finn for decades and that apparently was not a problem - even though they are the 'political arm' of a known violence-supporting terrorist group.

(seems the west gets real picky about terrorists based on their skin color it seems - good to see UK get over the hypocrisy here).

(it is doubly good to see posts back in proper time sequence here too!)

[Michael]

"Inflation is the opium of the masses." - Henry Hazlitt

This is just so sublime, it is brilliant. :hatoff:

When will people realize that inflation is ultimately a net benefit for asset-owners and a net-negative for just about everyone else?

[Michael]

Gosh, the way the Obama Administration invokes the Bush Administration as the root cause of various messes he has to deal with is creating a level of partisan animosity that is simply unheard of in Washington and makes it almost impossible for responsible minded Republicans to work with him. :rolleyes:

This toxic level of partisanship that the Democrats have brought to Washington is absolutely shocking to the members of the Republican party, media talking heads and the entire US media pundit class who have never witnessed such blatant displays of partisan blamemongering in Washington politics, let alone coming from the President of the United States.

[Michael]

The problem with American foreign policy goes beyond George Bush. It includes a Washington establishment that has gotten comfortable with the exercise of American hegemony and treats compromise as treason and negotiations as appeasement.

This is not the whole of the problem with US foreign policy, but it is a good place to start.

[Michael]

Apparently Merkel & Sarkozy have issued a joint communique stating that the EU ought to enforce the "stability & growth pact".

This is clearly a response (refusal) to Obama's request for Europe to engage in some fiscal stimulus spending.

The joke is of course that France has been in violation of the "stability & growth pact" numbers for years. Thus, this is not a policy statement but a joke.

As some commentators have mentioned, it looks like Sarkozy has dropped out of the "reality-based community".

* * *

Any of our European members following Sarkozy? Seems to me he isn't doing much - lots of grandstanding and backing down on promises. What's the picture over there? From here, the consensus is that he's shaping up to be an entirely ineffectual gasbag with no ideology other than the 'spur of the moement' to guide him.

[Michael]

Regarding the implosion of the US financial markets, sub-prime mortgages and/or credit-default swaps, I want to reiterate the point that I don't think this is a failure of capitalism (in any way) or even a failure of 'laissez-faire' principles of deregulation.

Neither explanation fits the actual facts of the matter. Fraud, croney capitalism, government-corporate collusion, corrupt regulators and government policy all combined to cause the problem.

It is to be noted that all of these elements are notorious enemies of actual free market capitalism.

A crashed stock market and fucked up derivatives market does not constitute a failure of capitalism. Indeed, the more one looks at the issue, the more I'm inclined to think that the problem here is too little actual capitalism. The markets have become a controlled game for insiders. That's not capitalism at all.

Notably, the deregulatory 'craze' of the 1990's and early 2000's didn't actually deregulate any markets at all - they just selectively permitted a few favored companies to ignore existing regulations.

[wphelan]

Notably, the deregulatory 'craze' of the 1990's and early 2000's didn't actually deregulate any markets at all - they just selectively permitted a few favored companies to ignore existing regulations.

That's precisely the way I see this. For all the talk of deregulation, there's actually been little of it. It's been more a problem of crony capitalism than it has been a failure of the laissez-faire principles that have been receiving much of the blame.

[Michael]

That's precisely the way I see this. For all the talk of deregulation, there's actually been little of it. It's been more a problem of crony capitalism than it has been a failure of the laissez-faire principles that have been receiving much of the blame.
Yes the fraud and collusion between the bond-rating agencies and the Wall Street investment houses clearly requires some investigation.

When it comes to regulating industry, the absolute worst policy is to employ CEO ranked people from the regulated industry.

[Michael]

Right now the hottest topic in the leftwing blogs is the question of how long before Obama grows the balls to fire Timmy & Summers.

The alternative apparently is to write off Obama's reelection chances in 2012.

I'm certainly in agreement. Timmy & Summers are "going Japanese" and that's electoral death for Obama.

The US Government has essentially duplicated the Japanese policy response. And as several banking crisis studies show, the longer one puts off doing the nasty deed (nationalizing the zombie banks), the longer the crisis will last.

There is only ONE solution that is known to work in this particular type of problem. Timmy & Summers (and Obama) have steadfastly refused to even consider it. The people are calling for Timmy & Summer's heads. Obama ought to throw them under the bus - or its his head they will be screaming for next.

[Michael]

For those who may have missed it, here is the NYTimes reporting on the International Committee of the Red Cross reporting that Red Cross has in its possession documentary evidence of 14 known cases of torture practiced by US officials.

Red Cross officials — whose duty it is to monitor compliance with the Geneva Conventions and to supervise treatment of prisoners of war — traveled to Guantánamo and began interviewing the prisoners.

Their stated goal was to produce a report that would “provide a description of the treatment and material conditions of detention of the 14 during the period they were held in the C.I.A. detention program,” periods ranging “from 16 months to almost four and a half years.”

As the Red Cross interviewers informed the detainees, their report was not intended to be released to the public but, “to the extent that each detainee agreed for it to be transmitted to the authorities,” to be given in strictest secrecy to officials of the government agency that had been in charge of holding them — in this case the Central Intelligence Agency, to whose acting general counsel, John Rizzo, the report was sent on Feb. 14, 2007.

The result is a document — labeled “confidential” and clearly intended only for the eyes of those senior American officials — that tells a story of what happened to each of the 14 detainees inside the black sites.

A short time ago, this document came into my hands and I have set out the stories it tells in a longer article in The New York Review of Books. Because these stories were taken down confidentially in patient interviews by professionals from the International Committee of the Red Cross, and not intended for public consumption, they have an unusual claim to authenticity.

Indeed, since the detainees were kept strictly apart and isolated, both at the black sites and at Guantánamo, the striking similarity in their stories would seem to make fabrication extremely unlikely. As its authors state in their introduction, “The I.C.R.C. wishes to underscore that the consistency of the detailed allegations provided separately by each of the 14 adds particular weight to the information provided below.”

Beginning with the chapter headings on its contents page — “suffocation by water,” “prolonged stress standing,” “beatings by use of a collar,” “confinement in a box” — the document makes compelling and chilling reading. The stories recounted in its fewer than 50 pages lead inexorably to this unequivocal conclusion, which, given its source, has the power of a legal determination: “The allegations of ill treatment of the detainees indicate that, in many cases, the ill treatment to which they were subjected while held in the C.I.A. program, either singly or in combination, constituted torture. In addition, many other elements of the ill treatment, either singly or in combination, constituted cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.”
Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/opinion/15danner.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all)

George W. Bush may say "US doesn't torture", but like so much out of GW's mouth over the years, it is a blatant and outright lie. The evidence is now on the table.

So how long before charges are laid? Obama has a constitutional obligation to press charges here.

[The Sister]

So how long before charges are laid? Obama has a constitutional obligation to press charges here.

Oh my, much as I would like to see Bush and Cheney rot in jail :rofl:
my head hurts at the thought of the congressional hearings on this one.

[Michael]

Fox News mocks Canadian military

OTTAWA — The host of a Fox News program that mocked the Canadian military and sparked outrage across the country has apologized.

In a statement issued to Sun Media by the U.S. network today, Greg Gutfeld, who led the panelists in the tirade making fun of Canadian soldiers and the RCMP, said sorry for the offending remarks.

“The March 17th episode of Red Eye included a segment discussing Canada's plan for a ‘synchronized break,’ which was in no way an attempt to make light of troop efforts. However, I realize that my words may have been misunderstood,” Gutfeld said in the statement. “It was not my intent to disrespect the brave men, women and families of the Canadian military, and for that I apologize. Red Eye is a satirical take on the news, in which all topics are addressed in a lighthearted, humorous and ridiculous manner.”

Defence Minister Peter MacKay called the segment “crass” and “disgusting” and demanded an unqualified apology.
Source (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2009/03/22/8847666-sun.html)

The Fox News team sinks to a whole new low here.

[partofme]

Source (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2009/03/22/8847666-sun.html)

The Fox News team sinks to a whole new low here.

I decided to post this on my Facebook and was looking at various articles on it on Google News and very few American sources have even picked up the story. :mad:

[Greendruid]

Perhaps if they showed the return of American troops in coffins on nightly newscasts like we get to see in Canada - now numbering almost once a week it seems - American "comedians" (and I use that term lightly here) would appreciate the fact that death is not funny. The American military is rife with jokes about Canadians. Though I've often held the little brother - big brother attitude of our two nations to be tedious and a boring way for little brother to define its national character, incidents like these constantly stick in the craw of Canadians. This sort of behaviour only damages the relationship that, one this side of the border, already feels this way. You can reasonably make jokes about the tools of our military because they are largely toys and in small numbers compared to the US MIC. Making fun of dead soldiers is really in bad taste. I haven't heard of a single US politician commenting on this shameful display of "news" casting.

[Michael]

This story is pretty much front page news and has been carried by the CBC evening news.

Regardless of the merits of the case itself, the issue is powerful because it resonates with existing political dynamics. Politically defending the Canadian military involvement in Afghanistan is extremely difficult and politically risky in Canada for the simple reason that the majority of the population believes that the Canadian military is being used to support US imperialism - and that Canadian soldiers are dying for US imperialism. That doesn't go over very well here and the public has been generally opposed to the Afghan war almost from the beginning (or rather, since March 2003 to be precise - that's when Canadian's support for Afghanistan operation evaporated).

So when Americans make light of the deaths of Canadian soldiers, dying in service to what Canadians believe is a US war, Canadians get royally pissed.

(Apparently one of the show's hosts was due to appear at some comedy festival in Edmonton next month - he has quite prudently cancelled his appearance - radio shows in Alberta were opening joking that this guy wasn't going to make it from the airport to his hotel).

Americans ought to understand the key point here - ridiculing or disrespecting soldiers who die in service for their country is absolutely as low as you can go - even for those who oppose the war.

