Putrid Pundits

If we can understand this slide...we can win in Afghanistan

2011-07-05T17:56:00.000-04:00

Unfortunately, no one understands this slide.

How Weinergate differs from GOP Sex Scandals

2011-06-07T16:49:00.000-04:00

Since Anthony Weiner's televised confession yesterday that he had in fact tweeted a picture of his "member of congress" and that his account was not hacked, as he had first alleged, many have called on the New York congressman to resign for the impropriety. Cable news pundits have been referencing the likes of Larry Craig, John Ensign, and the previous represenative of New York's 26th district, Chris Lee as they denounce Anthony Weiner and demand his resignation, but he is none of those people.

Larry Craig's political career came to a screeching halt when he was caught, by an undercover police officer, soliciting sex in a bathroom at the Minneapolis-St Paul International Airport. Prior to his arrest, Larry Craig was known as a socially conservative member of the Senate who supported legislation designed to oppress homosexuals. Therefore it is not the fact that he was soliciting sex from men in a public bathroom that inspired people to call for his resignation, but the hypocrisy of making life harder for homosexuals while simultaneously engaging in the aforementioned activity.

Nevada's John Ensign was in similar hot water after it was revealed that he had carried on an affair with the wife of one of his closest staffers. Beyond the simple "you're having an affair with the wife of a very close friend/colleague" Senator Ensign had been an outspoken critic of President Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky fiasco. In calling for the President Clinton to resign, he said the behavior was an embarrassment to the country.

The key difference here, besides the lack of extramarital sex on Congressman Weiner's part, is that Anthony Weiner has not built his career by attacking adulterers or as some self-righteous social conservative. Unlike Eliot Spitzer who was cracking down on prostitution rings while sleeping with prostitutes, Anthony Weiner doesn't have any public history of targeting lewd tweeters.

That being said it is extraordinarily upsetting, as a progressive, to see yet another politician on the left, who was fighting the good fight, allow his selfishness and his hubris to distract him from the job he was sent to Washington to do. I don't care what anyone tweets, emails, writes on facebook, or sends through ICQ (remember ICQ?) but politicians need to realize that this kind of crap will become public, and it will derail the important work they are doing.

More Proof that Democrats have no Political "Strategery"

2011-04-29T12:28:00.000-04:00

After weeks of howling from not-yet-a-republican-presidential-candidate Donald "The Donald" Trump, President Obama made the incomprehensibly idiotic move of releasing his long form birth certificate. I'm not sure how old Jim Messina (Obama's 2012 Campaign Manager) is, but someone should check his birth certificate to make sure he wasn't born yesterday. At the very least, they should take a lesson from Leslie Knope and make a "pros" and "cons" list the next time they make a big campaign decision. Here's what one might have looked like if they had.

Releasing President Obama's Birth Certificate

Pros:
uhm...we'll come back to this one

Oh, I know, it will put the issue to rest once and for all (how did that go dummy?)

Cons:
It's not going to change anyone's mind
-Birthers will be birthers. A PDF of a birth certificate is only going to give them more things to talk about
-People who claim Obama is an illegitimate president aren't going to vote for him even if a video is released showing the live birth taking place on the steps of the Hawaii State Capitol

It gives new life to the story

It shows Obama gave in to Trump's public pressure which
a) Makes Obama look weak
b) Gives Trump's demands appear legitimate

It opens the Administration up to criticism for spending money to fly someone to and from Hawaii to get the document

The GOP look like a bunch of lunatics calling for his birth certificate...any of them that are serious rivals for the general election will suffer in the primaries if they denounce the birthers.

Had his advisors taken a few moments to look at the pros and cons, I don't understand how they could possibly have agreed to do this. It simply shows, once again, that Democrats have the worst strategists. It's a really good thing that the GOP field is so full of unelectable candidates or the White House would probably go back to them in 2012.

Don't Make Us Work 'Til We Die

2011-04-28T11:26:00.000-04:00

From The Answer Sheet

2011-04-21T12:09:00.000-04:00

By Kathie Marshall

In May 2005, I wrote an op-ed for one of our Los Angeles newspapers, in which I vented my frustrations about the state of education in my community. Here’s some of what I said:

“I’ve been an educator in the Los Angeles area for more than 30 years in grades two through eight, including general education, second-language learner, gifted, special-education and intervention students. I’ve taught some of the wealthiest families to some of the poorest, in both private and public schools. For the past four years I have been a literacy coach at a middle school in the Los Angeles Unified School District, working with teachers and students to improve instruction and learning. And I have to tell you, many things that have taken place in education over the last decade have me mad!”

Read the rest at The Answer Sheet.

Why are Democrats so stupid?

2011-04-20T14:00:00.000-04:00

Put another mark in the "no shit Sherlock" column as the Washington Post reveals the results of yet another poll that shows a majority of Americans would like to see taxes on the very richest Americans go up, while keeping benefits like Medicare in their current form. (http://wapo.st/g4bGH5)

To progressive Americans, this comes as no surprise as we have been yelling as loud and as often as we could for the past 10 years. Americans are sick and tired of seeing massive tax cuts benefiting the likes of Warren Buffet, Steve Forbes, and the Walton Family, while the middle class sees its wages frozen and its benefits being chipped away.

As much as it pains me to borrow from the GOP talking points, this really does underline a massive failure of leadership from President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and the previous Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. All three of them had the means to cut out the tax cuts for the richest 1% at any point in time between January 2009 and December 2010. This could have been their big election issue going into last Fall. They could have forced Republicans to vote NO on tax cuts for the middle class and held their feet to the fire...but instead they blinked as they always do.

The excuses that have come out of the Democratic party since the Fall elections have been that they had to act to save tax relief for the middle class. But that's only because they failed to act on it sooner. The first day back after the summer recess Democrats should have been hammering away at the GOP to pass tax relief for the middle class and the middle class only. Leave out the estate tax breaks that will save the Walton family over $34 billion. Forget about the keeping the marginal tax rates for the richest 1% lower than it's ever been since the creation of the income tax (it's not like any of them pay that rate anyway http://bit.ly/dL6mer).

But no, that's not what they did. Instead, Obama, Reid and Pelosi tried to hang on by moving to the center. And we saw how well that worked out for the Donkey. One would think after the "shellacking" Obama and the Dems took in 2010 they would find some new vocabulary and really hammer home to people the importance of getting tax rates back to at least where they were under Clinton, if not pushing them back to where they were under the great Conservative himself, Ronald Reagan. As Anthony Weiner said to Mike Huckabee "why should the guy working 70 hours a week on a construction job pay a bigger percentage in taxes than the do-nothing child of a millionaire who inherits a massive fortune?" (It's a really great clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML9yFhyLzjg)

Look who's begging for a Federal handout now

2011-04-18T17:52:00.000-04:00

Almost two years to the day since Governor Rick Perry of Texas pandered to an anti-tax Tea Party rally, by suggesting that Texas might need to seceded from the Union due to Federal spending, he is now begging the Obama administration for that same Federal spending to fight the wild fires raging across his state. Like Bobby Jindal before him, Governor Perry is against a strong Federal government and spending...until his state is facing an emergency and suddenly needs a bailout. Like Jindal in Louisiana, this makes Rick Perry a hypocrite.

April 2009 - Texas could secede

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/15/gov-rick-perry-texas-coul_n_187490.html

April 2011 - Mr. President help!

Can US handle historic Texas wildfires? - CSMonitor.com

Expatriate restrictions: Let all Canadians vote - thestar.com

2011-04-16T23:09:00.000-04:00

Expatriate restrictions: Let all Canadians vote - thestar.com

Michelle Rhee: Education reform huckster - Education - Salon.com

2011-04-06T22:49:00.000-04:00

Michelle Rhee: Education reform huckster - Education - Salon.com

There's Gold in them thar hills!

2011-04-04T23:12:00.000-04:00

As the rhetoric in support of Charter Schools and Vouchers continues to grow louder, more and more MBA graduates are seeking out education. The business community is already sensing that a big faucet of public money is about to get turned on so these educational entrepreneurs are jockeying for position to rake in those tax dollars.

I can't wait for the business school crowd to join the fight against all those "selfish and greedy" teachers.

B-School Grads Snap Up Education Jobs - BusinessWeek

The KIPP "miracle"

2011-03-31T14:44:00.000-04:00

With the chorus for Charter Schools like KIPP growing louder and louder each day, I'm glad to see some researchers dig into what makes KIPP successful and how to replicate that across other schools. Unfortunately, the answer to KIPP's great success could stem from the fact that it's not actually as successful as has been claimed. On top of that, they have much more money per student than other Charters or traditional public schools.

KIPP Charter Network Enjoys Financial Advantages, Study Says - NYTimes.com

They also have rules that could certainly make many public much more successful but would result in millions of children without any school to go to. These include requirements from parents to check students' homework, make sure they get to school on time, and other "commitments." I'm sure that public school teachers and principals would love to have this apply to their students' parents as well but when those parents fail to comply, what then?

As it turns out, another secret to KIPP's success might be its high attrition rates. The Western Michigan study found that "on average about 15 percent of students drop from KIPP cohorts every year, compared to 3 percent in public schools."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/03/31/135014989/kipp-charter-schools-have-funding-edge-study-says

If we want to see the types of results from our traditional public schools that KIPP has achieved we will need to invest more into our teachers and schools (as opposed to the budget slashing frenzy that is currently taking place) and someone will have to come up with a method to help parents be accountable for their children.

What continues to be absent from the national debate is the demonstrably negative effect poverty has on children and their ability to learn. While it's much easier for politicians to play "blame the greedy teachers" game all the time, it isn't going to fix education.

Finish your Broccoli before you start demanding Ice Cream Sundaes for Dessert

2011-03-31T09:02:00.000-04:00

According to The Guardian, the Libyan revolutionary council in Benghazi is already making demands for Gaddafi's (going with the spelling from the article) former Foreign Minister to be sent back to Libya on charges of crimes against humanity once they have completely vanquished Gaddafi's forces.

Rebels, you need to take a moment and reflect. You aren't making nearly as much progress as you were supposed to by this point. Quite frankly, you're making NATO look worse and worse the longer you drag this out. So don't start making demands about what you want to do once you have 100% control of Libya. Work on achieving that first.

Libya foreign minister Moussa Koussa must face atrocities trial, rebels declare | World news | guardian.co.uk

Surprise, Surprise, it's happening else where too

2011-03-30T12:47:00.000-04:00

Testing Anomalies Found in Many States - High School Notes (usnews.com)

Give all Canadians the right to vote | views from away

2011-03-29T20:00:00.000-04:00

A nice blog post about the unfair restrictions on voting for Canadians who live abroad.

Give all Canadians the right to vote | views from away

If it swims, quacks and walks like a duck...

2011-03-29T10:33:00.002-04:00

USA Today just blew the lid off a systemic irregularity in DC public schools standardized test results. Their article about the testing irregularities require us to ask, once again, why is everyone in love with Michelle Rhee? Now that her so called "turnarounds" are becoming more and more questionable, why do policy makers continue to turn to her for ideas? We don't see Fidelity or JP Morgan Chase asking Bernie Madoff for investing advice.

Thankfully, Diane Ravitch just posted a blog entry on The Daily Beast, that continues to question Rhee's "education celebrity" status. Let's just hope that more people wise up and realize that evaluating teachers based on which bubbles their students fill in will encourage them to get the right bubbles dark, even if it means doing some erasing.

Why Teacher Evaluations Shouldn't be tied to Student Test Scores

2011-03-27T23:33:00.002-04:00

When test scores jump, questions should be asked.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2011-03-28-1Aschooltesting28_CV_N.htm?csp=34news

78% of Americans don't believe in Evolution by Natural Selection

2011-03-23T12:35:00.002-04:00

What does $1.3 billion buy these days?

2011-03-21T22:28:00.001-04:00

On Saturday, March 12th, the Arab League urged the United Nations to vote on imposing a “no-fly zone” over Libya, to protect the civilians and the rebel forces in the eastern half of the country. Since then, a “no-fly zone” was authorized with notable abstentions coming from Brazil, Germany, Russia and China. But as France took to the skies to patrol the airspace around Benghazi, and British and American cruise missiles began to pound anti-air installations, the absence of any Arab military taking part in the “no-fly zone” is precisely the mistake that Western countries should have known to avoid by now.

For the last 30 years, America has given Egypt billions of dollars so that they could strengthen their armed forces ($1.3 billion just last year). With those billions of our tax payer dollars, Hosni Mubarak has purchased hundreds of F15 and F16 fighter jets, and still more are on their way from Lockheed Martin. Yet despite all of this military hardware at their disposal, and despite joining the call for a “no-fly zone” to be imposed, the military leadership in Egypt did not contribute to the imposition of the operation.

Nor did the Saudis who are another large purchaser of American military hardware, and who would have a much shorter flight for their sorties than the American bombers taking off from Missouri. What is the point of purchasing all of those weapons if they are unwilling to use them even when they are calling for military action? Obama, Cameron, and Sarkozy should have told the Arab League to put its money where its mouth was and fly a few missions over Libyan skies.

One could call it a missed opportunity by the Obama administration, or, as his supporters have come to realize, just business as usual at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

TV REVIEW: The Chicago Code

2011-03-03T18:05:00.000-05:00

Ok, first off, I would just like to say, this post has virtually nothing to do with politics...well...almost nothing. The Chicago Code, Shawn Ryan’s new police-oriented procedural-drama (weekly bad guys to stop mixed in with a longer story arc) is fast paced and entertaining, but it’s a far cry from Ryan’s previous police drama, The Shield, or Jason Clarke’s unfortunately cancelled Brotherhood. To be fair, The Shield was on FX, Fox’s edgy and courageous basic cable network, and Brotherhood was on premium cable’s Shotime, both of which tend to display far more creativity and departure from the broadcast networks’ need to appeal to the lowest common denominator in the American viewing public.