[drgoodtrips]

The disgustingness of it notwithstanding, I'd imagine the GOP higher-ups have to be smacking their foreheads. As the party continues to flounder without a perceived leader or message beyond whining in general, this just serves to cement the public image of the party as the "party of Rush" and all of his Neanderthal ilk.

It seems like the GOP has taken notes from the Dems over the last 20 years on being its own caricature.

[Michael]

The disgustingness of it notwithstanding, I'd imagine the GOP higher-ups have to be smacking their foreheads. As the party continues to flounder without a perceived leader or message beyond whining in general, this just serves to cement the public image of the party as the "party of Rush" and all of his Neanderthal ilk.

It seems like the GOP has taken notes from the Dems over the last 20 years on being its own caricature.
Yes, like or not, "Fox News = GOP" is a pretty well established meme in the public consciousness.

The failures of Fox do reflect on the GOP as if they were an official part of the GOP. For all intents and purposes, they are.

[Michael]

Regarding Obama's Op-Ed published yesterday appealing/advising other nations to follow the Obama-directed massive debt expansion policy.

I'm not impressed. US created this problem and US is creating more problems with their massive expansion of debt. Debt was a key component of the cause of the crisis. More debt isn't the solution.

I see no reason that any other nation ought to follow this same policy path as the USA. Indeed, I think the future of the world economy is predicated on who can avoid copying such a short-term focused US financial policy. Short-term focused policy in the US is the problem, not a solution.

As a general rule, countries that have followed US advice and policy suggestions in the past are the countries that have been fucked up the most. I don't see any good reason for following US policy advice at this time. I can think of several good reasons to tell Obama to shut up and deal with US problems before lecturing others. Obama's track record in dealing with the US economic and financial problems have been less than stellar and do not inspire any confidence at all. Praying for a pony is not a valid policy option. That policy failed in Iraq and its going to fail on Wall Street.

[Americano]

Regarding Obama's Op-Ed published yesterday appealing/advising other nations to follow the Obama-directed massive debt expansion policy.

I'm not impressed. US created this problem and US is creating more problems with their massive expansion of debt. Debt was a key component of the cause of the crisis. More debt isn't the solution.

I see no reason that any other nation ought to follow this same policy path as the USA. Indeed, I think the future of the world economy is predicated on who can avoid copying such a short-term focused US financial policy. Short-term focused policy in the US is the problem, not a solution.

As a general rule, countries that have followed US advice and policy suggestions in the past are the countries that have been fucked up the most. I don't see any good reason for following US policy advice at this time. I can think of several good reasons to tell Obama to shut up and deal with US problems before lecturing others. Obama's track record in dealing with the US economic and financial problems have been less than stellar and do not inspire any confidence at all. Praying for a pony is not a valid policy option. That policy failed in Iraq and its going to fail on Wall Street.

If we take the focus from Obama to the global circumstance, there's now a tremendous demand for facilitation of public debt. Every major currency is facing inflation and there's now a lot of talk about what is the finite market for public debt.

The UK auctioned off public debt today and failed to sell the entire issue, first time since 2002. The US had the first of what will be thrice weekly debt auctions and only 30% was purchased by foreign countries with what was considered limited participation.

Obama's advice is bogus. The real question is if the US can create another credit bubble at the federal level to cushion the demise into economic depression. Is there enough available credit facilitation to support accustomed US global hegemony and general public desired standard of living? No.

[Michael]

I'm trying not to be too hard on Obama. He's doing lots of nice things.

Unfortunately, Obama is doing very poorly in one key area.

That is to say, on economic matters, Obama's Administration is a huge disappointment so far. Yes Obama is inheriting a mess here, but the Democratic party has huge responsibilities here as being one of the primary enablers of the financial debacle in the first place (see Larry Summers specifically and Democrats in Congress generally). I'm no fan of pseudo-Keynesian theory - especially when debt is used to subsidize/stimulate non-productive consumption.

I don't see any 'real' economic benefit unless the money is invested in increasing the productive base - given that the money has to be repaid with interest. One has to produce a greater benefit than the cost of the interest paid or it is a net loss to the economy in the medium term (just a short term gain).

I'm also not very impressed with Obama's noises on the civil rights front (rendition and detention) either.

Other than these issues, this Administration does seem to doing okay. Though, the political bouncing around on the EFC bill and healthcare, the walking back on the veterans healthcare issue are a bunch of stupid political missteps. They are definitely giving the impression of a bunch of amateurs still trying to find their feet. Given that Obama supposedly surrounded himself with 'the best and brightest' with loads of experience, this is surprising. They seem to be making significant political mistakes in the areas they are claiming as their core competence. That seems odd.

[Michael]

One more thing... Obama's attempts to get around the media and speak to the people directly is a tired old strategy that has always failed for every politician who tries it. It just tends to piss off the established media and they make very nasty enemies for national politicians to have.

[phungus420]

Watching his town hall yesterday, I wonder how accurate his assesment is that the projected deficit is by and large caused by medicare/medicade, and not the stimulus or other budget items on Obama's priority list.

[Michael]

Watching his town hall yesterday, I wonder how accurate his assesment is that the projected deficit is by and large caused by medicare/medicade, and not the stimulus or other budget items on Obama's priority list.
He may be referring to the 'structural' deficit - that part of the deficit that is left after you magically take all the other spending away.

Obama has made foolish noises about not understanding social security funding in the past, so its not earth shattering to see him do it again. Indeed, lies about the funding of Social Security and Medicare are the norm in Washington and has been for years.

[Michael]

Looks like the "Saddam was behind 9/11" brigade is hard at work...

88% Say It’s Important To Keep The Dollar As America’s Currency

Eighty-eight percent (88%) of Americans say it is important for the dollar to remain the currency of the United States, including 70% who say it is Very Important.

Only three percent (3%) say it is not at all important if the dollar remains America’s currency, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Source (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/88_say_it_s_important_to_keep_the_dollar_as_americ a_s_currency)

What is truly amazing here is the ability of the US media to convince the American people to not only believe bullshit, but to react to it and support measures in support of that same bullshit.

[Greendruid]

I could have all kinds of fun with this photo (http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2009/04/01/obama-brown-g20-summit-economic-crisis.html) but I'll simply offer this slight alteration in it's place ...

[Michael]

:rofl:

Yes, it does look that photo would be perfect for The Rick Mercer Report with their weekly 'photo challenge'. (Please pardon the local Canadian cultural reference here - Rick Mercer is 2nd only to Hockey Night in Canada for the size of their average television audience in Canada)

And I actually think you have the "blood on his hands" comment backwards (though Gordon Brown does appear to have that look on his face!)

Rumor has it that Obama holds a bit of a personal 'family' grudge against the Brits for imprisoning/mistreating his grandfather (or something like that) at some time in the past. I have no idea if this is true or not - just a rumor as far as I know.

[Michael]

So what's with these silly G-20 protesters in London?

Is there anything that they could possibly do to make themselves appear less relevant and marginal than showing up in such tiny numbers? If that's all the extreme left could stir up, I have to say their movement has become pathetic.

(when protesters have me cheering for the riot-cops, they've got a huge PR problem to say the least)

[Donkey]

So two big things happened in American politics today.

One is that judges legalized gay marriage in Iowa. Good.

The other is a tragic and horrifying case of domestic terrorism.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102708892

I don't throw around the word terrorism willy nilly. I may be jumping the gun, but unless a clear alternative motive is demonstrated, I am assuming that this is what it looks like: a blatant anti-immigrant suicide attack. I have quickly moved from shocked, to saddened to extremely angry.

[Greendruid]

I don't throw around the word terrorism willy nilly. I may be jumping the gun, but unless a clear alternative motive is demonstrated, I am assuming that this is what it looks like: a blatant anti-immigrant suicide attack. I have quickly moved from shocked, to saddened to extremely angry.

Your assumption appears to be wrong. It seems to have been a Vietnamese American immigrant who recently lost his job at IBM.

Source (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6031421.ece)

This of course doesn't rule out the possibility that he was anti-immigrant I suppose. My prediction is that acts of desperation, reported and unreported will continue to rise as the economy continues to tumble and people are evicted from their homes and lose their jobs.

Meanwhile ...

Fannie Mae (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/post200/2007/FNM/) and Freddie Mac (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/post200/2007/FRE/), the mortgage finance companies under federal control, are planning to pay $210 million in retention bonuses to 7,600 employees over 18 months, the firms' regulator said yesterday.

Source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/03/AR2009040303061.html?hpid=topnews)

How much more corporate cock can the American taxpayers take up the ass? Is this really happening? How are lawmakers unable to act? Is this all an elaborate preamble to declaring Marshall Law anyway? This is the stuff the American taxpayers should be angry about. I can hear the safetys clicking off at the militia meetings now...

[Michael]

Your assumption appears to be wrong. It seems to have been a Vietnamese American immigrant who recently lost his job at IBM.

I suppose that's "better" than an anti-immigration racist psycho... :ummm:

This of course doesn't rule out the possibility that he was anti-immigrant I suppose. My prediction is that acts of desperation, reported and unreported will continue to rise as the economy continues to tumble and people are evicted from their homes and lose their jobs.

How much more corporate cock can the American taxpayers take up the ass? Is this really happening? How are lawmakers unable to act? Is this all an elaborate preamble to declaring Marshall Law anyway? This is the stuff the American taxpayers should be angry about. I can hear the safetys clicking off at the militia meetings now...
Yes, it does appear that there is an orgy at the pig-trough these days.

Btw, marshall law is likely to be unnecessary. "Warm and fuzzy despotism" was Max Weber's brilliant and insightful prediction.

That means marshall law but not in name. They will likely do the same thing the Romans did with the Empire - erect a totalitarian regime that functions entirely with the structure and forms (appearance) of the present democratic-constitutional regime. All it takes is a few minor rule changes and a collective willingness to go there.

Note: they've been making the necessary rule changes bit by bit. The "retroactive immunity" clause in the FICA legislation (that Obama voted in favor of in the last Congress) is a key element of the kind of rule changes that can and will facilitate this process. And the "willingness" certainly seems to be on the increase over time. Quite depressing this process is to observe.

[The Drunk Guy]

I suppose that's "better" than an anti-immigration racist psycho... :ummm:


Yes, it does appear that there is an orgy at the pig-trough these days.

Btw, marshall law is likely to be unnecessary. "Warm and fuzzy despotism" was Max Weber's brilliant and insightful prediction.

That means marshall law but not in name. They will likely do the same thing the Romans did with the Empire - erect a totalitarian regime that functions entirely with the structure and forms (appearance) of the present democratic-constitutional regime. All it takes is a few minor rule changes and a collective willingness to go there.

Note: they've been making the necessary rule changes bit by bit. The "retroactive immunity" clause in the FICA legislation (that Obama voted in favor of in the last Congress) is a key element of the kind of rule changes that can and will facilitate this process. And the "willingness" certainly seems to be on the increase over time. Quite depressing this process is to observe.
Guess it's time to get the old gang back together.

[Donkey]

Your assumption appears to be wrong. It seems to have been a Vietnamese American immigrant who recently lost his job at IBM.

Source (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6031421.ece)

This of course doesn't rule out the possibility that he was anti-immigrant I suppose. My prediction is that acts of desperation, reported and unreported will continue to rise as the economy continues to tumble and people are evicted from their homes and lose their jobs.


Indeed. And I am going to "cheerfully" eat crow.
I suppose that's "better" than an anti-immigration racist psycho... :ummm:
In a way, most definitely.

Bad situation all around.

[Michael]

Three cheers for Obama's speech in Turkey the other day. :)

Obama was fulfilling a campaign promise to make a major speech in a Muslim nation - as I predicted then, Turkey would be the likely location.

Obama's speech was excellent - hitting all the right notes. Obama asserted that the USA is NOT a Christian nation and is NOT at war with Islam. Obama also asserted that Turkey was part of Europe and an important ally. Obama also deserves kudos for raising the Armenian genocide stuff, though I can't imagine to what benefit this is or why he is even bothering raising that old issue (I'm guessing either Obama or the Democratic party must have some serious Armenian-American fundraising connections).

Overall, a job well done. :)

[Dominick]

Obama also asserted that Turkey was part of Europe and an important ally.
Although I agree it was none of his business to make that claim.

[Michael]

Although I agree it was none of his business to make that claim.
I'd say it is very much Obama's business to do so and that the claim is an important one to make.

Few topics expose European xenophobia (and racism) more clearly than discussions about immigration or Turkey.

Indeed, these issues show that European pubic opinions aren't much different than American public opinion on the same topics (just substitute Mexico for Turkey in US discussions). :D

[Michael]

Btw, for all the hype about the "youth vote" in the 2008 Presidential election, apparently this demographic voting level was up only 2% over 2004 - and is still a full 10% below that of any other demographic group.

It is to be noted that it was the 2004 election where the "youth vote participation rate" rose substantially (8% over 2000).

Reality is a lot less exciting than political spin. Apparently John Kerry and George W. Bush were (comparatively) more successful in drawing out the youth vote than Obama was.

[Americano]

Three cheers for Obama's speech in Turkey the other day. :)

Obama was fulfilling a campaign promise to make a major speech in a Muslim nation - as I predicted then, Turkey would be the likely location.

Obama's speech was excellent - hitting all the right notes. Obama asserted that the USA is NOT a Christian nation and is NOT at war with Islam. Obama also asserted that Turkey was part of Europe and an important ally. Obama also deserves kudos for raising the Armenian genocide stuff, though I can't imagine to what benefit this is or why he is even bothering raising that old issue (I'm guessing either Obama or the Democratic party must have some serious Armenian-American fundraising connections).

Overall, a job well done. :)

California's democratic party has heavy Armenian support. Half the 1M Armenians who reside in the US live in California and many are powers in California agriculture, that state's largest industry.

[Dominick]

I'd say it is very much Obama's business to do so and that the claim is an important one to make.
I'm sorry. I didn't realise Europe is reduced to being vassal states again. My bad.
Incidentally, the only reason the US is keen on this are the military installations in Turkey, nothing else.


Few topics expose European xenophobia (and racism) more clearly than discussions about immigration or Turkey.

Indeed, these issues show that European pubic opinions aren't much different than American public opinion on the same topics (just substitute Mexico for Turkey in US discussions). :D
The lunatic extreme right doesn't equate to 'European pubic [sic] opinions'. The process for the admission of Turkey is in the pipeline. The major obstacle here is not xenophobia but the matter of Cyprus which is a tricky one no matter how one looks at it.

[Michael]

I'm sorry. I didn't realise Europe is reduced to being vassal states again. My bad.
Incidentally, the only reason the US is keen on this are the military installations in Turkey, nothing else.
Europeans may criticize American political 'sacred cows', and Americans may criticize European political 'sacred cows'. Both positions are democratically valid without implying superiority of one over the other.

You may certainly offer the argument that Turkey does not belong in Europe, but you can't assert that the opposite argument is not permitted to be made by non-Europeans. That is as wrong as the American rightwing asserting that European opinions about America don't matter at all.

I say we are all in this mess together.

The lunatic extreme right doesn't equate to 'European pubic [sic] opinions'. The process for the admission of Turkey is in the pipeline. The major obstacle here is not xenophobia but the matter of Cyprus which is a tricky one no matter how one looks at it.
Yes, Cyprus is a tricky one I admit - but Greece is a charity case to begin with and hardly a member in good standing of the European project. Greek intransience is more a matter of political convenience for the rest of Europe on this particular issue.

Btw, my argument for Turkey's inclusion in Europe stands entirely independent of US military or US geostrategic interests. My argument would be more about Islam, secularism and the Europeanization of Turkey.

[Michael]

I've just been reading a few political blog entries from last week...

Looks like there was some rightwing 'protests' about taxes, or Obama, or socialism or something - with a very silly name for the event. Like who came up with that fiasco? Or the name of it?

Teabagging? Do these people not know what that term means???? :eek:

And the upshot is that I'm also seeing LOTS of talk about taxes - or rather, lots of ignorant talk about taxes - including some Gallup poll about taxes. I'll probably have a post-thread on that topic coming up since what I was seeing was driving me nuts. One can't have a coherent discussion about taxes in the US until the real facts are on the table. And by the looks of last week, that's one thing that is clearly missing from the discusison - and it is a discussion that really is needed.

Suffice it to say that strictly in terms of federal income taxes, the US tax system is pretty much one of the most 'progressive' income tax systems in the western world (using the term in the techincal sense of a tax that has very low rates for low income earners and a scale of increasing rates for higher incomes) - and US 'net' federal income tax levels are also the lowest in the western world. These two facts were completely missing from the discussion.

It was of course quite bizarre and entertaining to see some videos of these 'teabag' parties where a bunch of people protested against Obama lowering taxes, or against taxation with representation or something like that. :ummm:

I saw one CNN/youtube video clip that had an old retired fellow in Florida mention that he lives on Social Security - while he ranted on about the evils of socialism and high taxes. Of course, if this guy is retired and lives on Social Security, you can pretty much guarentee that he doesn't pay any income taxes either! But there he was, ranting on about the evils of socialism and paying high taxes on national television. :rofl:

Kinda makes ya wonder what the old guy has been smoking...

[Americano]

The most ironic part of the 'teabagging' movement is that it's structured by so-called conservatives who didn't have even one word of complaint when prior US administration lowered taxes, ran-up the national debt for fruitless war and allowed the Fed to flood the housing market with cheap, unregulated credit. When someone says lower taxes after that fiasco and the resulting economic decline my BS and ignorance meters both red line.

[Donkey]

Oh, some people get it... ;)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/15/anderson-cooper-its-hard_n_187318.html

[Michael]

The most ironic part of the 'teabagging' movement is that it's structured by so-called conservatives who didn't have even one word of complaint when prior US administration lowered taxes, ran-up the national debt for fruitless war and allowed the Fed to flood the housing market with cheap, unregulated credit. When someone says lower taxes after that fiasco and the resulting economic decline my BS and ignorance meters both red line.
Given that Obama's budget includes a tax cut for all taxpayers except the top 2% of income earners, you have to wonder what these guys are protesting against.

Are they objecting to Obama's tax cut? :ummm:

And I agree that Obama's tax cut is one of the all-time stupidest government policies I've ever seen - right up there with Bush's tax cut - between the two of them, I see a long term structural deficit of at least $500 to $800 billion per year. That's just dumb, short term thinking and totally rresponsible policy.

[Sucre]

The German stimulus :

We received a payment of 200 EUR for our two children - makes 100 EUR per child. (This is additionally to the 150 EUR tax refund pro child per month you get anyway...)

Now, Wow, we are going to spend sooo much that this will reaeaeally boost the German economy.

I understand that alltogether, it makes a lot of money, but reduced at the individual level, it is ridiculous. Even considering that each German citizen who has received this one-time extra 100 EUR spend it all at the same time, the effect will be short and non-lasting ...

I should have labelled this post : State Deficit Explained

[Americano]

Given that Obama's budget includes a tax cut for all taxpayers except the top 2% of income earners, you have to wonder what these guys are protesting against.

Are they objecting to Obama's tax cut? :ummm:

And I agree that Obama's tax cut is one of the all-time stupidest government policies I've ever seen - right up there with Bush's tax cut - between the two of them, I see a long term structural deficit of at least $500 to $800 billion per year. That's just dumb, short term thinking and totally rresponsible policy.

Agreed. Taxes should be increasing at the upper level to contain capital flight (Honk Kong is already showing definite signs of recovery) and provide for the social cushion that's going to be required before the US economy finds bottom.