Jennifer Beals, Jason Clarke, and Delroy Lindo are certainly not to blame for the tepid feeling once gets while watching this show. Their performances are spectacular and from his demeanor and delivery Clarke has convinced me that Wysocki could fly off the handle at the drop of the hat if someone puts a fellow police officer in unnecessary danger. Unfortunately the procedural element, that each episode they will have one problem to solve and one bad guy to apprehend, diminishes the long story arc that shows like Brotherhood or The Wire were able to maintain. Catching Alderman Gibbons becomes a kind of side-story that will likely only happen upon cancellation of the show…or not at all.

Which brings me to my second problem with the show and that is the focus on political corruption. Of course Chicago is a great place to tell a story about machine politics and corruption in City Hall, but the kind of corruption appearing in the show, at least thus far, is a comical simulacrum of the real abuses that occur in City Halls across the country. From the concerned constituent who reports a possible crime to Gibbons only to end up murdered by his order, or the Irish street thugs being brought into Alderman Gibbons’ office for a chat are overly visible actions that would not go unnoticed in our post 9-11 security framework. What it does provide is a very simple narrative for the broad viewership base that Fox is hoping to attract. And don’t even get me started on the police informant Liam who does everything wrong for an undercover officer and would be dead already if David Simon were writing this show.

So there it is…what was a great hope for a new series that could follow in the footsteps of The Shield, is unfortunately pandering too broadly to the masses and will probably last two, perhaps three seasons before it is abruptly canceled to make way for another crappy reality show from Fox.

All the oil's gone they say...but the full extent of the damage is just beginning

2011-02-25T21:29:00.000-05:00

Baby dolphin deaths rise along Gulf Coast | Reuters

Republicans don't know what they want

2011-02-24T23:46:00.000-05:00

So in February of 2011, House Republicans grandstanded during a floor session that was supposed to be about cutting the deficit. During this deficit debate, GOP House members pushed for cutting funding to Planned Parenthood, a "whopping" three hundred and something million dollars because of some alleged violations that were recently exposed in some undercover videos similar to those discredited videos targeting ACORN.

That's fine if the GOP want to stop federal funds from going to any company that engages is bad behavior, but looking back at September of 2010 those watching Congress got to see thirty GOP Senators vote no on Al Franken's amendment to deny defense contracts to companies that

"equires that an employee or independent contractor, as a condition of employment, sign a contract that mandates that the employee or independent contractor performing work under the contract or subcontract resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention."

That's right, thirty GOP Senators wanted to continue giving contracts to companies that force their employees to promise not to report sexual assault. And I can guarantee that defense contractors that did this were getting a lot more than three hundred and something million dollars.

Senate Roll Call #308: Republicans Voting 'Nay' - OpenCongress

Ravitch: The Problem with Teach For America

By Valerie Strauss

This was written by education historian Diane Ravitch on her Bridging Differences blog, which she co-authors with Deborah Meier on the Education Week website. Ravitch and Meier exchange letters about what matters most in education. Ravitch, a research professor at New York University, is the author of the bestselling “The Death and Life of the Great American School System,” an important critique of the flaws in the modern school reform movement.

The Answer Sheet - Ravitch: The Problem with Teach For America

University of Rochester's Campus Times pens another winner

2011-02-14T19:32:00.001-05:00

The University of Rochester's Adam Ondo has written an article for the Campus Times calling for more, and faster death penalties in our justice system. Here is my quick response. Hopefully we'll get another flurry of activity like we did on James Russell's call for School Vouchers.

http://www.campustimes.org/2011/02/10/are-u-s-laws-too-soft/comment-page-1/

My response:

Adam,

While it’s great that you’re able to prove in your article that Singapore’s streamlined death penalty system is the absolute factor in their low crime rate, perhaps taking your assertions as fact might not be the most intelligent thing your readers could do.

Take for example the fact that violent crime has been on the decline at the same time that America’s prison population has skyrocketed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/24/AR2010052402210.html

Take for example that maybe other factors, like childhood poverty play a role in crime statistics, and that America ranks near the bottom of OECD countries in child well-being might have more to do with crime than whether or not the death penalty is in effect.
http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/rc7_eng.pdf

While I’m thrilled that you are so enthusiastic to kill a bunch of people quickly so that we can all save some tax money, perhaps if we were willing to address some of the causes of crime instead of just pouring billions of dollars into building more prisons and speeding up executions we might end up in a much better society than the one you are dreaming of.

Not the problems principals should have to focus on

2011-02-08T13:45:00.000-05:00

Schools May Have to Absorb Students’ Unpaid Lunch Bills - NYTimes.com

GOP wants to put Government between women and their doctors

2011-02-07T11:17:00.000-05:00

Despite the rhetoric on the right about the Affordable Health Care act of 2010 allowing the government to come between patients and their doctors, new bills proposed by the GOP would do exactly that.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-richard-blumenthal/gop-dials-back-the-clock-_b_818826.html

My response to University of Rochester's Campus Times call for School Vouchers

2011-02-03T11:12:00.000-05:00

The original article: http://www.campustimes.org/2011/02/03/school-vouchers-would-increase-freedom/comment-page-1/#comment-185

My response:
Mr. Russell would probably be thrilled to see America’s public schools fall into the dustbin of history. To that end his creative use of statistics is helpful in making his case against the institution that conservatives have been weakening since Reagan came into office.

To mention that federal spending on elementary and secondary education has gone up 260% since the 1970s ignores the following:

1) Prior to 1965 there was virtually no federal spending on education
2) A fair amount of the money spent since 1970 has gone to wealthy districts/schools while skipping over poor/struggling districts
3) Much of the progress that was being made in the 70s was wiped out by Reagan’s gutting of the department of Education

Of course words like “school choice” sound great because who doesn’t like options, but research has shown Charter schools are not a magic bullet. More than half of all Charter schools are worse/no better than public schools.

The problems that our public schools face is that the worst schools are filled with students whose parents lack the political power to ensure proper funding, teachers, facilities, and supplies. By allowing vouchers and the exodus of students that would follow, this problem would only be exacerbated, leaving those most vulnerable in our society with no education.

Instead of hollowing out our public schools with vouchers, funding them with appropriate student weighting (more money for special education, English Language Learners, impoverished/homeless children) would do far more to improve the quality of education in this country.

The People have spoken

2010-12-14T13:31:00.000-05:00

From the moment the mid-term election results started coming in, Republicans have been repeating their new mantra that the people have spoken and the Democrats and their policies have been rejected. With that in mind, the Democrats should stop trying to so hard to fix so many of the problems that are of the GOP's making.

First off, unemployment benefits. My guess is that not everyone who is out of work today voted for Democrats in the recent mid-terms. Perhaps it's time for them to learn what a Republican led Congress feels like. Their unemployment benefits have expired and the GOP does not want to renew them without staggeringly irresponsible tax cuts for the ultra wealthy. It's time for the Dems to stop protecting Americans from themselves and let them go into the new year with Speaker John Boehner and no more unemployment benefits.

Then there's the tax cuts. To be more precise, a continuation of the tax cuts from 2001 and 2003. Since the GOP rejected extending middle class tax cuts a few weeks ago, let the American people now see all their taxes go up because the Republicans want to give people like Bernie Madoff (before he was arrested) millions of savings on their tax bills. Remember middle America, the Republicans didn't want middle class taxes to remain the same UNLESS the top three tenths of one percent of Americans could get a break on their estate taxes. That's right, 99.7% of all Americans pay no estate taxes but the GOP is willing to put the economic well being of 98% of the country at risk in order to secure a lower tax rate for the top 0.3% of the population.

By rushing to the aid of the country that scorned them, the Democrats are merely setting the stage for things to improve under Speaker John Boehner. If a majority of the country wants Republican leadership then let them have it. Let them watch as the economy shrivels even more without the hardest hit receiving unemployment benefits. Let them watch state governments are forced to lay off police officers, fire fighters, and teachers because of budget shortfalls. Let them watch as China continues to fly past us in their super high speed trains carrying green manufacturing and the jobs that go with them. Maybe by 2012 the American people will realize that they "made a huge mistake." Or, maybe they'll just double down on their 2010 misjudgment and elect President Palin.

President Obama: "This is the public option debate all over"

2010-12-08T17:18:00.000-05:00

In his pathetic defense of caving in on the tax cuts issue President Obama brought up the criticism he faced from the left over his abandonment of the public option. He was fielding a question about compromising too much and his defense was that while the health care bill did not include the public option it had so many other things that Democrats had been fighting for. The problem with his memory or interpretation of those events is that the public option was not a holy grail for Democrats. It was a watered down substitute for what we really wanted and that was a Single Payer Option. But since the President and the Democrat super-majority Congress was too weak willed to push for that plan, the result was compromising on the compromise.

Now that the tax cut deal has been back-roomed to placate the GOP and their ultra-rich benefactors, similar criticisms are coming out that he did not negotiate tough enough and did not stick to his principles or his campaign promises. The Republicans, meanwhile, get to hold up their banner of stubborn obstructionism and celebrate yet another capitulation by the spineless Democrats.

Again the fault for this travesty lies with the Blue Dogs in Congress who had threatened to vote against a tax cut for the middle class bill in the lead up to the elections, and to the Obama White House that did not push Congress to act before the midterms, and to the fickle electorate that somehow thought that putting people in Congress who care only for the rich would somehow help the country.

The next time you hear a Republican complain about losing their unemployment benefits, or about increasing deficits, remind them that 700-900 billion more dollars were just added to the deficit so that Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, Michael Moore, and Keith Olbermann can save some money.

Where the hell is Joe the plumber?

2010-12-08T00:57:00.000-05:00

Now that the Republicans have forced President Obama into doling out another giant wedge of American Pie, where is the anger one would expect from the Tea Partiers and Joe the plumbers everywhere? The GOP filibuster and the subsequent "deal" that was worked out to avoid raising taxes on the middle class will ultimately raise taxes on the lowest income earners in the country while giving massive tax break to millionaires and billionaires. The silence today from those pissed of "patriots" in their Benjamin Franklin costumes is so perfectly representative of the bullshit that the "deficit-hawks" spew. Apparently deficits only matter when Obama and the Democrats are trying to right so many of the systemic wrongs that have concentrated America's wealth in the hands of so few. It would seem that if deficits are incurred to give the Walton family a few extra billion dollars, or save the hedge fund managers who destroyed our economy from paying Uncle Sam what is owed then they don't mean shit.

Deal on Tax Cuts Will Aid Most, Especially Highest Earners - NYTimes.com

And yet many of America's poor continue to vote GOP

2010-12-07T13:37:00.000-05:00

Matt Finkelstein: Top Conservatives Turned Off By Tax Deal's Inclusion Of Unemployment Benefits

Taylor Marsh: Yes We Cave

2010-12-07T11:11:00.000-05:00

While I think that more money for lower income Americans through an extension of the current tax rates would be helpful to drive demand, I think that the GOP needs a "waterloo" of their own, to use Senator DeMint's words. For that reason I hope that Democrats DO NOT cave in on tax cuts for the wealthy no matter how much it pains them to let unemployment benefits expire. This is a problem of the Republicans making and the Democrats need to stop slashing their own wrists in their attempts to fix it. Every single progressive group out there should be taking the CSPAN footage of Republicans voting AGAINST an extension of middle class tax cuts and they should be blanketing the airwaves denouncing the GOP for standing against the American people with tax cuts for the extremely wealthy. Expose this rabid crusade mentality that is driving the opposition to vote against 70% of the people (CBS news poll) to extend tax cuts for the ultra rich. I am so sick and tired of hearing them on the news shows talking about how money to the top creates jobs. If the bottom 97% can't afford to buy anything, then the top 3% aren't going to be creating jobs.

From the Huffington Post:

Taylor Marsh: Yes We Cave

Wishful thinking

2010-12-05T01:28:00.000-05:00

Montreal gas prices jump overnight

"They are trying to bamboozle you (consumers)," McTeague said. "If you tried to pull this in the United States you would have every congressional member concerned and hauling these guys onto the carpet."

Apologies to the right honorable Mr. McTeague but it is not much different south of the border. Very little that should be investigated in the manner that you are suggesting ever does get that attention. Here's to hoping Mr. McTeague and the Canadian Parliament can get some answers on these gasoline price jumps.

GOP block Middle Class Tax Cuts

2010-12-05T00:12:00.000-05:00

If you make less than $200,000 a year and you voted Republican, then you no longer have any right to complain about deficits or tax cuts for the middle class.

Senate blocks extension of Bush-era tax cuts

Can military handle a repeal of gay ban? - CSMonitor.com

2010-12-03T18:52:00.000-05:00

If it can't, then what chance does it have in Iraq and Afghanistan? I think those conflicts are slightly more difficult than not firing people because of their sexual orientation.

'Don't ask, don't tell': Can military handle a repeal of gay ban? -

CSMonitor.com

Still sneaking around like a thief in the night

2010-12-03T12:37:00.000-05:00

Obama in Afghanistan: President Obama makes surprise trip to Afghanistan - latimes.com

Once again, President Obama has made a "surprise" visit to Afghanistan. Why the secrecy surrounding his trip? Because Afghanistan is still such a mess that it is too dangerous for him to announce a trip of that nature ahead of time. Whenever someone discusses winning or losing in Iraq and Afghanistan, I wish that those interviewing them would ask WHEN will an American President be able to safely announce a trip to either of those countries.