[partofme]

I think that taxes could be dropped to a flat tax of %5 for everybody and you would still have a huge amount of Americans that would be demanding tax cuts. It's to the point in which taxes can never go up regardless of circumstances because it's such a political killer. The odd thing is that those that are against any sort of tax increase are the same people that bitch about the budget. Their goal isn't to get control of the budget but to eliminate as much government as possible. While I agree that government can be too big it can also be to small and incapable of doing anything. People are so polarized now that there is nobody wanting any sort of moderation or pragmatism at all. It's not about the facts but about the ideological dogma.

[Michael]

I think that taxes could be dropped to a flat tax of %5 for everybody and you would still have a huge amount of Americans that would be demanding tax cuts. It's to the point in which taxes can never go up regardless of circumstances because it's such a political killer. The odd thing is that those that are against any sort of tax increase are the same people that bitch about the budget. Their goal isn't to get control of the budget but to eliminate as much government as possible. While I agree that government can be too big it can also be to small and incapable of doing anything. People are so polarized now that there is nobody wanting any sort of moderation or pragmatism at all. It's not about the facts but about the ideological dogma.
What freaks me out the most about Americans and anti-tax crusading is that the ones doing it are the ones who demand the most government spending!

That is to say, the rightwing fanatics who want to invade every country on the planet and have never met a war they didn't like. Do they honestly think that Aircraft Carrier Fleets or Cruise Missiles are free?

Fact is, the US structural deficit is so massive from Bush's and Obama's tax cuts and massive Bush & Obama spending increases that even eliminating THE WHOLE NATIONAL DEFENSE budget would not be enough of a spending cut to balance the books.

In other words, raising taxes on everyone by a few points, or cutting a hundred billion in spending won't even dent this deficit. Those kind of policies just dance at the edges of the size of this deficit.

[Michael]

And please remember that Americans making less than $35,000 per year pay virtually ZERO federal income tax.

That is 46% of US taxpayers pay zero. Nothing drives me more crazy than listening to idiots who pay zero federal income tax bitching about paying taxes.

No other nation in the world has zero income taxes on the bottom 46% of income earners.

[partofme]

And please remember that Americans making less than $35,000 per year pay virtually ZERO federal income tax.

That is 46% of US taxpayers pay zero. Nothing drives me more crazy than listening to idiots who pay zero federal income tax bitching about paying taxes.

No other nation in the world has zero income taxes on the bottom 46% of income earners.

That's the oddest thing since these guys always pick on the federal government and think government should be less centralized. The taxes they pay help fund the local government they are more positive about.

[Dominick]

Why monarchies are all wrong :

Today a guy attempted to drive his car into the bus that carried the Dutch royal family at the occasion of Queen's Day in Holland. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8026807.stm). He didn't get near the bus and crashed into a roadside monument. He's now charged with 'an attempt to attack members of the royal family'.

But to arrive in the proximity of said bus, he drove through the crowds watching the bus, killing 4, severely injuring 5 and lightly injuring another 5. He is at this moment NOT charged with anything relating to that aspect of the attack.

In other words, 4 dead and 10 injured Untermenschen mean jack shit compared to inconveniencing the royal Ubermenschen.

[Michael]

Why monarchies are all wrong :

Today a guy attempted to drive his car into the bus that carried the Dutch royal family at the occasion of Queen's Day in Holland. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8026807.stm). He didn't get near the bus and crashed into a roadside monument. He's now charged with 'an attempt to attack members of the royal family'.

But to arrive in the proximity of said bus, he drove through the crowds watching the bus, killing 4, severely injuring 5 and lightly injuring another 5. He is at this moment NOT charged with anything relating to that aspect of the attack.

In other words, 4 dead and 10 injured Untermenschen mean jack shit compared to inconveniencing the royal Ubermenschen.
I see no reason that this is a unique property of monarchs.

Such antics are common to celebrities and/or Presidents.

For example, if some crackpot takes a shot at the President of the USA and manages to kill a Secret Service member in the process, every newspaper and media report will talk only of the "attempted assassination" of the President. It will be as if that dead Secret Service member wasn't worth nothing.

That being said, what in God's name was that bourgeios Monarch doing riding a bloody bus in the first place? That's just pathetic. Coach and four or nothing! And should have had a battalion of Royal Horse Guards too - they would have charged down the lunatic pretty quick!

[Dominick]

I see no reason that this is a unique property of monarchs.

Such antics are common to celebrities and/or Presidents.

For example, if some crackpot takes a shot at the President of the USA and manages to kill a Secret Service member in the process, every newspaper and media report will talk only of the "attempted assassination" of the President. It will be as if that dead Secret Service member wasn't worth nothing.
This isn't about the media. It's about the equivalent of what in the US would be the District Attorney. It's about the attacker NOT being charged with 5 counts of manslaughter and 10 of assault and battery. The only charge (so far) is 'attempting an attack on members of the royal family'. It's the DA, not the media that is ignoring the casualties in the run-up to said attempt. This is about pure and unadulterated class justice.

[Michael]

This isn't about the media. It's about the equivalent of what in the US would be the District Attorney. It's about the attacker NOT being charged with 5 counts of manslaughter and 10 of assault and battery. The only charge (so far) is 'attempting an attack on members of the royal family'. It's the DA, not the media that is ignoring the casualties in the run-up to said attempt. This is about pure and unadulterated class justice.
That's sick.

I can't imagine charges being laid that ignore the other people injured. That's definitely bizarre.

Over here, we tend to throw every possible charge at someone when they are charged with anything as that gives maximum leverage for the prosecutors. They can drop (or plea bargain) some lesser charges later on before trial if they can't support all of them with available legal evidence.

[Dominick]

That's sick.

I can't imagine charges being laid that ignore the other people injured. That's definitely bizarre.

Over here, we tend to throw every possible charge at someone when they are charged with anything as that gives maximum leverage for the prosecutors. They can drop (or plea bargain) some lesser charges later on before trial if they can't support all of them with available legal evidence.
Now that the attacker is dead, there are mentions of 'would have' been charged with murder or manslaughter. I guess we'll never know how it would have turned out.

[Michael]

I'm not sure what to make of this story...

Apparently, I.F. Stone has been 'outed' as a longtime KGB-Soviet spy.

When new information about Americans who had cooperated with the Soviet KGB began to emerge in the 1990s, no individual case generated as much controversy as that of the journalist I.F. Stone, who had long been installed in the pantheon of left-wing heroes as a symbol of rectitude and a teller of truth to power before his death in 1989. Charges about Stone’s connections with the KGB have been swirling about for more than a decade, prompting cries of outrage among his passionate followers. Until now, the evidence was equivocal and subject to different interpretations. No longer.

Source (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/i-f%E2%80%94stone%E2%80%94soviet-agent-case-closed-15120)

My only connection to I.F.Stone is his book The Trial of Socrates. I wasn't aware that he was a journalist or what significant he had as one. I normally assume a very low intellectual opinion of anyone with the "journalist" label - this serves me rather well since it is rarely wrong. Journalists are ALWAYS the most hardcore ideologues out there.

[Michael]

:rant:

For the last couple of weeks, the Tamil community in Toronto has been ranting, raving, protesting and blocking traffic and generally making a major nuisance of itself.

They are ostensibly protesting in front of the US Consulate in Toronto, demanding that Obama and the US Government do something about the plight of the poor Tamil (terrorist) secessionist movement on the verge of being defeated by the Sri Lankan government forces - and using some 100,000 poor Tamils as 'human shields' in their desperation for survival.

This is the most absurd public protest I've ever seen. Apparently the Tamils expatriates are desperate to 'raise awareness' of this issue. I have news for the Tamils - raising awareness of the Tamil issue is NOT in the interests of the protesters!

Fact is, pretty much every Tamil-affiliated organization outside of Sri Lanka is on everyone's terrorist-watch lists. The Tamils, a minority in Sri Lanka, have been engaged in a long running secessionist movement in Sri Lanka (so-named the Tamil Tigers) for many years now. They have a long history of using violent terrorist tactics and generally indiscriminate violence. According to studies I've read, the ENTIRE funding of this terrorist organization comes from expatriate Tamil communities around the world (like the ones doing the protesting in Toronto).

And there these people are blocking traffic and disrupting commerce in my fair city in support of a cause that, officially speaking, the Government and people of Canada completely supports the Sri Lankan government efforts (as does the US Government, EU and UN) in the extermination of the Tamil Tiger criminal-terrorist organization.

Do these idiot protesters believe that anyone is going to support their terrorist sponsored insurrection? Get real. Most of the planet is happy to see some progress here towards the end of the ongoing bloodshed caused by the Tamil Tigers. In all probability, half the protestors in Toronto could probably be charged with criminal offenses in Canada if we examined their tax records (for remittances to Tamil-related Terrorist supporting organizations).

The self-serving motives and remarkable level of ignorance of political reality is rather striking here - more so than with most other political protests. That is to say, if the protest goal of raising awareness of the issue is successful, that could bring serious harm to the protesters themselves - that is to say, if Canadians actually paid enough attention to the issue to bother caring about it, I'd expect to hear calls for the riot police to just round up the terrorist-loving rabble protesting on the street and ship them back to where they came from. Let them all become 'human shields' for the cowardly Tamil Tigers - the expatriate Tamil community deserve such a fate with their long standing support of the Tamil Tigers.

Hopefully the Sri Lankan government continues to have success in dealing with these terrorists. I only wish we could do something about these obnoxious terrorist supporters over here.

As always, I say to those who are obsessed with the politics of 'the home country' - if that politics is so important to you, put your money where your mouth is and go back 'home' to deal with it. They are a blight on our otherwise fair country. It is tiresome when the visitors spit on the carpet like that.

:rant:

[Donkey]

The Tigers seem pretty shitty, but it does seem like both the TT and the Sri Lankan government have little to no regard for civilian lives. That should be protested.

[Michael]

The Tigers seem pretty shitty, but it does seem like both the TT and the Sri Lankan government have little to no regard for civilian lives. That should be protested.
They are not protesting that at all. They are demanding that the US/UN/UE "solve" the problem by stopping the Sri Lankan government from making war against the Tamil Tigers (which is complete nonsense since Canada and US strongly support the Sri Lankan government here).

I agree that the Sri Lankan government has hardly been a model of propriety in dealing with the Tamil Tigers. I don't think that changes anything here. I have some sympathy for governments dealing with hardcore seccessionist movements using terrorist tactics (exactly what the Tamil Tigers have been).

I normally don't get too worked up about criminals killing other criminals, so one set of terrorists killing another doesn't cause me any sorrow.

[Michael]

'I'm very serious about running,' Ron Paul's son says

(CNN) - The son of former Republican presidential hopeful Rep. Ron Paul said Monday that he is primed to mount a bid for the Kentucky Senate seat currently occupied by GOP Sen. Jim Bunning.

"I am very serious about running for Sen. Bunning's seat if he decides not to run," 46-year-old Rand Paul told CNN.
"Until he makes a final pronouncement, I'm trying not to do anything formally but I'm very close to making a decision."

The younger Paul's views closely resemble those of his conservative father.

Source (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/04/im-very-serious-about-running-ron-pauls-son-says/)

Rand Paul. Holy crap you just can't make this stuff up! :rofl:

[Americano]

We have a Kentuckian on the board, any perception on his chances of success if he does run?

[partofme]

We have a Kentuckian on the board, any perception on his chances of success if he does run?

I doubt he would do well. Ron Paul is only really popular here with college kids that have gotten hooked on the whole libertarian thing. What sells here is social conservatism. From what I've heard Bunning is having trouble raising funds and McConnel (Republican leader in the senate and the other senator from Kentucky) doesn't want Bunning to run. I can't remember the name but I know somebody else plans on running in the republican primary and is expected to be supported by the G.O.P. and the only question has been if Bunning will bother trying to run or not. He is really unpredictable and unstable so there is no telling.

[Americano]

I doubt he would do well. Ron Paul is only really popular here with college kids that have gotten hooked on the whole libertarian thing. What sells here is social conservatism. From what I've heard Bunning is having trouble raising funds and McConnel (Republican leader in the senate and the other senator from Kentucky) doesn't want Bunning to run. I can't remember the name but I know somebody else plans on running in the republican primary and is expected to be supported by the G.O.P. and the only question has been if Bunning will bother trying to run or not. He is really unpredictable and unstable so there is no telling.

That's the South, a majority of bible people praying for social reversion back to when cotton was king.

[Michael]

I agree with partofme... despite the appearances of the 'teabag parties', the Ron Paul supporter demographic generally wasn't really coming from the typical 'hardcore' rightwing conservatives, social conservatives or the 'education-challenged rural white working class' types that are often the backbone of the Republican voting coalition.

I think Minnesota or New Hampshire are much better electoral ground for someone running on a 'state-wide' election with 'Ron Paul-like' policy views (ie. outside the mainstream). Ron Paul's core ground is 'libertarianism' and that doesn't sell well in the 'southern' states at all. Kentucky isn't fully southern, but isn't exactly 'northern' either. Sort of a cross between 'southern' and 'midwestern' it seems for their politics and that's not Ron Paul type turf.

I'd expect the Republican machine to work pretty hard behind the scenes to prevent giving Ron Paul's son a power-base in the Senate.

[Michael]

Here's something to keep in mind the next time the Washington media talks about how the public doesn't support cap & trade...

Given a choice of three options, just 24% of voters can correctly identify the cap-and-trade proposal as something that deals with environmental issues. A slightly higher number (29%) believe the proposal has something to do with regulating Wall Street while 17% think the term applies to health care reform. A plurality (30%) have no idea.

Source (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/environment/congress_pushes_cap_and_trade_but_just_24_know_wha t_it_is)

Keep in mind that the Washington media has been talking about how the public doesn't support cap & trade policies - based on polls saying so.

This poll indicates what many 'opinion poll skeptics' have been saying for a long time - the results are bogus.

How can 50-60% of Americans be opposed to 'cap & trade' policy if only 24% actually know what it is? You can be sure that the mass media will not work very hard to inform the public on this one. It is apparently against the vested interest of their corporate owners to do so.

Bonus Question: Why is it that the issues where it is found that American people have the least knowledge or believe the most wrong information are those issues that are most strongly supported by Washington media and the Republican party?

[Dominick]

So what is cap & trade ?

[Evangeline]

So what is cap & trade ?

From what I understand it is there is a capped of amount pollution you can emit and you can trade the allowable amount of emissions to others, that you aren't using, of the capped amount.

Does that make sense?

That way, there is a set amount of pollution allowable nationwide. Companies that emit more can buy extra, and companies that don't use the allowable amount can sell their extras to bigger polluters. This gives an incentive to companies to pollute less in order to save money. Money is the bottom line in a capitalist society, so in order change things, money talks.

I'm going to admit there are peoplee here who are much smarter than I, so I'll ask, do I have that right?

[Michael]

From what I understand it is there is a capped of amount pollution you can emit and you can trade the allowable amount of emissions to others, that you aren't using, of the capped amount.

Does that make sense?
That's the idea in a nutshell.

The goal is to impose a cost on the 'externality' of pollution emitted and reward those with environmentally sustainable practices. The logic is that private companies will do their best to reduce this cost.

According to most economists and studies on the topic, this is generally considered to be the best approach for addressing greenhouse gas emissions.

[partofme]

That's the idea in a nutshell.

The goal is to impose a cost on the 'externality' of pollution emitted and reward those with environmentally sustainable practices. The logic is that private companies will do their best to reduce this cost.

According to most economists and studies on the topic, this is generally considered to be the best approach for addressing greenhouse gas emissions.


I've read many economics that are much more in favor of a carbon tax simply because it's less complicated and it's hard to say at what point it should be capped. to get the most benefit and the least negative side effects.

[Michael]

I've read many economics that are much more in favor of a carbon tax simply because it's less complicated and it's hard to say at what point it should be capped. to get the most benefit and the least negative side effects.
That's basically a rightwing bait-and-switch plan for status quo politics. I'm talking about politics, not economics here. Politics rules this issue. Economists have ignored/dismissed pollution as an "externality" for too many decades to be taken seriously on the issue of how to deal with it now.

A carbon tax is massively regressive - which means it hits poor people harder than rich people. Now the rightwing knows the leftwing won't go for that - or if it does, they have to bring in a big 'tax credit' system to offset the hit on poor people. This makes the tax & giveaway to poor people very easy for the right to attack.

Similarly, a carbon tax would likely act like any other tax - something that Republicans can campaign for cutting it or gutting it when they get in office.

Ergo, the rightwing politically favors the 'carbon tax' type proposal - as a way to manage the process in their favor. It is a very traditional form of tax that they feel most comfortable about dealing with.

A cap and trade system is one that is quite likely to become supra-national soon enough, given that Europe has one too, and that means international tribunals for disputes and all the stuff the rightwing hates the most about the UN, NAFTA and WTO - technocratic decisions made on the merits of the case alone - by bureaucrats outside the ability of the US political system to control.

[Dominick]

Ah, that nonsense. Leave it to economics and politicians to come up with a "solution" that doesn't address the actual problem. :rolleyes:
If one doesn't accept that CO2 is a problem, one should do nothing. If one accepts it is, one should simply cease and desist ALL CO2 production. Making a business out of it is cynicism².

[Evangeline]

If only it were so simple. I'm afraid cease and desist would collapse the world economies. Even worse than now!

[Dominick]

If only it were so simple. I'm afraid cease and desist would collapse the world economies. Even worse than now!
IF (and I stress the IF doubly) it's a problem then the atmosphere is at risk and thus all life on the planet. Wanna buy a condo on Mars ? :D

[Michael]

IF (and I stress the IF doubly) it's a problem then the atmosphere is at risk and thus all life on the planet. Wanna buy a condo on Mars ? :D
I thought you liked gambling? :D

[Americano]

Ah, that nonsense. Leave it to economics and politicians to come up with a "solution" that doesn't address the actual problem. :rolleyes:
If one doesn't accept that CO2 is a problem, one should do nothing. If one accepts it is, one should simply cease and desist ALL CO2 production. Making a business out of it is cynicism².

Politicians elected to office by representation are by necessity focused on short-term economics. As an example I offer the economic scenario leading up to the bank fiasco.

[Dominick]

Politicians elected to office by representation are by necessity focused on short-term economics. As an example I offer the economic scenario leading up to the bank fiasco.
Indeed. And the prime reason I'm no small d democrat.

[partofme]

That's basically a rightwing bait-and-switch plan for status quo politics. I'm talking about politics, not economics here. Politics rules this issue. Economists have ignored/dismissed pollution as an "externality" for too many decades to be taken seriously on the issue of how to deal with it now.

A carbon tax is massively regressive - which means it hits poor people harder than rich people. Now the rightwing knows the leftwing won't go for that - or if it does, they have to bring in a big 'tax credit' system to offset the hit on poor people. This makes the tax & giveaway to poor people very easy for the right to attack.

Similarly, a carbon tax would likely act like any other tax - something that Republicans can campaign for cutting it or gutting it when they get in office.

Ergo, the rightwing politically favors the 'carbon tax' type proposal - as a way to manage the process in their favor. It is a very traditional form of tax that they feel most comfortable about dealing with.

A cap and trade system is one that is quite likely to become supra-national soon enough, given that Europe has one too, and that means international tribunals for disputes and all the stuff the rightwing hates the most about the UN, NAFTA and WTO - technocratic decisions made on the merits of the case alone - by bureaucrats outside the ability of the US political system to control.

Plus it has the word tax in it. People here hate taxes no matter what they or for or on. It's knee jerk reaction to hate anything with the word in it.

[Evangeline]

Plus it has the word tax in it. People here hate taxes no matter what they or for or on. It's knee jerk reaction to hate anything with the word in it.

Another one of those words besides liberal and partisan that the Republicans have made into a dirty word.

How do they do this? That's the one thing I "admire", if you can call it admiration, about the Republicans. They have some sort of magic over getting a message out and making it stick. Democrats use too much logic and reason. Republicans are skilled at using emotional hot buttons.