My post on his March trip to Afghanistan

But the troops say they don't want it!

2010-12-03T00:00:00.001-05:00

President: Go to Afghanistan.

Troops: Sir! Yes sir!

President: Go to Iraq.

Troops: Sir! Yes sir!

President: Now, allow your fellow soldiers to stop hiding who they are and allow gay Americans to serve openly alongside yo

u. I mean, c'mon, you probably already know who they are.

Troops: Sir...uh...sure thing sir. But a couple of us aren't totally on board...

Senate Republicans blast Pentagon study of 'don't ask' -

USATODAY.com

Now that the Pentagon's study on repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell has been released, the Republicans have, predictably, attacked it and pointed out the branches of the armed forces where there is less than 50% acceptance of gays and lesbians serving openly in the armed forces. Well tough shit! After all, that's basically what the Republicans, and a lot of Democrats have been saying to those soldiers and veterans who were brave enough to speak out against the invasion of Iraq. It's the same thing that politicians of all shades said to the likes of John Kerry when he spoke out against the war in Vietnam. The fact is we as a nation have rarely asked our soldiers what they want to do. I'm sure many of them would rather not go to Afghanistan simply to pay for college, but Senator McCain doesn't care about those opinions. What the study shows, and what should have been the focus of the Senate hearings was that "70% of those surveyed felt that allowing gays to serve openly will have a positive, mixed or no effect on military readiness."

Why such a high number? Probably because the majority of the armed forces are young men and women who were not raised with the ignorance and prejudices that seem to have been John McCain's bread and butter. How dense is this man who's own wife and daughter have been strong advocates (though he managed to cajole his wife into backing him) for ending DADT and other LGBT issues? Well here's to things getting worserer for John McCain.

Canadians (sorry, The Comedy Network doesn't give embedding options):

http://watch.thecomedynetwork.ca/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart/full-episodes/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart---november-15-2010/#clip375316

Americans:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

It Gets Worse PSA

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor

The Daily Show on Facebook

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-november-15-2010/it-gets-worse-psa

The End of Unemployment Benefits: The Consequences

2010-12-01T17:36:00.000-05:00

Single Tenn. mom braces for lost jobless benefits - BusinessWeek

Way to go old people - this is why you'll lose your Social Security and Medicare

2010-11-23T00:50:00.000-05:00

Apparently the majority of voters in the midterm elections were old, rich and white. Due to the massive failing of young people, African Americans, and Latinos spend the effort to show up at the polls, senior citizens made up 21 percent of the electorate while accounting for only 13 percent of the population. And while the rich (those making $200k and up per year) grew 68 percent from their 2006 numbers, those making less than $50k shrunk.

So when the GOP votes to cut off Social Security and Medicare (which they've been wanting to do since those programs were created) you can thank America's grandparents for coming out and enthusiastically voting Republican, and you can blame the grandchildren for being too lazy to get off their asses and protect their interests.

If there's anything encouraging about these numbers it's that this so called GOP mandate is even weaker than initially believed. By far the biggest plurality in 2010 was not the Republicans or the Democrats. It was the non-voter with nearly 60 percent of eligible voters..

The 2010 electorate: Old, white, rich and Republican - Politics AP - MiamiHerald.com

The TSA: Making Dumb People Feel Safe Since 2001

2010-11-22T16:32:00.005-05:00

To any air travelers who have had their sunscreen, toothpaste thrown out, or their water bottles forcibly emptied at the security screening, the notion that the Transportation Security Administration's policy, and the TSOs that enforce them are stupid is nothing new. With all of the recent news about full body scanners and the enhanced pat-downs/groping that travelers are now facing, isn't it time that Americans asked themselves why they put up with this nonsense?

The reactive nature of the TSA is embedded deep in the heart of the problem. Once upon a time a man, on a flight from Paris, tried to light a fuse connected to explosives in his shoes. As a result air travelers must now remove their footwear and place it on the x-ray machines, walking barefoot across a filthy floor, possibly contracting all sorts of foot and skin infections. At the time the TSA also decided to ban cigarette lighters, but not matches, for all the sense that made. Perhaps the Bic lighter company had a good lobbyist, or perhaps the TSA is just plain stupid, but they finally reversed course on the lighter ban in 2007.

Next came a plot by more than 20 people from the UK, who intended to detonate liquid explosives on board transatlantic planes. Once again acting in a reactive manner, the TSA quickly banned all liquids and gels from carry on luggage. For some reason the TSA could not conceive of a way for the "evil doers" to detonate some liquid or gel explosives that are in checked baggage, but the end result is that if you want to plan ahead for your trip, perhaps by purchasing sunscreen or toothpaste before you get somewhere that you want to protect your skin or not have awful breath and gum disease, you'd better have a checked bag.

Finally, the Christmas day bomber with his underpants explosives rocked America's collective peace of mind. Another failed attempt but this one had the explosives moved from the shoes all the way up to Mr. Abdulmutallab's tighty-whities and so, once again American air travelers must submit to another demand by the TSA: get naked! Well, not exactly, but the images from the full body scanners make passengers appear naked. There is an alternative though, for those who are worried that images of their naked bodies will be misused and that is the all new all different pat-down. These invasive open-palmed searches of groin and chest have been likened to molestation and groping and humerously parodied by Saturday Night Live (sorry non-US readers, Hulu is not available but here's a description).

What all of these events demonstrate is that the TSA has no ability to thing proactively. They are only able to attempt to come up with rules and regulations to thwart the last attack. I mean, how many attempted shoe bombers have their been since Richard Reid? Many other countries do not require passengers to remove their shoes during security screening and yet somehow they have managed to not have their planes be detonated by shoe bombers.

The underlying problem is that the TSA is not actually trying to make passengers safer when they fly, but rather to make the majority of them FEEL safer. By telling people that liquids pose a risk, and then visibly removing liquids from passengers at the security gate, they create a false sense of safety for the dumbest among us. The same is true for removing footwear and placing it on the scanner. Once again the dumb dumbs get to think they are being protected as thousands more travelers contract foot fungi and other podiatric ailments.

Remember, you are not safer because I had to empty my Nalgene. I am not safer because you put your toothpaste in a plastic ziplock bag (which is disgusting by the way). And no one is safer because some TSO drone with a GED looked at their shoes in the x-ray machine. If we want to be secure, then we need to hire and train the right kind of people to screen air passengers. We should be looking to countries like Israel that have developed a very effective system of passenger interviews that allow them to detect potential threats based on their reaction and not from looking at their penis in a full body scan.

So let me just say this to the "evil doers" out there. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do not stick explosives up your butt or place them in body cavities because if you do, and then the TSA finds out, it is not going to be a pleasant experience to fly from a US airport.

Patricia Williams: Notes From the Washington Mall

2010-11-20T22:46:00.000-05:00

Notes From The Washington Mall: Jon Stewart’s Rally to Restore Sanity… « Madlawprofessor’s Weblog

Tax Cuts for the Rich = Senate Majority for the GOP

2010-11-19T13:10:00.003-05:00

Hey there spineless democratic senators, how's it going? Bummed about the recent election? Having a hard time sitting down with all those GOP foot prints on your ass? Yeah, I bet that hurts. But you know what's going to sting even more? The 2012 elections if you sissies don't get your tactics figured out. Now that Nancy Pelosi has finally drummed up the courage to say they'll put forward a "tax cuts for the middle class only" bill before the end of the year, it is up to you, the deliberative donkeys to break a filibuster and pass the "dang" bill.

It seems to me that if your staffers have not made the case to you already, you should fire them all and get competent aides who can actually help you figure out what you need to do to help the country and keep your seats. If, and sadly it's not that improbable of an if, a few of you Senate Democrats decide to jump onto the GOP filibuster and say "but now isn't the time to raise taxes on anyone!" then you have assuredly handed control of the Senate and possibly the White House over to the Republicans come 2012. Your defection from your fellow Democrats will be seen as proof both to the GOP and the American public that tax cuts for the middle class only is wrong.

So instead of being gutless wimps and voting to prevent the tax rates on the richest 2% from returning to where they were under President Clinton (boy were those bad economic times, right?) dig deep and find some courage. Go borrow some from Bernie Sanders or Russ Feingold if you need to, and then vote FOR the middle class tax cuts. Even if the bill doesn't pass because you can't get a single Republican senator to help out the middle class, USE THAT! Plaster your states with advertising denouncing the GOP for raising taxes on the middle class. Get on CNN, MSNBC and even FoxNews and chastise your Republican colleagues for forcing a tax hike on the American people. BUT do not cave in before forcing them to vote no on tax cuts for the middle class.

Merry Xmas out of work America - Bye Bye Benefits

2010-11-18T14:30:00.002-05:00

As the jobless crisis lurches on and record numbers of Americans are still looking for work, the holiday season will provide an extra kick in the nuts to those long term out of work citizens as Congress failed to pass an extension of benefits to the so called "99ers". While those who opposed the measure to extend the benefits claimed to do so out of concern for growing deficits and debt, they are largely the same people who would like to extend the current tax rates for the top 2% of earners.

Some numbers to consider are the $5-6 billion per month that extending the unemployment benefits would cost; and the $700 billion over the next 10 years in lost revenue for the treasury. Bear in mind that of the $5-6 billion that would go to the long-term unemployed would almost entirely be funneled directly back into the economy as those people, still struggling, purchase groceries, pay rent, and address other immediate family needs. The money that would go to the millionaires and billionaires, on the other hand, would have no such assurances. With the American economy in trouble, many of them might opt to invest their new found tax cuts in companies overseas or in corporations that are outsourcing jobs to China and India.

While there aren't many differences between the Dems and the 'Pubs, here is a stark contrast that voters should remember for 2011 and 2012. Those angry voters who were so upset with the lack of jobs and the feeling that Congress wasn't doing enough to help them, have just been shown a preview at what a GOP controlled Congress and White House would offer those struggling the most. Nada.

For further reading on the House's failure to pass HR 6419:

http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/18/news/economy/unemployment_benefits_extension/

http://blogs.ajc.com/jamie-dupree-washington-insider/2010/11/18/jobless-benefits-repeat-2/?cxntfid=blogs_jamie_dupree_washington_insider

Simplify the tax code?

2010-11-15T17:42:00.002-05:00

A very common argument that echoes through the halls of Congress is that the tax code is too complicated. The number of pages that comprise the tax code are often lauded by Senators or Congressmen looking to get on television. Those that would like to see a flat rate tax often use the length of the tax code as proof that it is bad. But so rarely is this lengthly tax code explained to the American people.

Well, listen up. The reason the tax code is so long and complex is because WE the people have continued to support politicians who give us tax breaks/cuts based on things we and our families do. Things like tax cuts for energy efficient home renovations; paying student loan interest; paying mortgage interest; donating to charities; and all the other thousands of things that people are able to claim every year in order to save some money on their taxes.

Simply put, those thousands of pages of the tax codes are thousands of pages of ways we Americans can SAVE money on our taxes, and so any effort to "simplify the code" will undoubtedly be met with strong opposition and the accusation that those trying to "simplify the code" are plotting a tax hike for hard working families. Many of the credits are aimed at the middle class which explains why the regressive taxers (those that want a flat tax across the board) are so keen to "simplify the code" and eliminate these tax credits for working families in exchange for lower tax rates on the rich.

As with all things parroted around the capitol and on Cable News, it is important to understand what the buzz words really mean in order to figure out the right course of action.

Bush Lied...Literary Integrity Died

2010-11-14T17:36:00.002-05:00

A nice little article about how George W. Bush's new book "Decision Points" contains many snippets and anecdotes that have been lifted from a number of authors who have written books about the Bush White House. Ironically, some of those works were, when published, accused by the White House of being inaccurate. I guess someone must have been lying back then.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/14/george-bush-accused-borrowing-memoirs

Not Far Enough...to the left

2010-11-08T14:20:00.002-05:00

In the aftermath of Bloody Tuesday, in which over 60 Congressional seats, 19 State Legislatures, and at least 11 Governors have gone from blue to red, the pundits are saying over and over again that this is the result of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid cabal going too far to the left for the American people to stomach. While that feeds a great narrative if you are arguing that the GOP has a big mandate to roll back what little progress has been made over the past two years, it misses the reality of what happened this election. President Obama and the gang were not too far to the left, they weren't even on the left. They were barely in the middle.

As this NYTimes blog from last year points out, many progressives were very upset with the administration for its caving to Republicans and conservative Democrats in the healthcare legislation that violated many of the campaign promises then candidate Obama made in 2008.

Once again, the GOP have managed to move the markers for what constitutes the "left" and "center" of political discourse. By consistently lashing out at policies proposed by the administration and the Democrats in Congress as being far to the left when in fact they are right of center, the Republicans have waged an incredibly successful public relations campaign and if polled, many Americans would believe that the Affordable Care Act was far to the left but that's without a single payer system or even a public option. How can something so vehemently decried by real progressives as over compromised and a gift to the insurance industry also be some Maoist takeover of the American government?

What caused this dramatic swing in the electorate was not so much people changing their voting patterns from 2008 but rather so many of the Democrats' key supporters being disgusted with the horse trading that went on in the last year and a half. African Americans voters and young voters who show solid support for the President did not come out to vote on Tuesday. While some of that can surely be chalked up to the unreliability of young voters to show up at the polls with some celebrity urging them on, it looks like a larger part of it was simply voter disappointment with how the Democrats had compromised their legislation and themselves in the short time that they held massive majorities in both houses of Congress. This disappointment resulted in much lower turnouts in those core constituencies.