[The Drunk Guy]

Another one of those words besides liberal and partisan that the Republicans have made into a dirty word.

How do they do this? That's the one thing I "admire", if you can call it admiration, about the Republicans. They have some sort of magic over getting a message out and making it stick. Democrats use too much logic and reason. Republicans are skilled at using emotional hot buttons.
Yeah, logic and reason. Logic and reason tell me that bailing out Wall Street is single most destructive thing ever done by a government. Ever.

[Michael]

Yeah, logic and reason. Logic and reason tell me that bailing out Wall Street is single most destructive thing ever done by a government. Ever.
Well, I'm no fan of the bailout, but this pales in comparison with some of the horrific government decisions of the past.

The government housing projects of the 1950s and 1960s are right up there - they bulldozed entire neighborhoods in order to erect large concrete slab apartment towers that immediately turned into massive slums that still haunt American cities (and British and French suburbs) to this day.

That was government caused human misery on a big scale.

(Incidentally, Toronto has been methodically bulldozing these slum towers and returning the neighborhoods to mixed use development - we've just torn down and rebuilt the largest government housing project in Canada - it is now no longer the largest!) :)

[Michael]

Another one of those words besides liberal and partisan that the Republicans have made into a dirty word.

How do they do this? That's the one thing I "admire", if you can call it admiration, about the Republicans. They have some sort of magic over getting a message out and making it stick. Democrats use too much logic and reason. Republicans are skilled at using emotional hot buttons.

This is a topic that I've been looking at for a quite a while. It is indeed quite interesting how it is done or why it works.

I'll probably start a thread in the next few days to discuss my thoughts on how this process actually functions. :)

[drgoodtrips]

Well, I'm no fan of the bailout, but this pales in comparison with some of the horrific government decisions of the past.

The government housing projects of the 1950s and 1960s are right up there - they bulldozed entire neighborhoods in order to erect large concrete slab apartment towers that immediately turned into massive slums that still haunt American cities (and British and French suburbs) to this day.

That was government caused human misery on a big scale.

(Incidentally, Toronto has been methodically bulldozing these slum towers and returning the neighborhoods to mixed use development - we've just torn down and rebuilt the largest government housing project in Canada - it is now no longer the largest!) :)

Much as I despise a lot of things about the way the city is run, Chicago has done that too, and I applaud that. They tore down a lot of the notorious slums and instead integrated Section 8 (government subsidized for the poor) Housing in normal neighborhoods. It's had a very positive effect all around. When I lived in the city, there was a Section 8 building in my neighborhood. It wasn't a little pocket of "ghetto" or anything like that - just another building in the neighborhood.

[bug]

Ug, I don't know how I feel about section 8. My senior year of high school, the craziest things would get was the one or two fights during passing periods, and the selling of fake acid. Just a few years later, post-section 8, there's gangs, weapons, cops everywhere, dropouts skyrocketing...the only step in the right direction is that you could probably get real acid. My high school was preciously known as a middle class, decent (though kinda yuppy) place to send your kids, and now it's somewhere you go to get killed. Well, maybe killed is an exaggeration, but the stories my little bro told made me a little nervous for him--and I couldn't belive he was talking about the same place.

[Michael]

Ug, I don't know how I feel about section 8. My senior year of high school, the craziest things would get was the one or two fights during passing periods, and the selling of fake acid. Just a few years later, post-section 8, there's gangs, weapons, cops everywhere, dropouts skyrocketing...the only step in the right direction is that you could probably get real acid. My high school was preciously known as a middle class, decent (though kinda yuppy) place to send your kids, and now it's somewhere you go to get killed. Well, maybe killed is an exaggeration, but the stories my little bro told made me a little nervous for him--and I couldn't belive he was talking about the same place.
The phenomena of metal detectors in schools, robbery, violence and gangs in American schools has been rising over the last ten-twenty years right across the USA. The same issues are found in schools in wealthy suburban enclaves in upstate New Hamphire (for example) and all across the USA.

That is to say, that Section 8 housing program isn't likely to be the culprit of this particular 'violent schools' phenomena.

I've seen comparative rates for assaulted teachers from the US and Canada and the figures are mind-numbingly large and shocking. Violent assault against public school teachers in the US is becoming epidemic in proportion. This is NOT limited to inner-city schools as so many want to believe. If anything, the numbers from the upscale suburban schools are the most shocking.

[The Drunk Guy]

If anything, the numbers from the upscale suburban schools are the most shocking.
Maybe their teachers flunked them for forgetting the names of the Norse pantheon's pets.

:ummm:

[SMadsen]

Another one of those words besides liberal and partisan that the Republicans have made into a dirty word.

How do they do this? That's the one thing I "admire", if you can call it admiration, about the Republicans. They have some sort of magic over getting a message out and making it stick. Democrats use too much logic and reason. Republicans are skilled at using emotional hot buttons.
Here's a site for you then: Conservapedia.com (http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page). It can make you spend days in deep admiration of rightwing magic.

[Multiplum]

Here's a site for you then: Conservapedia.com (http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page). It can make you spend days in deep admiration of rightwing magic.
The power to manipulate context.

Evolutionist (http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution) and atheist (http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism) Richard Dawkins said in an interview: “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler (http://www.conservapedia.com/Adolf_Hitler) wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question."With a picture of Hitler to illustrate just what kind of person we're talking about. The average conservapedia reader can now draw a line: Dawkins -> nazi.

I just picked a random article to see if it was that bad.

Edit:
:ummm:

A liberal is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing.
A conservative adheres to principles of limited government, personal responsibility and moral values, agreeing with George Washington (http://www.conservapedia.com/George_Washington)'s Farewell Address (http://www.conservapedia.com/Farewell_Address) that "religion and morality are indispensable supports" to political prosperity.

[The Drunk Guy]

The power to manipulate context.

With a picture of Hitler to illustrate just what kind of person we're talking about. The average conservapedia reader can now draw a line: Dawkins -> nazi.

I just picked a random article to see if it was that bad.

Edit:
:ummm:
I just had to follow a link and look at the article about atheism. So, now I will spend my morning pissed off at the ignorance of conservatives and their propaganda tactics.:mad:

[SMadsen]

It's mindnumbing to think that there actually is a market for that shit. I'm in constant awe.

[Michael]

Greendruid made a comment a day or two ago and I was meaning to reply to it but can't find it now.

He said something about how Canada doesn't have separation of Church and State and this bothered him.

I just wanted to point out that although Canada and UK don't actually have official 'separation of Church and State', I'd argue that these two nations really do have more 'defacto' separation of Church and State than the USA does - where it actually legally is obliged.

For example, I do know that Obama is a Protestant, as was McCain, GW Bush, Al Gore and Bill Clinton. As a matter of fact, I believe Obama is of the Methodist Church, while most of the others were of the Southern Baptist faction. John Kerry was a Roman Catholic. This is all of the top Presidential candidates of the last 20 years.

Now, I don't have a clue whether Tony Blair is protestant or catholic, likewise with Gordon Brown. Now I do know that Stephen Harper is an evangelical protestant but that's a remarkable exception to the rule here. I have no idea if Paul Martin was protestant or catholic. I could probably guess that Chretien was Roman Catholic, but that's only because he's Quebec French and most of them are catholic - I've never seen any mention of the topic.

That should show that US politics is inornately obsessed with religion in a way that Canada and UK clearly are not. We just don't care if our PM is catholic or protestant and no one ever raises that issue at all.

That really is separation of church and state.

[Michael]

It's mindnumbing to think that there actually is a market for that shit. I'm in constant awe.
I'm not surprised that people make up this kind of crap. Partisans do that kind of thing all the time.

What is odd is that they can get big league rightwing sponsorship for these kind of undertakings and actually get paid very good wages to do it. Now THAT really is amazing.

[drgoodtrips]

Greendruid made a comment a day or two ago and I was meaning to reply to it but can't find it now.

He said something about how Canada doesn't have separation of Church and State and this bothered him.

I just wanted to point out that although Canada and UK don't actually have official 'separation of Church and State', I'd argue that these two nations really do have more 'defacto' separation of Church and State than the USA does - where it actually legally is obliged.

For example, I do know that Obama is a Protestant, as was McCain, GW Bush, Al Gore and Bill Clinton. As a matter of fact, I believe Obama is of the Methodist Church, while most of the others were of the Southern Baptist faction. John Kerry was a Roman Catholic. This is all of the top Presidential candidates of the last 20 years.

Now, I don't have a clue whether Tony Blair is protestant or catholic, likewise with Gordon Brown. Now I do know that Stephen Harper is an evangelical protestant but that's a remarkable exception to the rule here. I have no idea if Paul Martin was protestant or catholic. I could probably guess that Chretien was Roman Catholic, but that's only because he's Quebec French and most of them are catholic - I've never seen any mention of the topic.

That should show that US politics is inornately obsessed with religion in a way that Canada and UK clearly are not. We just don't care if our PM is catholic or protestant and no one ever raises that issue at all.

That really is separation of church and state.

FWIW, Blair was a Protestant throughout his tenure in office and afterward converted to Roman Catholicism. I believe it was for family reasons. He was on Jon Stewart's show a while back, explaining why he converted and why he waited until he left office. He talked about how it was a private matter and also that he didn't think it was right to bring that kind of focus to a particular religion while in office. Jon Stewart and him talked about the difference between how that went over in Great Britain and how it would have gone in the US. Interesting interview.

[drgoodtrips]

Ug, I don't know how I feel about section 8. My senior year of high school, the craziest things would get was the one or two fights during passing periods, and the selling of fake acid. Just a few years later, post-section 8, there's gangs, weapons, cops everywhere, dropouts skyrocketing...the only step in the right direction is that you could probably get real acid. My high school was preciously known as a middle class, decent (though kinda yuppy) place to send your kids, and now it's somewhere you go to get killed. Well, maybe killed is an exaggeration, but the stories my little bro told made me a little nervous for him--and I couldn't belive he was talking about the same place.