This further boosted Republican outcomes because those who disagreed with the fundamentals of helping your fellow citizens and ensuring that everyone has access to health care regardless of what pre-existing conditions exist were clearly fired up to come out and vote for the GOP, but those who were upset with the Democrats and saw little differences between the two parties are the ones who stayed home. And while I personally believe that not voting is one of the most cowardly acts a citizen in a democracy can commit, I understand the frustration that made people feel that packing the bong, playing another round of Madden on the xbox, and proving pundits right that young voters are unreliably AKA should be ignored, was the best thing to do on Tuesday.

The Democrats lost on Tuesday because the early economic predictions of bad times to come were too cautious, the stimulus was too small, the health care reform too conservative, and the financial reform too toothless. The Democrats, in an effort to woo independents who are too stupid to stick with one political direction for more than 2 years, lost their base and were abandoned on election day by the people who sent them there in 2008.

Might as well earn it

2010-11-05T14:37:00.004-04:00

Why should someone like Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) be selected as the next leader of the Democrat minority in the House? Because Democrats might as well earn the characterizations that the Dems are presenting policies that are from the far left of American politics. Perhaps a few years of seeing an actual progressive politician in charge will remind America that killing the public option for the Affordable Care Act was not the result of some vast socialist conspiracy. Watering down the financial regulations at the behest of the banks was not part of some radical liberal strategy. And yet both the Dodd/Frank Act and the Affordable Care Act were made out to be the result of the Democrats in Congress forcing through a supremely leftist agenda. So if they're going to do that when the policies are already center-right to begin with, what more can they say?

If there's one thing I wish that the Democrats would learn from their Republican colleagues it would be that there's no inherent problem with advocating policies that are far from the middle, so long as you do a good job of making your opponent's most moderate proposals seem extreme, and you phrase your own arguments so that people can identify some familiar aspects of your policy. We've seen this with the Sarah Palins, Jim DeMints, and Rand Pauls who advocate very right wing policies yet attack anyone who opposes them as some far left wing nut.

Having a true progressive at the reins for a few years will remind people that they really are in favor of the so called "socialism" in America; from social security to Medicare, Americans like their government programs. Somehow the Democrats' messaging in the past couple of years was so weak that they allowed the GOP to take up the mantle of defending Medicare against spending cuts.

So now that Pelosi has to hand in her gavel, maybe it's time to take a real progressive activist, who almost voted against the Affordable Care Act because he recognized it was far too big of a gift to the insurance companies and not focused enough on providing quality care to Americans, a chance to lead his party and remind America about the differences between what the GOP offers and what the Democrats can offer. Maybe if the public could see what real liberal policies were, they wouldn't be so quick to accept Karl Rove's and Sean Hannity's instant labeling of so many moderates as extreme leftists.

Blue Dogs Dumped - Swampland - TIME.com

2010-11-04T10:40:00.000-04:00

Some more analysis on how the Blue Dogs put themselves in the pound.

Blue Dogs Dumped - Swampland - TIME.com

Wow! Washington State you people are idiots!

2010-11-03T19:10:00.000-04:00

People earning under $200,000 per year vote to prevent Washington state from taxing those making more than $200,000. Way to go poor people! A thank you card is on its way from the Billionaire's club.

Washington State Rejects Income Tax on Wealthiest Residents - Bloomberg

Time to put the Blue Dogs down

2010-11-03T11:13:00.004-04:00

Despite what the loud mouthed imbeciles who work for the cable news channels will no doubt be saying for the next week or so, the midterm elections of 2010 are not the result of Congress having been "too liberal" or "too far to the left." Republicans and their minions have been and will continue spinning their tales of how the electorate reacted to the liberal overreaching of a left-wing President, Speaker of the House, and Senate majority leader but that fantasy only works because of the immense vastness of American ignorance. In actuality, the Democrats lost the midterms because of their centrist policies and their incompetence at the bargaining table which discouraged the progressives while the racist subtext of the conservative movement fired up those hopeless fools who reliably vote against their interests in sending Republicans to Washington.

Beginning with the Stimulus Obama, Reid and Pelosi caved into the demands of the "No Sayers". Much of the blame for those capitulations rests in the hands of the Blue Dog Democrats, who either voted against, or threatened to vote against the bill without significant concessions; concessions that ultimately weakened the administration and the Democrats' positions in the eyes of the public. What better gift could the Blue Dogs have delivered to the GOP than the ability to say "See how bad the bill is? Even your own party is against it." So while the Stimulus bill should have provided large amounts of government money to repair our failing infrastructure and get people back to work, it instead turned into tax cuts (over $250 billion in tax cuts) that was largely unnoticed by the public.

The same problems came up during the Affordable Care Act debate as Blue Dogs once again demanded changes to the legislation that fed the GOP narrative that the bill was bad. In truth, the bill was bad but mostly because of the compromises that were made before even approaching the bargaining table. When Congress should have been discussing a "Medicare for all" piece of legislation, they were instead caving in to the insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies to create a giant corporate handout in the form of mandated coverage. Because of the cowardice of the Blue Dogs not only was a "Medicare for all" option left undiscussed but even the public option was gutted to ensure the votes of Blue Dogs.

Despite all of those compromises, Republicans still stood firm, united as a group and blocked the bill with every parliamentary maneuver they could come up with; from attempting to derail the bill with an endless series of amendments to forcing the reading of lengthy amendments to run out the clock. They even went so far as to hold up funding for the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan in an effort to kill the health care bill. So when the "brave" senators from Nebraska and Connecticut could have sent a strong signal to the Republicans that their tactics of stalling and delaying the bill will not work Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman sent them the opposite message and began to waffle on the bill over minor provisions in the bill, allowing the GOP to once again rise up with another wedge issue (this time the specter of federally funded abortions) and made certain that the final bill would be an even more damaged piece of legislation than it was before. The longer the efforts to pass these bills dragged out, the more and more unpopular they became as pundits attacked while more of those polled were now unhappy with the bills for not going far enough as well as those who thought they went too far.

Beneath all of these policy debates though, was the strongest weapon in the GOP armory and that was Barack Obama's appearance. Had it not been for his middle name, Hussein, or the color of his skin, many of the attacks on Obama or the Affordable Care Act would not have been able to muster so much strength. Those opposed to this administration were able to profit from the subtext of "taking our country back," because they fed a narrative that Obama, someone who does not look like an American President had taken the country from them, those that do "look American." Couple that with the outrageous claims that Obama was not born in America, or that he was a secret Muslim, and all the ingredients for a reactionary racist revolution were in place.

So where does that leave progressives? We have a rough couple of years ahead of us as the Republicans resume hacking away at the little progress that has been made over the last 50 years. Along with new efforts to restrict access to abortions and non-abstinence sexual education, we can probably expect at least one serious effort to impeach President Obama. And while the minority Republicans were united in standing in the way of their opponents, the Democrats will likely cave on a number of issues as they always do, strengthening the GOP in the eyes of the electorate and rewarding their obstructionist policies of the past two years.

Not much of a surprise, but the young voters of America are mostly to blame for the results caused by their apathy that allowed the over 65 portion of the electorate to grow from 15% in 2008 to 25% on Tuesday. As much as any of us might love Grandma and Grandpa, for the most part, they have some ass backward policies. Whether that comes in the form of racism or other prejudices, voters aged 18-35 must not allow the over 65 crowd to determine so much of our elections.

But all is not lost. While many Democrats were defeated on Tuesday, a large number of those defeats were dealt to the Blue Dogs who got us into this mess to begin with. The once powerful caucus of more than 50 Blue Dogs has been neutered down to less than 25. And let us not forget that the Republicans are about to send some seriously crazy individuals to Congress like Senator Elect Rand Paul, who adamantly believes that private companies should have a protected right to discriminate on the basis of race and that government has no business stopping them. So let's look at 2010 as a wake up call to be less passive. Let's demand our representatives that are left do what's right for their constituents and explain to their constituents why it's the right thing to do. Democrats and other progressives need to get out there and talk to the people who election after election vote with the guy they think is on their side but is really on the corporations' payroll, like John Boehner who handed out checks on behalf of the tobacco lobby on the floor of the House.

So let's hang in there and wait for the openings that will surely come from another GOP controlled House. Let's keep an eye out for the gay-bashing congressman who sexually harasses a congressional page, or gets caught tap-tapping his foot in an airport bathroom, or the congressmen who will inevitably become mired in some corruption scandals a la Duke Cunningham. And let's remind those Democrats that are left in office that it's time to stand firm. If they cannot reign in their members they will once again appear weak as the remaining Blue Dogs vote with the Republicans and give their awful bills the air of bi-partisanship. Be strong...and I mean Jackass strong!

Voting, misunderstood - by Seth Godin

2010-11-01T08:53:00.001-04:00

Voting, misunderstood

This year, fewer than 40% of voting age Americans will actually vote.

A serious glitch in self-marketing, I think.

If you don't vote because you're trying to teach politicians a lesson, you're tragically misguided in your strategy...

Rally to Restore Sanity

2010-10-31T22:38:00.003-04:00

If you took a picture of this sign at the Stewart/Colbert Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear please comment with a link to the picture or email it to putridpundits@gmail.com.

Thanks and enjoy the sanity.

And now thanks to Iggy82, here is the first photo of the sign at the Rally:

Grading 'Waiting for Superman' | The Nation

2010-10-26T10:31:00.000-04:00

Grading 'Waiting for Superman' | The Nation

Here's what you see in Waiting for Superman, the new documentary that celebrates the charter school movement while blaming teachers unions for much of what ails American education: working- and middle-class parents desperate to get their charming, healthy, well-behaved children into successful public charter schools.

Here's what you don't see: the four out of five charters that are no better, on average, than traditional neighborhood public schools (and are sometimes much worse); charter school teachers, like those at the Green Dot schools in Los Angeles, who are unionized and like it that way; and noncharter neighborhood public schools, like PS 83 in East Harlem and the George Hall Elementary School in Mobile, Alabama, that are nationally recognized for successfully educating poor children.

National Shame

2010-10-25T15:55:00.002-04:00

On July 27th, 2002 a fifteen year old child was wounded and taken prisoner by American forces in the village of Ayub Kheyl, Afghanistan. During the firefight that preceded his capture, Khadr was shot twice in the back causing gaping wounds in his chest that would still require treatment 10 months later.

For the next few months he was held at Bargram Airbase, the site where much of the known harsh interrogation, or torture took place. It was there that the worst torture the 15, then 16 year old Khadr faced in detention was carried out. But it didn't end there. In October of 2002 Khadr was transferred from Bagram to Gitmo where he has languished for 8 long years. He is now the last detainee at Gitmo with a Western passport, and the only detainee captured on the battlefield to be tried for murder.

The mere fact that Canada is the last country to remove its citizens from the torture and abuse prone facility that is Gitmo is shameful enough, but that this detainee was a child soldier at the time of his alleged offense makes this a truly unforgivable dereliction of Canada's duty, and responsibility to its citizens. It is generally understood in the international community that child soldiers, even if they commit heinous acts, are themselves victims and should not be prosecuted as though they are adults.

In a decent society, the reason for punishing people who have committed offenses is that they had a choice and they chose to violate the law. But what choice did a teenage Omar Khadr have? His father took him to Afghanistan as a child. Once there, what were his options? He had none.

No...there is no justification for his treatment first by his father by bringing him into the world of Islamic extremism, then by his American captors for torturing him and denying him proper treatment as a child soldier, and finally by the Canadian government who could have requested he be repatriated as every other Western nation has done for their citizens in American detention.

After 8 long years in detention, Omar Khadr may well be a hardened Muslim extremist today, but if he is, then he is one of America's making. When he was first apprehended, at the age of 15, he was a child thrust onto a battlefield not of his making and should have been rehabilitated, not tortured.

Waiting for Superman...part 1

2010-10-13T17:41:00.002-04:00

I haven't seen it yet, so I'll keep this short. From everything I've seen so far about this new documentary that everyone talking about education is incessantly promoting, I can't help but feel like the anti-teacher establishment is getting ready to kick the union in the balls. That being said, I do plan to see this as soon as it arrives to a theater near me but people should consider the following when seeing this movie.

Teacher Evaluations

To say we should not have protections for bad teachers is an easy statement to make, but how do you determine what is or isn't a good teacher? For the last 10 years that has been almost entirely based upon student test scores on standardized tests. That is a terrible way to evaluate a teacher and provides almost no means to evaluate any teachers who do not teach math or language arts. Everyone should be in favor of rewarding "good" teachers and removing "bad" teachers but no one has been able to come up with a fair and decent way to make that judgement.

So long as we are basing teacher performance on students' standardized test scores, we create a disincentive for teachers to work together and learn from each other. Every teacher will be going after that performance based pay bonus and will be unwilling to share helpful advice with their fellow teachers. It is easy to attack the teacher's unions but it is much more difficult to come up with a better way to evaluate teacher performance.

Farewell Rick Sanchez, it was just a matter of time

2010-10-05T18:03:00.002-04:00

Goodbye Rick Sanchez. After years of making a complete ass out of yourself you went a little too far in your rant about all those people like Jon Stewart who run things and aren't an oppressed minority.

While it's certainly a shame that CNN dismissed Sanchez for what was one part imbecilic inaccuracy (Jon Stewart is a bigot) and one part unthinking Jew-baiting frustration (people like Jon Stewart run the media) the fact is that Sanchez does not belong on a news network...unless perhaps Johnny Knoxville has started a news network.

Rick Sanchez had a lot to say last week about Jon Stewart, the intellectual elites and his own father's history of doing manual labor for a living to make a better life for his family. That last part is extremely admirable, but what I think Sanchez's biggest offense through his time at CNN has been his extreme waste of potential. Sure, by his own admission he didn't grow up in a highly intellectual environment but he made it all the way to CNN, and even if it was a temporary gig to hold an audience between Campbell Brown's departure and the Spitzer/Parker tag team (think that costs extra?) he did have a nationwide 8pm time slot on CNN. But he squandered it.

Instead of using his ability to connect with his audience and educate himself and the people watching his show, he just kept up with the same buffoonery that made him the target of all sorts of people, from Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, to President Obama during the White House Correspondents' Dinner. But really, the saddest part of all this, is that no matter how dumb or circus-animal-like Rick Sanchez appeared, he's not the worst person the air by far. Probably not even the worst person at CNN.

Funny, for a guy who covered social media and the information age's capacity for disseminating knowledge, it almost seems like he didn't realize anyone would hear his comments on Pete Dominick's radio show.

Lastly, here's an interesting column by someone who worked with Sanchez at CNN.

http://www.businessinsider.com/some-rick-sanchez-insights-from-a-former-cnn-producer-2010-10

You don't need video games, your brain's already rotten

2010-10-03T12:28:00.004-04:00

While this should not be a political issue, the frenzied screams of America's "value voters" has done an unbelievably stupid thing in forcing Electronic Arts to modify their upcoming Medal of Honor video game. For those who haven't been following this fiasco, EA's new Medal of Honor takes place in Afghanistan, a significant departure from their typical subject matter: World War II. The controversy with this newest game erupted when morons like Jack Thompson decided to try and censor the game by attacking their inclusion of "Taliban" as one of the playable options in multi-player mode.

For the benefit of you readers out there who are not familiar with "first person shooter" games, they typically consist of a single-player mode with a story that the player moves through. This often has cut-scenes, bits of dialog and other entertaining moments to give the player's twitchy fingers a bit of a breather, as well as provide the ears a break from the constant sound of gunfire. What "shooters" also tend to include in there, is a multi-player mode in which gamers can play either against each other in the room or against opponents over the internet. Here there is no story, no cut-scenes, no scripts. There is only killing the other players and staying alive.

With this new found understanding of "shooter" games, I would not like to point out the absurd substance of the complaints. Jack Thompson and his idiot think-alikes were outraged that in that multi-player mode, along with being a US soldier, a soldier from another NATO country, and maybe even an Afghan Army soldier, EA had put in the option for players to play as a "Taliban" fighter in multi-player mode. It is a pretty well established standard in the "shooter" genre to use the same characters that are in the single-player mode for the multi-player with obvious savings in programming and art design.

Now, let's imagine that the option is removed from the game. The Taliban is no longer a playable option in multi-player but multi-player is still part of the game. What does that really mean for the game play? Now players are all US soldiers running around killing each other. Is that so much better Jack? Would you prefer that people in multi-player mode run through the maps shooting other American or NATO soldiers? And it is exactly this kind of thoughtless argument that these "values voters" or religious extremists put forward that show how utterly moronic their viewpoints are.

So now EA has yielded to the pressure of these half-wits and is doing a "find/replace" on the word Taliban in their multi-player mode and replacing it with "Opposing Force." Maybe if these nuts had focused a bit of this energy on preventing real life violence (invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq) then EA wouldn't have based their game on Afghanistan and the Taliban. Congratulations Jack Thompson, you're a dumbass.

Pledges, promises and black eyes

2010-09-26T20:25:00.002-04:00

Don't get me wrong, I have long ago walked away, in disgust, from the cheering section of the Democratic party, but when Mr. Boehner and his fellow Republicans march up on stage and wave "A Pledge to America" to rally American voters back to the GOP, I can't help but think of Marlin Brando's epic role as Stanley Kowalski, or any abuser begging his victim to come back to him. Wake up Ameirca! The Republican party, with Bush and Cheney in the White House, Dennis Hastert in the House, Bill Frist in the Senate and the 5-4 advantage in the Supreme Court marched the country into two hopeless wars of occupation in the middle east killing more of our young men and women than the total death toll of 9-11. They gutted the regulatory bodies that oversee resource extraction contributing to mining tragedies, oil spills, and other problems that have yet to surface. These so called fiscal conservatives ballooned the deficits and the debts while giving away billions of dollars to the wealthiest 1% of the country. These are the black eyes, and the cuts and bruises that the GOP and their false promises to address the debt have inflicted on the American people.

And yet, like the victim of domestic violence whose bruises are starting to fade, and whose bones are starting to heal, the voting public is getting ready to rush back into the arms of the GOP and allow everything that has been done to help dig us out of the Bush messes be undone. The promises and the rhetoric coming from Mr. Boehner and his members are so full of buzz words and talking points that do not amount to single piece of actual legislative options. They repeat again and again that they want to return spending to the 2008 levels. Well, Mr. Boehner, tell us, what exactly are you proposing we cut? What popular entitlement programs will you announce that you would like to do away with? In interview after interview Republicans and their spokespeople have been echoing the same hollow lines without giving any specifics. And while the reason for the vague answers should be clear, it evidently is not to the majority of those polled.

I hate the health care reform bill, but the way to improve health care for all Americans is to strengthen the bill, create the missing public option and stop guaranteeing customers to a profiteering industry that cares more about quarterly revenues than patient care.

I hated the bank bailouts but in the end, most of that money has been or will soon be collected back from the recipients of that money. If that money could be put towards some real green jobs initiatives or other programs designed to truly help create jobs here at home then it would be even better. Taking the money that has been paid back and giving it to the top 2% of income earners through extending the tax cuts seems to be a very cruel move against the middle class.

To those in the top 2% of income earners who care nothing for the plight of their fellow citizens, I encourage you to stand firm with the GOP and vote for them this November since, after all, they are fighting hardest to protect your interests over those of the bottom 98%. To those arguing that giving the rich more money will result in more jobs here at home I have only this to say. What requirement is there in the tax cut legislation to ensure that the monies they receive will stay here? Once that money is returned to the wealthy tax payers, there is no stopping them from investing that money overseas or purchasing goods from abroad.

If Republicans were serious about helping American industries they would have helped pass an efficient, single payer health care system that alleviates the employer's concerns around health care costs. If they were serious about cutting the deficit they would have worked with Democrats to find a way to bring ALL of our troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq. If they were serious about securing America they would have joined in the efforts to eliminate Don't Ask, Don't Tell once and for all and allow our brave men and women to serve in the armed forces regardless of their sexual orientation.

So when John Boehner calls you up to say "baby, I'm sorry. I won't ever do that again. You know I love you," do what should have been done in 1994 and tell him to go fuck himself.

The Nation: The Big Green Buy

2010-08-25T15:31:00.000-04:00

How the Obama administration can Go Green and make it easier for the rest of us to Go Green as well.

The Big Green Buy | The Nation

WikiLeaks and classified information

2010-07-26T08:42:00.003-04:00

In the aftermath of Wikileaks' release of some 90,000 classified documents pertaining to the war in Afghanistan (2004-2010) many have condemned the site for endangering our troops. Since its launch in 2007, WikiLeaks has been responsible for bringing us video of a helicopter attack on civilians and journalists, corporate documents relating to toxic dumping, and even a DOD intelligence report on WikiLeaks itself.

The notion that the site, which posts documents and information that is anonymously submitted, has been accused of endangering coalition troops in Aghanistan with this most recent release. I would ask those that are making this claim to explain how they believe the soldiers are being put at risk. Do they believe that an incident report from 2004 exposes any information that is still relevant to where the troops are today? Do they believe that there is strategic data in those reports that can be mined by Al Qaeda to target coalition forces? Or is it the even more ridiculous argument that the information in those reports is proof of civilian deaths at the hands of coalition forces and that somehow the publication will enrage the local population?

I deem the last argument to be the most ridiculous because if you had traveled through Afghanistan a month ago, long before these documents surfaced, the local people in the combat areas already knew of the civilian deaths accumulating under the occupation. These revelations are only revelations to the American people and are not new information to the Afghans. To believe that they are somehow ignorant to their neighbors deaths from coalition air strikes and firefights is so absurd that it borders on the delusional. The only people surprised by the information in the leaked documents are the American people and it's about time they knew the truth of the occupation of Afghanistan.

What we should take away from this document leak is that there are far too many items that are classified for no good reason. Hiding documents by classifying them as state secrets is a convenient means for the government to hide the truth from the voters, thus preventing them having the information necessary to be an informed citizenry. If the abuse of that authority were curtailed, then more weight might be given to documents deemed "classified," but so long as every slightly embarrassing document is deemed a state secret vital to national defense...well, we know what happens when you cry wolf.

Newsroom - Video/Audio: U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Vermont)

2010-07-20T16:10:00.000-04:00

Bernie Sanders takes on the Republican goal to eliminate the estate tax and give the Waltons a $33 billion tax break while denying unemployment benefits to out of work Americans.

Newsroom - Video/Audio: U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Vermont)

The real problems with Teach for America

2010-07-15T08:59:00.000-04:00

Just came across this great post on Teach for America's failings. A great read for anyone concerned with the state of our public education.

Tenured Radical: Is Teach For America A Program For The Poor Or For The Rich?

Companion Guide to WHPB

2010-05-21T14:40:00.002-04:00

For those of you who watch Robert Gibbs' ever entertaining White House Press Briefings and don't always know who the questions are coming from, here's a list of the reporters in the room and what networks/newpapers they are affiliated with.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/administration/whbriefing/correspondents.html

BOOSH!!!

2010-05-18T16:19:00.000-04:00

Another one bites the dust...so much for the moral majority.

C-SPAN Video Player - Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN) Resignation Announcement

Obama's Katrina

2010-05-05T13:30:00.005-04:00

The conservative establishment hacks have been eager to label the oil spill caused by BP's deepwater drilling operation "Obama's Katrina." Ignoring the fact that conservatives have been fanatically chanting "Drill, baby, drill!" since the summer of 2008, and ignoring as well the claims that they want smaller government with less interference and regulation, many are shouting now that the federal response was inadequate or not fast enough. They have attempted to draw parallels between President Bush's delayed efforts to get to New Orleans and President Obama's initially hands-off approach while BP said they had the spill under control.

While one might expect conservatives to support Obama's efforts to allow the private sector to remedy the situation they created, they have instead called for a "big government" response to the oil spill. Personally, I am in favor a massive federal cleanup effort with all costs being billed to BP down the road, but had the President taken such action initially, I can only imagine the outcry and screams of government takeover that would be going on right now at FoxNews by Hannity, Rove, Palin and company.

In a desperate effort to further connect the dots between the BP spill and Hurricane Katrina, the ever repulsive Neil Cavuto had former FEMA director Michael "Brownie" Brown on to share his thoughts on the drilling rig explosion and subsequent oil spill into the Gulf.

And here is Robert Gibbs' reaction to the Cavuto interview after FoxNews White House correspondent Wendel Goler asks about the spill being Obama's Katrina. Well done Mr. Gibbs.

Look who's asking for Big Government help now

2010-05-01T10:04:00.000-04:00

BP’s Response to Oil Spill Lacking, Officials Say (Update1) - Bloomberg.com

All those tough, conservative governors that are supposed to be against a large federal government are lining up in droves to receive federal assistance. What a surprise...

From CSPAN

2010-04-14T10:31:00.001-04:00

A quick note on Religion

2010-04-05T15:49:00.002-04:00

While reading Melissa Harris-Lacewell's "A Right for the Life of the Living" in the April 5th edition of The Nation, I couldn't help but puzzle once again people's strange invocations of "God's will" or "God's plan" in horrible situations. Suppose for a moment that you believed that God was this all-powerful, all-knowing being, and that whatever happened on Earth was part of his divine plan, then you would think that whatever happened was a) meant to happen, and b) God's will, and finally c) an inevitable part of God's plan. Believing that, from a religious standpoint, it makes absolutely no sense to punish criminals (they were just carrying out God's will), treat disease (interfering with God's will), or work to undue any damage done in the world since it all happened for a reason.

I realize that some people, mourning the loss of a loved one, or trying to make sense of a tragedy too awful to comprehend feel the need to turn to some superstitious nonsense and say things like "at least they're with God now" but it saddens me to think of how many seemingly rational people can think like this and make decisions about important things while believing this fairytale lunacy. No offense to religious doctors, but if you think your patient's cancer was given to them by God how can you effectively work against it?

The Real Difference: Tea Baggers vs Anti-war Rallies

2010-04-05T14:13:00.005-04:00

NOTE: I started writing this a week or so ago and forgot to pick it back up so I figured I should just post it now and finish it later.

In an article today from Foxnews.com, the case is made that while there have been some nasty things shouted or written on posters by the Tea Party movement, it is no different than the nasty things that were said of President Bush during the anti-war protests leading up to and during the unnecessary Iraq war. While on the face of it that may seem true there are some striking differences that people should keep in mind when comparing the two.

MOTIVE

When millions of people took to the streets AROUND THE WORLD in 2003 to oppose a US invasion of Iraq they did so not over trumped up charges of falsified birth certificates or allegations that "dubya" wanted to kill our grannies, but rather on the basis that the claims of WMDs were likely false or at least incorrect, and that going to war would result in killing millions of people (and thousands of Americans). Those have all been shown to be correct at this point, and were it not for the clever misinformation campaign led by Vice President Cheney to link Iraq/Al Queda/9-11 in public statements to confuse the public, we might not have had to go into Iraq.

The Tea Baggers, on the other hand, have as their end goal to lower the taxes on the rich bring back the usage of the N-word into the casual American vernacular. I would say that in a thoughtful society, a little more deference must be given to those trying to stop the unnecessary deaths of millions, against those in the highest income earners wanting to save a few bucks.