Changing demographics...

But, what I was talking about is how, in general, diffusing people living in poverty rather than concentrating them seems to be a better approach. It goes to the "broken window" idea. If you have a nice neighborhood that has a few wealthy people, a bunch of middle class people, and a few section 8 people, there will be a lot less tolerance for violent shenanigans or even petty vandalism or homes in disrepair. Of the changing demographic in your area, I'm wondering how much of it might have arisen (assuming the problem went beyond the high school) as a result of concentrated poverty, as opposed to section 8 itself.

Also, I'm no advocate of section 8 housing, per se, or entitlements in general. Though, section 8 is better than some, since it at least makes the tenants pay some portion of their rent.

And finally, I saw this today:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/detroit_mayor_throws_first_brick?utm_source=a-section

Don't know why, exactly, but it made me thing of this conversation.

[Michael]

FWIW, Blair was a Protestant throughout his tenure in office and afterward converted to Roman Catholicism. I believe it was for family reasons. He was on Jon Stewart's show a while back, explaining why he converted and why he waited until he left office. He talked about how it was a private matter and also that he didn't think it was right to bring that kind of focus to a particular religion while in office. Jon Stewart and him talked about the difference between how that went over in Great Britain and how it would have gone in the US. Interesting interview.
I suppose the fact that Blair had to get interviewed for American tv for the topic to become public is futher evidence of the point I'm making here.

In the USA, religion is always political. Elsewhere, not so much.

[drgoodtrips]

I suppose the fact that Blair had to get interviewed for American tv for the topic to become public is futher evidence of the point I'm making here.

In the USA, religion is always political. Elsewhere, not so much.

Very much so. I think they even touched on why religion was such a political issue in the US versus over there (though I don't remember what they said, unfortunately).

[Dominick]

Very much so. I think they even touched on why religion was such a political issue in the US versus over there (though I don't remember what they said, unfortunately).
Is this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYrnbK5QmVc)the interview you're referring to ?

[drgoodtrips]

Don't watch videos at work, so I don't know. :shrug:

[Greendruid]

Greendruid made a comment a day or two ago and I was meaning to reply to it but can't find it now.

He said something about how Canada doesn't have separation of Church and State and this bothered him.

I just wanted to point out that although Canada and UK don't actually have official 'separation of Church and State', I'd argue that these two nations really do have more 'defacto' separation of Church and State than the USA does - where it actually legally is obliged.

For example, I do know that Obama is a Protestant, as was McCain, GW Bush, Al Gore and Bill Clinton. As a matter of fact, I believe Obama is of the Methodist Church, while most of the others were of the Southern Baptist faction. John Kerry was a Roman Catholic. This is all of the top Presidential candidates of the last 20 years.

Now, I don't have a clue whether Tony Blair is protestant or catholic, likewise with Gordon Brown. Now I do know that Stephen Harper is an evangelical protestant but that's a remarkable exception to the rule here. I have no idea if Paul Martin was protestant or catholic. I could probably guess that Chretien was Roman Catholic, but that's only because he's Quebec French and most of them are catholic - I've never seen any mention of the topic.

That should show that US politics is inornately obsessed with religion in a way that Canada and UK clearly are not. We just don't care if our PM is catholic or protestant and no one ever raises that issue at all.

That really is separation of church and state.

I think that not knowing or caring about the religion of your country's leader is a rather shallow assessment of the separation of church and state in a place. As I approach my imminent fatherhood, I've become interested in the school system here and the sorts of things our friends' kids are made to do in school on a daily or even seasonal basis. And perhaps it is our own very different pagan beliefs that underscore the problem more than what you might notice as an adeist.

For instance - Christmas concerts involving carols and plays about Jesus have mandatory participation in grade schools. Celebration of Easter through the design and colouring of Easter eggs, bunnies, etc. (yes, these are pagan commercialised symbols of Easter but, nonetheless Easter) is a week-long "theme" in public schools. So is St. Patrick's Day. These are all surviving under some guise of popularised holidays that the entire nation partakes in and are somehow deemed part of our national character. Absurd!

Looking further to the society at large. I know that in Toronto you'll find plenty of places open for business on Christmas Day. Try to find one around here on either that or the 24th and you'll be out of luck. Easter is the same. The innundation of grocery stores with Christmas music espousing the glory of the birth of Jesus reaches a sickening level by about the beginning of December for me.

If separation of church and state was actually applied, public schools would be purged of this sort of thing. Expression of relgion in the curriculum should be removed in any way, including the pagan versions of such in my opinion. Children are exposed to enough majority religious messages through the general public, we should at least remove the barrage from the public school system that is supported by my tax dollars. If we can afford it, my child(ren) will be attending private school until high school. There is no private high school here. Hopefully they'll not find the same experiences in the high school system.

[Michael]

I notice the fact that the Brits have banned Michael Savage (obnoxious American radio jock) from entering the UK.

This doesn't seem newsworthy.

What does seems striking is to hear the noise of rightwingers screaming about 'censorship' or some nonsense, or level critiques against the British government of political correctness or whatever.

Do these Americans not realize that the list of people banned from entering the USA is like a mile or two long - and heresay is sufficient cause to be put on it?

Seriously.

The US will also not publicize the list, admit who's on it or notify anyone that they are on it or why. The Brits are at least open about it. One can even appeal to Parliament to have it lifted.

[Michael]

Gosh, wouldn't it be funny if the crazy Republican crusade against Pelosi were to end up causing the very investigation into torture that the Republicans have been fighting tooth and nail to prevent?

That would be delicious irony. One doesn't get to skewer both parties at the same time very often.

And NOTHING is as unattractive to either party in Washington than a full investigation of the torture issue, who authorized it, when did they do it, who knew about it and who crossed the legal lines.

Sure the Republicans will take 90% of the blame there, but don't kid yourselves, the Democratic leadership in Washington is hopelessly comprimised by their complicity in authorizing torture. And a 90 to 10 ratio of actual blame will equal 50-50 once the media gets its hands on the result and after a couple of weeks on Fox and the cable news shows, one may begin to wonder if the Republicans were ever involved in that torture issue at all after Nancy Pelosi wrote all the memos, ordered the torture and then lied about it under oath.

That's where this is heading...

[drgoodtrips]

Gosh, wouldn't it be funny if the crazy Republican crusade against Pelosi were to end up causing the very investigation into torture that the Republicans have been fighting tooth and nail to prevent?

That's the part that I'm really not understanding. As I watch all of this stuff about Pelosi and how she should be prosecuted, it seems to be coming from the "We need to torture people because it's what Jack Bauer would do" crowd. Usually, I can wrap my head around whatever tiny grain of logic exists in idiotic partisan screaming, but this one has me thoroughly stumped.

How is it that the pro-torture crowd can demand that Pelosi be indicted for something and not see it as an inevitability that, if she is in fact, legally culpable for knowing about torture and doing nothing, that the architects of the torture will be indicted for something much, much worse? That is, if you're clamoring for punishment of Pelosi, aren't you necessary clamoring for subsequent, harsher punishments for Bush, Rummy, Cheney, and the gang?

I haven't been able to decipher their angle. Can anyone help me out here, and construct some kind of scenario, however, half-assed, in which Pelosi is guilty of something and the Bush administration comes out smelling like roses (or at least neutral)?

[dilettante]

I haven't been able to decipher their angle. Can anyone help me out here, and construct some kind of scenario, however, half-assed, in which Pelosi is guilty of something and the Bush administration comes out smelling like roses (or at least neutral)?

The goal is to condemn Pelosi for hypocrisy, not torture; torture is just a means to that end.

In other words, the objective isn't to have anyone prosecuted for torture, but to strip the Democrat's of any moral high-ground related to torture and make them appear to be nothing more partisan, hypocritical liars. The message isn't "Pelosi is bad for supporting torture," but rather "Everyone supported torture, but while the Republicans are willing to admit it the Democrats/Pelosi are lying about it for partisan advantage." People are split on how they feel about "enchanced interrogation," but everyone hates a hypocrite.
And, of course, there's always the hope that by tying Pelosi to torture they can force the Democrats to give up farther investigations.

Anyway, that's my read on their plan (such as it is).

[drgoodtrips]

The goal is to condemn Pelosi for hypocrisy, not torture; torture is just a means to that end.

In other words, the objective isn't to have anyone prosecuted for torture, but to strip the Democrat's of any moral high-ground related to torture and make them appear to be nothing more partisan, hypocritical liars. The message isn't "Pelosi is bad for supporting torture," but rather "Everyone supported torture, but while the Republicans are willing to admit it the Democrats/Pelosi are lying about it for partisan advantage." People are split on how they feel about "enchanced interrogation," but everyone hates a hypocrite.
And, of course, there's always the hope that by tying Pelosi to torture they can force the Democrats to give up farther investigations.

Anyway, that's my read on their plan (such as it is).

Ah, okay, that makes sense. I think that what confused the issue for me was some thread over on USPO that said something like "Should Pelosi be prosecuted". Now that I think about it, I don't know if I've seen any actual GOP politicians or pundits bandying this about.

If that is their plan, I suppose it's as good as any other when the party's current state is that Captain Torture himself is grabbing headlines as the party spokesperson and telling Colin Powell to get out. I think they're walking a fine line, however, in continuing to put this issue in the spotlight, even filtered through Pelosi's hypocrisy on the matter. I mean, in terms of appealing to the middle, neither Pelosi nor the GOP is particularly popular. And, if they're going to link themselves indelibly to someone on the other side, it doesn't really make sense to tie your whole party to one more extreme politician from the other side. Not much of a trade. If the GOP wants to wear the "Party of Torture" mantle, I'm sure the Democrats will throw Pelosi under the bus without a backward glance toward that end.