BUSH LIED - IRAQIS DIED

Another one of the Tea Baggers' claims is that President Obama is illegitimate and lying to the American people about his citizenship and his religion. While we here at PutridPundits think that religion is silly and whatever flavor of that silliness should never be the basis for support or opposition to a particular candidate, we do recognize how to the casual observer these claims might sound similar to those leveled against Bush after the contentious 2000 election. So yes, FOXNEWS would be correct in saying that both the anti-war protesters from the Bush era and the Tea Baggers today are accusing the President of lying and being illegitimate, but the substance behind those lies is important to investigate before saying they're all equal.

President Obama has been accused, way back during the campaign, of being a secret Muslim who was born in Kenya. Despite how ridiculous such allegations were, and despite releasing documents no white candidate for President has ever been so incessantly hounded to produce, there are still these fools shouting about Obama's mother secretly giving birth in Kenya and then Hawaii issuing a false birth certificate. Meanwhile, the accusations of Bush's illegitimacy stemmed from the contested Florida election in which recounting suspect ballots was prevented by George Bush's Florida campaign co-chair.

Obama sneaks in and out of Afghanistan

2010-03-30T17:38:00.004-04:00

This weekend President Barack Obama snuck out of Washington with a Blackberryless entourage of journalists and flew to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan for a "surprise" visit. By calling it a "surprise" visit it almost seems as though that isn't the only kind of visit a President can make to Afghanistan or Iraq. When did President Bush ever announce ahead of time that he was heading to Iraq or Afghanistan? Will Obama ever have the luxury of declaring when and where he will visit? The fact that neither President has, in the 9 years of occupation, been able to announce a trip to that country is a black eye for the whole worthless mission of invading and occupying Afghanistan. If an American President is unable to safely visit either of our occupied countries without sneaking in and out, then clearly these endeavors have failed and we should acknowledge those failures and withdraw. Every day that American forces remain in Afghanistan and Iraq past January 20th 2009, is another day of failure that belongs to President Obama.

Stop the lies!

2010-03-29T17:05:00.002-04:00

Today on C-Span a caller (Irene from Connecticut) read aloud a letter she said she had received from Medicare. It was really sad to hear her on the phone as I don't believe she was trying to deceive anyone. I think she was honestly confused by the direct mailer that she was reading and thought it had originated from the government, and not some scheming health insurance lobbyists. While searching for it I came across this advertisement that contained several versions of the mailer she described. The company, ArmLeads.com proclaims itself to be a "senior marketing specialists" meaning that they are specialists at taking advantage of our most vulnerable citizens.

Here is Sherrod Brown's denunciation of these mailers:

Learn the lessons

2010-03-26T01:17:00.002-04:00

Since the American people are not the smartest when it comes to voting, and since it is inevitable that over the next 2-4 years the Democratic majority in the House and Senate will decrease or possibly end, I hope that the party of FDR is taking notes on how to run a successful opposition. While the Republicans did not manage to stop the health care bills that crawled through both houses of our legislative body, they did manage to strongly influence both the eventual law and the public perception of the majority party.

Without casting a single vote in its favor, the minority managed to get over 160 amendments added to the senate health care bill and push the resulting legislation far to the right of what those of us who voted for "hope" and "change" wanted. The health insurance bill that Obama signed into law was a far cry from anything the late Ted Kennedy had strongly advocated for all those years that he was in office. It was a far cry from anything Representative Dennis Kucinich could support with a clean conscience. And it fell far short of what the country needs in order to say we have substantively improved our health care system.

One of the reasons was the failure of the Democratic leadership to fight back against the minority's talking points, and their fear of being seen as partisan after the GOP made such a big deal of how post-partisan President Obama had promised to be. But in this sad tale there is at least the redeeming element that perhaps a lesson can be learned. The party of Nixon and Duke Cunningham has shown that if you play the game correctly, 41 senators can be almost as powerful as a super majority. They have shown that withholding money from our soldiers in times of war can be done for political reasons without repercussions. And they have shown that despite years of leading the charge to kneecap the public insurance plans that exist today (Medicare and Medicaid) it is still possible to pretend to be its stalwart defender in order to confuse voters.

So I hope that Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Steny Hoyer, and Tim Kaine have been taking notes because it probably won't be too long before they will be counted on to oppose Speaker Boehner, and senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, and when they do, I hope they can do half as good a job at getting their way.

Slope Radio music on the blog

2010-03-24T21:16:00.002-04:00

Greetings readers,

I've heard some mixed reviews/reports about the slope radio widget on the page. Please vote and let me know whether you would like it to stay or go.

Thanks

GOP Bullshit: It's absurd because you have been absurd

2010-03-24T17:08:00.002-04:00

Senator Judd Gregg, who came very close to being a member of President Obama's cabinet, has been ranting on the floor of the Senate today about how unfair and absurd it is that seemingly good amendments are going to get voted down because the Democratic senators do not want the bill to have to go back to the House of Representatives. He tossed around the word absurd over and over again when referring to the lack of support for their amendments while in the same breath saying that HR 3590 (the Senate Health Care law) should be repealed. Even if everyone one of their amendments were accepted by the Senate, none of them would vote in support of the reconciliation or a conference bill that would be come back to the Senate from the House.

Perhaps, if the Republicans had not threatened to filibuster the reforms every step of the way, then the Democrats could have entertained some of their amendments into the bill. Unfortunately, they decided to obstruct rather than vote down the health insurance reforms that were put together by the Democratic leadership. Given that it has already taken more than a year to get this done, it is the opposite of absurd for the Majority to wish for an end to this debacle and get the bill through and reconciled in as quick a method as is available to them. If the actions of the Majority seem absurd to Mr. Gregg, perhaps he ought to look back through the c-span archives and see what he and his colleagues have been doing for the past 8 months. He might then have a different opinion of what constitutes "absurd".

GOP Bullshit: Colloquies with your own party are stupid

2010-03-24T15:41:00.006-04:00

While the vote that the Senate will be taking some time this week (hopefully) is merely on a few fixes that everyone wants to see take place, anyone watching the proceedings would think that the whole big Health Insurance bill were still on the docket. It is not! It has been signed into law by President Obama and any further delay on the reconciliation fix is merely keeping in place elements of HR 3590 that everyone is opposed to.

Anyone watching C-SPAN 2 today got to see what may as well have been a replay of the "debates" that were aired back in December. In these sessions a couple of GOP Senators stand around and engage in a "colloquy" so that they can dramatically ask and answer each other's questions related to the Health Insurance law. It's slightly entertaining because of the way that the GOP Senators like Judd Greg of New Hampshire, Tom Coburn (the asshole who made the clerk read aloud Bernie Sanders' 700+ page amendment to stall the vote in December), and John "won't someone tell me I lost" McCain, have been asking each other exceptionally sarcastic questions to make their points.

Judd Greg probably has the best delivery when he asks Mr. Coburn extremely leading questions that imply that anyone helped by the new legislation will not be able to find a doctor, or those with Medicare and Medicaid will have even less access to doctors. Or McCain asking Mr. Greg "but isn't this deficit neutral?" to which Mr. Greg answers "no, it is not. It is a bit of a scam." These are their opinions which go against the CBO scores, and they've all made these positions known before so it's funny how they ask the questions in a tone that suggests they are honestly curious to know the answer and don't know what their colleague is planning to say.

It's really too bad because I could see where a colloquy could be used by members of Congress to have some fair and honest airing of ideas if it took place with members of different parties. If they were asking questions that they actually wanted to hear answers to, rather than just a forum to repeat what they've already been saying, it could be very useful to the country.

GOP Bullshit: More on Amendments

2010-03-24T11:40:00.000-04:00

From Spare Candy

http://www.sparecandy.com/2010/03/sfs-real-intentions-behind-sen-tom.html

GOP Bullshit: Amending the bill

2010-03-24T10:40:00.003-04:00

Anyone who has read my previous posts about the health insurance reform knows that while I support the passage at this point, I am no fan of the bill in its current form. The absence of a single payer system, or the dropping of the public option are two big failings for anything trying to be "health care reform." That being said, the bill has come this far and needs to get through the Senate with, or without GOP votes.

Making sure that they earn their status as the party of "No!" Republican senators have been introducing a slew of, frankly, common sense amendments to the current legislation. Is it because they realize that this is happening and they should not try to offer some constructive measures to improve it? Is it because they truly care about Americans' access to quality, affordable health care? If only that were the case. These insurance company backed weasels are offering these amendments because they know that if ANY of their amendments should pass, the whole bill will need to go back to the House for yet another vote, further threatening the likelihood of the reconciliation fixes taking place, which will allow them to keep tossing around terms like "corn-husker kickback", "gator aid", and "the Louisiana purchase."

Ultimately, even if their amendments are added to the bill they still aren't going to vote for the reconciliation. We can see the evidence for that in the original Senate bill HR. 3590 which did contain some Republican amendments but in the end, not a single Republican senator voted for it. So, if they aren't going to vote for it, no matter what amendments are allowed into the bill, because they are determined to say "No" to the American people and "Yes" to the insurance company lobbyists, then why should any of their amendments be considered? The GOP has no political interest in seeing this reform have a positive impact on the American people. In fact, the worse it is in the end, the better their political futures, so one must recognize that any action taken at this point is to delay, weaken, or kill the bill. It would be tantamount to allowing Toyota executives select the brake pedal manufacturers for GM.

From the Archives: Paul Krugman vs Bill O'Reilly

2010-03-22T23:47:00.004-04:00

Let me just say that Bill O'Reilly is an ass. Here's something I found stashed away on my computer from 2004 that illustrates the point quite well.

Just in case you don't like reading, here's the video:

Copyright 2004 CNBC, Inc.
CNBC News Transcripts
SHOW: Tim Russert (10:00 PM ET) - CNBC
August 14, 2004 Saturday
LENGTH: 9495 words

HEADLINE: Bill O'Reilly of FOX News Channel and Paul Krugman, author of "The Great Unraveling," discuss Bush's economic and foreign policies

BODY:
HOST: Tim Russert

TIM RUSSERT: Good evening and welcome again. Tonight, two observers and commentators on the American political scene. Both have books that are must-reads for Americans who are interested in public affairs. PaulKrugman, "The Great Unraveling: Losing Our Way In The New Century"--he writes his column for The New York Times every Tuesday and Friday.

Welcome.

Professor PAUL KRUGMAN ("The Great Unraveling"): Nice to be on.

RUSSERT: And, "Who's Looking Out for You?" by Bill O'Reilly of "The O'Reilly Factor" on FOX News Channel.

Welcome.

Mr. BILL O'REILLY (FOX News, "The O'Reilly Factor"): Tim.

RUSSERT: Mr. Krugman, let me start with you. You have a simple premise in your book which says that George Bush is a radical. Why do you use a word like radical to describe the president?

Prof. KRUGMAN: Well, just look at the record, right? This is the first president in American history--in fact, first leader in any history, as far as I can tell--who cut taxes on the rich while fighting a war. This is a--they follow an extremely radical policy agenda. And if you look at the groups behind the administration, look at the think tanks, they make no bones about the fact that they want to roll us back to what we were before Franklin Roosevelt; that they want to get rid of these nasty things like Social Security and Medicare, privatize them. So, you know, this is a highly--this is a radical conservative movement. And just, you know, look at Tom DeLay, the most powerful man in Congress, who is certainly not somebody you'd call a moderate.

RUSSERT: Radical--fair word?

Mr. O'REILLY: You know, I think the Bush administration wants to impose a smaller government on the country. I think they don't trust the government to operate the funds. Obviously Social Security has been looted by the federal government. So, you know, one man's radicalism is another man's practicality. But I'm not here to defend the Bush administration; I want everybody to know that. They can defend themselves, all right? But obviously I don't see them as the harmful, pernicious influence that Mr. Krugman does.

RUSSERT: Why not?

Mr. O'REILLY: Because I believe that Mr. Bush's philosophy is a philosophy that the Republicans have embraced for decades: smaller government; let the private sector drive the economy; let the folks have their money back; let the entrepreneurial class get a tax break, so they'll hire more people. And if you look at The New York Times op-ed on last Wednesday, you'll see George Shultz has a chart that the economy is rebounding after a tremendous blow on 9/11. So that's the supply side, that's the Republican philosophy. I don't see any deviation from what Ronald Reagan did to George Bush.

RUSSERT: Can't you make the case that tax cuts stimulated the economy?

Prof. KRUGMAN: George Shultz is a good economist and a partisan Republican. He's a good enough economist that he knows how to make a chart that is true but misleading. And what that chart shows you is just rates of change. Doesn't give you any sense of level. And what it's really telling you is that after three terrible years on jobs, we've had one year where the rate of change is OK. But that's like saying, 'Well, we're down 400 feet, and we've now climbed 100 feet, so we're back where we started.' And it's not true.

The fact is--simple comparison--in the 2002 economic report of the president, which they--you know, this is the Bush administration that's put out after 9/11, it's put out after the stock market crash--they said by--you know, on average in 2004, we're going to have 138 million payroll jobs in the United States. The actual number right now is about 131 million, so we're seven million short of where the Bush administration said we were going to be. And they said that after these blows. So it takes a lot of spinning to call that success.

And, you know, think above all--when people say, 'We want less government,' you know, let's talk about what that means. You actually go through the numbers, and the only way you can get a significantly smaller government, the only way you could bring spending in line with the amount of revenue that we've lost from the Bush tax cuts, is to cut deep into Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid 'cause that's where the money is. The federal government--you know, a Bush administration official once said, 'The federal government is, basically, a big insurance company that's got a sideline business in national defense.' And if you're talking about smaller government, let's be clear, that's a euphemism for saying, 'Let's slash Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.'