[dilettante]

If that is their plan, I suppose it's as good as any other when the party's current state is that Captain Torture himself is grabbing headlines as the party spokesperson and telling Colin Powell to get out. I think they're walking a fine line, however, in continuing to put this issue in the spotlight, even filtered through Pelosi's hypocrisy on the matter. I mean, in terms of appealing to the middle, neither Pelosi nor the GOP is particularly popular. And, if they're going to link themselves indelibly to someone on the other side, it doesn't really make sense to tie your whole party to one more extreme politician from the other side. Not much of a trade. If the GOP wants to wear the "Party of Torture" mantle, I'm sure the Democrats will throw Pelosi under the bus without a backward glance toward that end.

It is odd to see Republicans spotlighting torture. Last week on the radio Limbaugh was saying (sarcastically? I'm never 100% sure with him) that Pelosi deserved a medal for not opposing torture in the past because had she done so we wouldn't have been able to save all those lives by torturing information out of terrorists. Its really a twisted line of reasoning.

Anyway, I doubt the party has the discipline to control who says what these days. They may just have to go down in flames before they can get their act together, which is a shame. I'm not a particular fan of the GOP, but I think the country always needs a coherent opposition voice; as the minority party that's there job and they aren't doing it very well.

On the other hand, if I were the evil mastermind controlling the GOP and tasked with the job of bringing the party back to power, you can bet I'd have Cheney and the talking heads out there doing exactly what he's doing only more so:
(1) bloodying the Democrat's/Pelosi's nose so they lose the moral highground and look like just another set of politicians, and
(2) soaking up as much of blame for the past as possible, making themselves, personally, the face of all the GOPs blunders and hidious choices, and if possible making themselves so extreme that even the GOP base is leery of them.
Then, come early 2010/11, I'd bring in a new string of young conservative statesmen (along with maybe few old moderates, Specter would have been handy if he hadn't flipped) and have them throw Cheney and that group to the wolves, loudly and completely disowning and denouncing them. And just like that GOP would wash its hands of that "old Bush crowd" and all those bad things they did.

[Donkey]

Gosh, wouldn't it be funny if the crazy Republican crusade against Pelosi were to end up causing the very investigation into torture that the Republicans have been fighting tooth and nail to prevent?

That would be delicious irony. One doesn't get to skewer both parties at the same time very often.

And NOTHING is as unattractive to either party in Washington than a full investigation of the torture issue, who authorized it, when did they do it, who knew about it and who crossed the legal lines.

Sure the Republicans will take 90% of the blame there, but don't kid yourselves, the Democratic leadership in Washington is hopelessly comprimised by their complicity in authorizing torture. And a 90 to 10 ratio of actual blame will equal 50-50 once the media gets its hands on the result and after a couple of weeks on Fox and the cable news shows, one may begin to wonder if the Republicans were ever involved in that torture issue at all after Nancy Pelosi wrote all the memos, ordered the torture and then lied about it under oath.

That's where this is heading...
If the upper level Democrats have to go, they have to go. I won't shed crocodile tears for someone thus prepared to sacrifice human decency on the altar of political expediency.
That's the part that I'm really not understanding. As I watch all of this stuff about Pelosi and how she should be prosecuted, it seems to be coming from the "We need to torture people because it's what Jack Bauer would do" crowd. Usually, I can wrap my head around whatever tiny grain of logic exists in idiotic partisan screaming, but this one has me thoroughly stumped.

How is it that the pro-torture crowd can demand that Pelosi be indicted for something and not see it as an inevitability that, if she is in fact, legally culpable for knowing about torture and doing nothing, that the architects of the torture will be indicted for something much, much worse? That is, if you're clamoring for punishment of Pelosi, aren't you necessary clamoring for subsequent, harsher punishments for Bush, Rummy, Cheney, and the gang?

I haven't been able to decipher their angle. Can anyone help me out here, and construct some kind of scenario, however, half-assed, in which Pelosi is guilty of something and the Bush administration comes out smelling like roses (or at least neutral)?
Going off half cocked?

What confuses me is why the Republicans want to get rid of Pelosi. If I were the GOP leadership, I would do everything I can to make sure it's her fucking around at the top, lest someone vaguely capable take the helm.

[Evangeline]

That's the part that I'm really not understanding. As I watch all of this stuff about Pelosi and how she should be prosecuted, it seems to be coming from the "We need to torture people because it's what Jack Bauer would do" crowd. Usually, I can wrap my head around whatever tiny grain of logic exists in idiotic partisan screaming, but this one has me thoroughly stumped.

How is it that the pro-torture crowd can demand that Pelosi be indicted for something and not see it as an inevitability that, if she is in fact, legally culpable for knowing about torture and doing nothing, that the architects of the torture will be indicted for something much, much worse? That is, if you're clamoring for punishment of Pelosi, aren't you necessary clamoring for subsequent, harsher punishments for Bush, Rummy, Cheney, and the gang?

I haven't been able to decipher their angle. Can anyone help me out here, and construct some kind of scenario, however, half-assed, in which Pelosi is guilty of something and the Bush administration comes out smelling like roses (or at least neutral)?That's exactly how I feel....How is Nancy Pelosi to blame (and they are certainly blaming her) for knowing about torture, when they are the party that is pro-torture? Shouldn't they be congratulating her for not doing anything about it?

[Michael]

Sure would be nice if the Republicans could find someone decent to run for the Senate in Nevada.

Reid is very vulnerable. Sure would be nice to see that bastard go down. Dropping under 60 seats would be a small price to pay to see Reid get his ass handed to him by the voters of Nevada.

I've previously defended Reid. Never a again. He's crossed the "Lieberman" line with me.

[Michael]

If I were the GOP leadership, I would do everything I can to make sure it's her fucking around at the top, lest someone vaguely capable take the helm.

What? You prefer Steny Hoyer? :eek:

He makes Murtha look like a paragon of virtue and makes Reid look like a model of principle by comparison.

Hoyer's vote goes to the highest bidder - always has. He's #2 in the Democratic House caucus. If Pelosi goes down, it will become his job.

[Donkey]

What? You prefer Steny Hoyer? :eek:

He makes Murtha look like a paragon of virtue and makes Reid look like a model of principle by comparison.

Hoyer's vote goes to the highest bidder - always has. He's #2 in the Democratic House caucus. If Pelosi goes down, it will become his job.
I think the Democrats need an entire reshuffle.

[Michael]

I think the Democrats need an entire reshuffle.

If you are talking about reality, I'd say no. I think the Democratic party leadership is pretty damn ugly right now, but I do happen to know that the best of the bunch is running the show.

Pelosi is in fact the best damn leader the House Democrats have. Anyone else would be a serious drop in quality and integrity. Seriously.

Likewise with Harry Reid in the Senate - would you prefer Ben Nelson? Or Evan Bayh?

Democratic party leaders are awful - but they tend to look very good when you compare them to the alternatives.

[Evangeline]

Ah, okay, that makes sense. I think that what confused the issue for me was some thread over on USPO that said something like "Should Pelosi be prosecuted". Now that I think about it, I don't know if I've seen any actual GOP politicians or pundits bandying this about.

If that is their plan, I suppose it's as good as any other when the party's current state is that Captain Torture himself is grabbing headlines as the party spokesperson and telling Colin Powell to get out. I think they're walking a fine line, however, in continuing to put this issue in the spotlight, even filtered through Pelosi's hypocrisy on the matter. I mean, in terms of appealing to the middle, neither Pelosi nor the GOP is particularly popular. And, if they're going to link themselves indelibly to someone on the other side, it doesn't really make sense to tie your whole party to one more extreme politician from the other side. Not much of a trade. If the GOP wants to wear the "Party of Torture" mantle, I'm sure the Democrats will throw Pelosi under the bus without a backward glance toward that end.

The GOP politicians are calling for her to resign. They have no proof that she she is lying. The documents that might prove that have not been released.

[Evangeline]

I think the Democrats need an entire reshuffle.

I'd love to see Feingold or Leahy Senate leader.

And in the house, John Conyers or Henry Waxman.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

It's a pipe dream to think that Pelosi or Reid are going anywhere. Reid may face a tough challenge in Nevada but I don't think it will do much good.

[Americano]

It's a pipe dream to think that Pelosi or Reid are going anywhere. Reid may face a tough challenge in Nevada but I don't think it will do much good.

He's a Mormon and political lifer. Tough to beat that combo in Nevada, also known as a suburb of Utah.

[The Drunk Guy]

I know what I'm doing next spring. :D

http://www.wbko.com/news/headlines/44528347.html

[Michael]

He's a Mormon and political lifer. Tough to beat that combo in Nevada, also known as a suburb of Utah.
According to the numbers I've been reading for the last four years, Reid is very weak and very beatable in Nevada - lucky for Reid, the Republicans don't have anyone credible to run against him.

If the Republicans had a decent moderate with some state-wide profile, Reid would pretty much be guarenteed to go down in 2010. Fact is, they don't so Reid is safe.

[Americano]

According to the numbers I've been reading for the last four years, Reid is very weak and very beatable in Nevada - lucky for Reid, the Republicans don't have anyone credible to run against him.

If the Republicans had a decent moderate with some state-wide profile, Reid would pretty much be guarenteed to go down in 2010. Fact is, they don't so Reid is safe.

That currently seems to be the case all across the board for the GOP.

[Michael]

That currently seems to be the case all across the board for the GOP.
GOP has one bright light, but Obama just co-opted him and sent him to China! :D

(Utah Governor Huntsman in case anyone didn't notice Obama's appointment of Ambassador to China last week)

As it stands, the GOP is looking at Palin vs Romney for the 2012 primary and that's a dead end street for the GOP.

[Americano]

GOP has one bright light, but Obama just co-opted him and sent him to China! :D

(Utah Governor Huntsman in case anyone didn't notice Obama's appointment of Ambassador to China last week)

As it stands, the GOP is looking at Palin vs Romney for the 2012 primary and that's a dead end street for the GOP.

For the US.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

It's delightful for some of us who will enjoy the ass whipping Obama puts on any GOPer who wants to run.