Mr. O'REILLY: Well, I don't buy that all. And, you know, Mr. Krugman is a smart guy, but Mr. Krugman was absolutely dead 100 percent wrong in his columns two years ago when he predicted the Bush tax cuts would lead to a deeper recession. You can read his book and see how wrong he was.

Prof. KRUGMAN: Actually, you can read it. I never said that.

Mr. O'REILLY: Sure you did...

Prof. KRUGMAN: I said that it would lead to a lousy job creation...

Mr. O'REILLY: ...column after column after column. You made the point, in your book, OK, that these tax cuts were going to be disastrous for the economy.

Prof. KRUGMAN: No.

Mr. O'REILLY: They haven't been.

Prof. KRUGMAN: I'm sorry, that's a lie.

Mr. O'REILLY: It's not a lie.

Prof. KRUGMAN: Let me just say it's a lie. I said they were ineffective at job creation. And if you look at the Bush administration...

Mr. O'REILLY: Hold on, hold on. Hold it. Now 'ineffective at job creation,' what is that? Semantics now?

Prof. KRUGMAN: No, it means that...

Mr. O'REILLY: The economy is based on job creation, and you're saying it's ineffective. Don't call me a liar, pal. That's what you do all the time, and I'm not going to sit here and take it.

Prof. KRUGMAN: Well--no. I'm sorry. You just did.

Mr. O'REILLY: 'Ineffective'? You can--that's the biggest bunch of spin in the world.

Prof. KRUGMAN: Find a place where I said that they were going to cause a recession.

Mr. O'REILLY: You said--you...

Prof. KRUGMAN: Find a place where I ca--said it.

Mr. O'REILLY: Look, you want to call it ineffective in job creation. What is a recession? A recession is when the GNP...

Prof. KRUGMAN: No.

Mr. O'REILLY: ...goes backward. Everybody knows it's going forward.

Prof. KRUGMAN: I...

Mr. O'REILLY: Pounded column after column: 'Disastrous for the economy,"Tax cuts are disastrous.'

Prof. KRUGMAN: No, I...

Mr. O'REILLY: It hasn't been.

Prof. KRUGMAN: I said the tax cuts were not going to be effective at creating jobs, and the job creation...

Mr. O'REILLY: And you were wrong.

Prof. KRUGMAN: ...record is lousy.

Mr. O'REILLY: In your opinion.

Prof. KRUGMAN: This is the worst...

RUSSERT: There has been a net loss of jobs.

Prof. KRUGMAN: There has been a net loss of jobs.

Mr. O'REILLY: Since when?

RUSSERT: In the Bush administration.

Prof. KRUGMAN: In the Bush administration.

Mr. O'REILLY: Yeah, 9/11 did it. Not happen? Did it not happen?

Prof. KRUGMAN: Again, 2002 economic report of the president, they said we were going to be seven million jobs ahead of where we are now.

Mr. O'REILLY: OK, they were wrong. I'll say, again, I'm not defending them.

Prof. KRUGMAN: They--the job creation over the last 10 months, the 1.5 million...

Mr. O'REILLY: Look...

Prof. KRUGMAN: ...which the Bushies boast about, that is a slower pace of job creation than Clinton had from ninety...

Mr. O'REILLY: We've got a 5.6 percent unemployment rate here. In the state of Florida, which is one of the states that's going to be the election (unintelligible), you got over 60 percent saying the economy is good or excellent. It's a state-by-state situation, all right? And I'm just tired of this stuff.

Prof. KRUGMAN: Well, I'm tired of...

Mr. O'REILLY: Look, if you think it's bad, fine.

Prof. KRUGMAN: You know...

Mr. O'REILLY: And if Bush made a mistake in his estimation of job creation, you're probably right.

Prof. KRUGMAN: Look, let's...

Mr. O'REILLY: But you paint Armageddon; so does your newspaper. And it's baloney.

RUSSERT: All right. We need to stop.

Prof. KRUGMAN: Well, this is what--yeah, OK. This is not your show; you can't cut my mike. Look, what...

Mr. O'REILLY: Oh, another cheap shot.

Prof. KRUGMAN: No, I--well, it's true.

Mr. O'REILLY: You know, you're a cheap-shot artist, and you know it.

RUSSERT: Wait, wait, wait, wait. Hold on, hold on.

Prof. KRUGMAN: Good man.

RUSSERT: All right. Go ahead, you finish.

Prof. KRUGMAN: Yeah, let's finish this. The--what we were saying--what I said--you know, people can read the book. Actually, what I want to do is sell books. Go ahead, buy the book, paperback edition. The--what I said was this was not the kind of stimulus program that was going to be effective. And if you gave any of my college sophomores the right to run budget deficits as big as what we're now running, any of them could do a whole lot better than this. What we have--look, these days Bush is out on the road boasting of 1.5 million jobs over the last 10 months; that's 150,000 jobs a month. The US economy needs 140,000 jobs a month just to keep up with population growth. So that's just barely gaining ground, and that's after three terrible years. Right now you take a look, you say--the other comparison is under Bill Clinton, the economy for 96 months added an average of more than 230,000 jobs a month. So here we are with Bush with one year, which I admit is not bad--not great, but not bad.

Mr. O'REILLY: Did you predict that year?

Prof. KRUGMAN: After a couple of--no.

Mr. O'REILLY: Did you predict it?

Prof. KRUGMAN: No.

Mr. O'REILLY: OK, fine. There we go.

Prof. KRUGMAN: But compare me with anyone else, and I think my forecasting record is not great. Economists are not 100 percent. But the point is to claim that this thing...

Mr. O'REILLY: Economists are not 100 percent. Does that mean when Bush misanalyzed his job creation...

Prof. KRUGMAN: No.

Mr. O'REILLY: ...maybe you ...(unintelligible).

Prof. KRUGMAN: That job creation number was a guess at what it would--what success would look like.

Mr. O'REILLY: Right, and economists are not 100 percent.

Prof. KRUGMAN: I'm not saying they had to be right, and this doesn't...

RUSSERT: What's the next year's going...

Prof. KRUGMAN: ...look like success.

RUSSERT: ...to look like?

Prof. KRUGMAN: Damned if I do. I mean, to be honest, what it looks like--if you look at the growth rate over the last four quarters, you know, here's where--it's 7.4, 4.2, 4.5, 3.0. So it looks like something that started out great and is going down to sort of 'eh.' And my guess is that's what the next year will look like.

RUSSERT: We're going to take a quick break. We're talking to Paul Krugman. His book is in paperback, "The Great Unraveling: Losing Our Way In The New Century." Bill O'Reilly's book is still in hard cover, "Who's Looking Out for You?" A lot more right after this.

(Announcements)

RUSSERT: And we're back. Paul Krugman of The New York Times; his book, "The Great Unraveling." Bill O'Reilly of FOX News Channel, "The O'Reilly Factor," "Who's Looking Out for You?"

Bill O'Reilly, what about deficits, the largest in history? Is that a problem for a conservative president?

Mr. O'REILLY: Sure, it's a problem. It's a problem for anybody. And I'm not a big spending kind of guy. I think Bush is pandering to the electorate by a whole bunch of programs. And you know that the No Child Left Behind Act and all the federal money that poured in to try to help the kids, which, you know, everybody wants to help the kids--Right?--states can't spend the money. Most of the states are going to have to give it back to the Treasury because they just can't spend the money. They're not organized enough. They can't get it to the right people. And I am, basically, a guy who says that both parties try to buy votes, and they have ever since FDR. They'll buy your vote by targeting certain segments and saying, 'We're going to create a big government thing to do this for you,' OK? So Bush basically doesn't like that but still does it, and then the deficits rise. But, again, the war on terror is such that we're living in a totally different time than we did in the '90s.

RUSSERT: Mr. Krugman has a theory in his book that there really is a group of Republicans who want to starve the beast, and that is if you drive spending up so high and you cut tax cuts, you'd be left with no choice but to cut...

Prof. KRUGMAN: No, it's not--the driving spending up is not in there. It's just cut taxes, starve the beast; deprive the government of revenue, and then you can say, 'No alternative, we've got to cut...'

Mr. O'REILLY: I don't know how much taxes you want. I mean, that's...

Prof. KRUGMAN: Can we do a number here? I mean, we've got a deficit now which is probably going to be about $440 billion, $450 billion for this year; of that, $270 billion is Bush tax cuts. So when people talk spending, spending, spending, yeah, spending is an issue, but it's--the dominant force in this deficit is, in fact, tax cuts. And...

Mr. O'REILLY: My opinion is that without those tax cuts, we'd be in a deep recession right now.

Prof. KRUGMAN: Yeah, but are those permanent tax cuts, right? Why aren't they temporary tax cuts to fight the recession?

Mr. O'REILLY: Good question.

Prof. KRUGMAN: And why are the tax cuts heavily targeted towards the people who are least likely to spend the money, which is people...

Mr. O'REILLY: Well...

Prof. KRUGMAN: ...at the top end of the income distribution.

Mr. O'REILLY: See, I don't believe that at all, and let me give you a personal example. I work my buns off, all right? I'm sure both of you do, too. And I make a lot of money. I like to make--now if they raise taxes on me any more--because I live in the most heavily taxed state in the union, New York, all right? I'm paying taxes like crazy. Every time I turn around, I'm paying more taxes. If they tax me any more, I'm knocking the radio out. I'm not going to do it, all right? Now how many people lose jobs then? Fifty because O'Reilly says, 'Not worth it. I'm not going to...'

Prof. KRUGMAN: Did you stop...

Mr. O'REILLY: You know, it's not worth my--wait a minute. I would give it up. That is the entrepreneurial class. And R&D is the same thing and corporate. You tax the people who are creating jobs and creating opportunities to over a certain point, they say, 'I got enough money. I'm not going to kill myself because right now I'm killing myself. And I'm not going to do it if the feds are in my pocket any more.'

RUSSERT: You think we're undertaxed.

Prof. KRUGMAN: Well, I think, yeah, right now we are. Look, I think Mr. O'Reilly had a show and did a whole lot of entrepreneurial work during the '90s when we had the Clinton-era tax rates. And nobody is proposing pushing those tax rates higher than they were in 2000. So if you--you've got to make a case that the '90s were a terrible time, when there was no entrepreneurialship, to say that just rolling back some of these recent tax cuts is a bad idea.

Mr. O'REILLY: Do you know...

Prof. KRUGMAN: And...

RUSSERT: Why do you think we're undertaxed?

Prof. KRUGMAN: Well, because there are certain things we want. We want to make sure that everybody has health insurance. We want to make sure that we can sustain the programs we have, like Medicare and Social Security. And you go through, you do the arithmetic and you discover that, at this point, after all those Bush tax cuts, we are way short. We're probably about 20 to 25 percent short of the revenue that the federal government needs to provide just the programs that middle-class Americans currently count on. So...

RUSSERT: So what do you do?

Prof. KRUGMAN: Well, I think, look, the Bush tax cuts, it turns out they divide quite--because the way they were set up was the big tax cuts were all for very high-income people. And then they threw in middle-class sweeteners, so that they could roll out those tax families. So there's the Child Tax Credit, there's the marriage thing, there's the 10 percent bracket. And it turns out it's a nice 80/20 split: 80 percent of the tax cut is the stuff that doesn't touch the middle class at all but that only affects at all, really, 20 percent of the population. So what I would do--and this is further than Kerry is willing to go--I would roll back the non-middle-class portions. You can go to taxpolicycenter.org, and they have analyses. And they'll tell you--they now divide everything: middle-class tax cuts vs. non-middle-class tax cuts. I would roll back the non-middle-class tax cuts.

RUSSERT: And what would that do to the job creators in the country?

Prof. KRUGMAN: Well, you know, again, we're getting back only to the tax rates we had in 2000, you know, the tax rates we had all through the '90s. There's no sign--you know, the United States is the lowest-taxed, advanced country by far. Now...

Mr. O'REILLY: Yeah, because we're not a socialist country.

Prof. KRUGMAN: Oh, gosh.

Mr. O'REILLY: And when did the R&D blow and get into the go-go '90s? It happened when Reagan cut taxes, all right...

Prof. KRUGMAN: I love this.

Mr. O'REILLY: And all the corporations started R&D. I don't care whether you believe it or not.

Prof. KRUGMAN: Going to give...

Mr. O'REILLY: You're a quasi-socialist. You want a big government creating jobs. I want the private sector to create jobs.

Prof. KRUGMAN: We're going to give...

Mr. O'REILLY: It's a difference.

Prof. KRUGMAN: Reagan's '81 tax cut--credit for the prosperity in 1999.

Mr. O'REILLY: When do you think all that R&D took place?

Prof. KRUGMAN: So that means that everything good...

Mr. O'REILLY: Back during FDR?

Prof. KRUGMAN: ...that happened under Reagan is Lyndon Johnson's policies.

Mr. O'REILLY: OK. Wait a minute. When did the R&D that led to all of the technological advances take place, sir? When did it take place?

Prof. KRUGMAN: Actually a lot of it in the '90s right at the time...

Mr. O'REILLY: Oh, sure. OK.

RUSSERT: You said the only thing good in Ronald Reagan's administration was Lyndon Johnson's policies?

Prof. KRUGMAN: If you're willing to give Ronald Reagan credit for good things that happened 18 years later, then credit for good things that happened...

Mr. O'REILLY: All right.

Prof. KRUGMAN: ...under Ronald Reagan go to Lyndon Johnson.

Mr. O'REILLY: Call any corporation, any high-tech corporation in Silicon Valley, and just ask them when their R&D ramped up and when the machinery that has led the the United States and the world--when it started getting developed. They will all tell you it happened during the Reagan administration. When corporate taxes were cut, there was more income to devote to that. I mean, look...

Prof. KRUGMAN: Gee, what corporations...

Mr. O'REILLY: ...what Krugman is the government to run the economy. Kerry's going to create 10 million jobs or 30 million, whatever he's going to do. What I want is the private sector to drive the economy. There's a fundamental difference between him, Mr. Entitlement, and me, Mr. Self-Reliance. That's it.

RUSSERT: What about the deficits, though? What would you do about them, and how do you deal with them?

Mr. O'REILLY: What I'd do with them is I would reorganize the entitlements that are the bulk of the deficits, OK, reorganize it. And I believe in privatizing some of the Social Security, medical savings funds, all of those things, educational funds. He wants the government to pay everything. That, in a nation of 300 million, is impossible. Ask any working-class person. They're all in debt. They're all struggling to survive. You want to buy a house? Look at the housing prices, OK? When my father bought a house in Levittown, it was 8 grand after he got out of World War II. This same house is $250,000. They can't afford to buy a house and pay the property taxes, pay his taxes, pay the state taxes. It's ridiculous. The government has got to shrink. They've got to get smart. They've got to run it like a private business would run it, not Mr. Big Government because they can't keep track of the money. There's no waste management in the money. Corruption is rife. And he wants more tax money to waste. It's outrageous.

RUSSERT: Give him a chance to respond.

Prof. KRUGMAN: Let's talk about this. This is a wonderful thing because you're talking about this tax burden on middle-class people and...

RUSSERT: I'm going to take a break, Professor. I'm going to take a break.

Prof. KRUGMAN: OK.

RUSSERT: ...and give you a chance to fully respond, OK?

Prof. KRUGMAN: OK.

RUSSERT: Paul Krugman, Bill O'Reilly--a lot more right after this.

(Announcements)

RUSSERT: And we're back. Paul Krugman, you'd like to respond?

Prof. KRUGMAN: Yeah, the bait and switch. What we're talking about--what I was talking about was rolling back the high-end tax cuts, and all of a sudden you're talking about those terrible tax burden on middle-class families who can't afford a house. Look, the basic fact is the tax cuts we've had, which is the stuff that I want to roll back--I mean, I don't even want to roll back the middle-class tax cuts, which are small change. But the Bush tax cuts--the total amount of tax cuts for people earning more than a million a year, that's 0.13 percent of the population, are larger than the total tax cut for the bottom 60 percent of families, basically everybody earning less than $50,000 a year. So these people that you're saying are suffering under the burden of taxes got nothing from Bush. And it's people like you or me, if I sell more books than I have so far, who are the prime beneficiaries. So, you know, this is the bait and switch. This is not the real story.

And you take a look at anything I've written about economics, and I'm not a socialist. You know, that's a slander.

Mr. O'REILLY: I said quasi.

Prof. KRUGMAN: Well, that's a wonderful--then you're a quasi-murderer. I mean, why--what...

Mr. O'REILLY: I'm a quasi-murderer?

Prof. KRUGMAN: Well, quasi is a pretty open thing.

Mr. O'REILLY: That's ridiculous. All right.

Prof. KRUGMAN: Right. I'm nowhere close to that.

Mr. O'REILLY: I think we defined where we both are on this.

RUSSERT: Yeah. Let me go to Iraq. Mr. Krugman said--you wrote this--'Mr. Bush's war on terror has played with eerie perfection into Osama bin Laden's hands.'

Prof. KRUGMAN: Yeah. We couldn't have done it better, right? We neglected the pursuit of al-Qaida, and we might catch Osama in the next few months, but it's too late. That organization has now sort of, you know, spread like a cancer through the world. And instead we've diverted--look, there was this moment--we had Arabic-speaking Special Forces hunting for Osama in the mountains of Afghanistan. We pulled them off to go into Iraq. And instead we sent our Special Forces, who are Spanish-speaking, who are trained to go chasing druglords in Colombia, and sent them to Afghanistan because we needed those soldiers for Iraq. Boy, you know, talk about giving them exactly what they wanted.

Mr. O'REILLY: Look, the Iraq War was a big screw-up, all right? I think every clear-thinking person in the country knows it was. First of all, weapons of mass destruction did not materialize, which was the primary motivator for the war. All right? Now Mr. Krugman and his left-wing pals throw around the lie, 'Oh, they lied.' Do you believe Bush lied, by the way, about weapons of mass destruction? You still pumping that drum?

Prof. KRUGMAN: I've never actually said the word 'lie,' I don't think.

Mr. O'REILLY: No. You're clever in your rhetorical vices.

Prof. KRUGMAN: Well, so is Bush. You know, one of the things about his speeches...

Mr. O'REILLY: Wait. Do you believe he lied or not?

Prof. KRUGMAN: I believe he knew what he wanted to hear, and people found a way to tell it to him.

Mr. O'REILLY: All right. So you're not going to call him a liar then.

Prof. KRUGMAN: Not on that.

Mr. O'REILLY: OK. Good. But you're...

RUSSERT: But you did say bait and switch to the war as well.

Prof. KRUGMAN: That's right. No, it was clear that what they wanted from day one after 9/11...

RUSSERT: Clear to whom, by the way?

Prof. KRUGMAN: Bush and the people running it. We have repeated accounts that top administration official and Bush himself immediately said after 9/11, 'Is there a way to tie this to Iraq? Is it Iraq?' And, you know, when the top guys keep on saying, 'I want to hear stuff about Iraq,' isn't that going to put a whole lot of pressure...

Mr. O'REILLY: OK.

Prof. KRUGMAN: ...down the system?

Mr. O'REILLY: Now...

Prof. KRUGMAN: They weren't listening to the real evidence.

Mr. O'REILLY: ...I'm appointing Russert as president of the United States right now, OK? I talked to Tommy Franks the other night, and I said, 'You know, what's this weapons of mass destruction deal?' And he was the general that commanded the war. He said, 'Before we went to war, Egypt and Jordan told me,' Tommy Franks, all right, 'that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. I passed that along to President Bush.' So you're sitting there in the White House, Russert, OK--frightening thought, but you are--and you're getting your top general going, 'I just heard from Egypt and Jordan weapons of mass destruction are there.' Blair's telling you, 'MI6--weapons of mass destruction.' Putin's telling you, 'Russian intelligence--weapons of mass destruction.' Your own CIA chief is telling you, 'Slam dunk weapons of mass destruction,' according to Woodward.

Now the 9-11 Commission harshly criticized Clinton and Bush for not doing enough to get bin Laden. That was one of their main thesis, and I believe that and I think everybody does. So you're told by Jordan, Egypt, Russia, Britain, your own guy, 'Weapons of mass destruction.' You know Zarqawi, a top al-Qaida lieutenant's, sitting in Baghdad because he just had a leg operation, all right? You know that. You know, as the 9-11 Commission pointed out, there's been repeated contacts between al-Qaida and Saddam. You know all this. And you don't move against Saddam? So they did have the WMDs. Say there was an anthrax attack on Krugman's apartment block, OK? You're sitting there, you had all this information, you didn't act. Impeachable offense. He had to act. That's the truth.

Prof. KRUGMAN: No, the truth--look, you're talking all about commissions and governments that were under political pressure, and we have some independent stuff, right? The best reporting was actually by Knight Ridder, which was talking to the analysts off the record and not to the top officials. And this is the fall of 2002. And all the analysts said, 'You know, they're exaggerating this threat. We're under enormous pressure to go and find reasons to attack Iraq.' And you've actually got people who are close to the administration, like, you know, editorialists at The Washington Post, Jim Hoagland saying--boasting about how we're managing to put the screws on these CIA analysts who don't want to believe that Saddam is such a threat. So, come on, this is rewriting history. And the fact of the matter, as...

Mr. O'REILLY: Like I'm going to believe a Washington Post editorial writer over all the people I've cited.

Prof. KRUGMAN: He's writing this during the time; he's not writing it after the fact.

Mr. O'REILLY: The record says...

Prof. KRUGMAN: Even t--no. Come on.

Mr. O'REILLY: ...9-11 Commission and the Senate Intelligence Committee...

Prof. KRUGMAN: And your faith's in Vladimir Putin, ex-KGB, is touching.

Mr. O'REILLY: All right. I know. You're smarter than everybody. You'll reject all of that information. The 9-11 Commission and the Senate Intelligence Committee..

Prof. KRUGMAN: Heavily politicized.

Mr. O'REILLY: ...both have said...

Prof. KRUGMAN: Heavily politicized, and you know it.

Mr. O'REILLY: All right. There you go.

RUSSERT: Got to take a quick break. We'll be back. A lot more coming up. Paul Krugman, Bill O'Reilly and Iraq right after this.

(Announcements)

RUSSERT: And we are back, talking to Paul Krugman, the columnist for The New York Times. His book is in paperback, "The Great Unraveling: Losing Our Way in the New Century." Bill O'Reilly, you watch him every night on "The O'Reilly Factor" on FOX News Channel. His book, "Who's Looking Out for You?"

Bill O'Reilly, what about the nuclear threat, the mushroom cloud? Was that hyping up intelligence?

Mr. O'REILLY: I have no idea. I never bought that. I never bought they had nuclear. I was worried about anthrax and the other thing. But I just want to make one more point. You know, we left one guy out: Bill Clinton thought they had weapons of mass destruction. I mean, it was across the board and saw--like that.

Prof. KRUGMAN: Let me--can I just say...

Mr. O'REILLY: Go ahead.

Prof. KRUGMAN: ...let--WMD is one of the worst phrases we've ever invented, because it lumps together chemical shells, which are nasty things, but so is high explosives, with nuclear weapons, which is a real threat. You know, the fact that Kim Jong Il seems to have nukes now has me really scared. The fact that some guy has chemical warheads is not in the same league at all. And Bill Clinton thought, and I thought, everybody thought that he probably had some chemical warheads. They were probably still--you know, they had shells. They probably--maybe they had anthrax. Maybe they had this stuff, which is nasty and evil, but is not something that allows a minor...

Mr. O'REILLY: No, you've got to take anthrax and smallpox seriously.

Prof. KRUGMAN: No, anthrax, smallpox...

Mr. O'REILLY: They wipe out hundreds of thousands of people.

Prof. KRUGMAN: Smallpox is a hugely different thing.

Mr. O'REILLY: All of those things...

Prof. KRUGMAN: Anthrax isn't contagious.

Mr. O'REILLY: All of those things can ruin an economy and create panic and you have to do it.

Prof. KRUGMAN: No, it's not. Look, that's just...

RUSSERT: So let me go to Bill O'Reilly's question, Paul Krugman. If you're the president of the United States and all these people have laid out this in front of you, and you yourself acknowledged you thought he had biological and chemical, potentially anthrax, do you have an obligation as commander in chief to go after it?

Prof. KRUGMAN: You have an obligation to say, 'We want those inspectors back in,' and guess what? We had the inspectors back in, and we were telling inspectors where to search and they were going. And remember, we went to war when there was an effective inspections regime back in place. We did not have to actually go to war. We were doing--we were--we had Saddam pretty effectively caged...

Mr. O'REILLY: Well, not according to Hans Blix. He came on my program flat out and said, 'They're not letting us interview the scientists,' which was a key.

Prof. KRUGMAN: But...

Mr. O'REILLY: The scientists were the key. One...

Prof. KRUGMAN: ...there was no way for them to be effectively running a WMD program...

Mr. O'REILLY: No, listen, I know--look, I know that you know much more than I do and everyone else, but just let me get a sentence out here. Blix came on the program and said to me flat out, 'They aren't cooperating. We can't interview the scientists, and we can't go where we want to go.' They gave him all kinds of time, Saddam, to stop the nonsense. Seventeen violations of the Gulf War cease-fire, 17. The guy obviously was defiant. All the nations of the world should have come together--France, Germany, Russia, China, the United States--and said, 'You either let Blix do whatever he wants to do, or you're out of there.' If that had happened, Blix would have been allowed, but France and Germany and Russia wouldn't because they were being bribed by Saddam with oil for food. We know that scandal is bubbling. We're gonna get a lot more information on it.

Now if you put the whole thing together, OK, intelligence, intel on very deadly weapons, defiance by Saddam, al-Qaida presence in Iraq, you have to act...

Prof. KRUGMAN: O'Reilly, I need to get in here.

Mr. O'REILLY: Yeah, I know. Zarqawi's been proven was treated after he was wounded in Afghanistan, on the battlefield in Baghdad, then he went up north to Ansar al-Islam, OK, under the protection of Uday Hussein. So you say whatever you want. That's proven.

Prof. KRUGMAN: I--look, you know, there--we can go--I'm gonna wager that Blix--I don't--I don't have the record, but I'm gonna wager Blix told you that a number of months before the war.

Mr. O'REILLY: Yeah, he told me that before the war. That's correct.

Prof. KRUGMAN: Well before the war. Before the...

Mr. O'REILLY: Well, it was a couple of months before.

Prof. KRUGMAN: Before Saddam opened up a lot more under pressure. And nobody disapproved of putting extra pressure on him. Me neither, right? But the really, you know--the--and the oil for food stuff, by the way, all of this, you know, might be true, but all of those claims that the French were being bribed, that the UN officials were being bribed comes from documents which are supposedly in the hands of none other than Ahmad Chalabi, right? We don't have any independent evidence of that.

Mr. O'REILLY: I think Volcker has copies of those documents right now.

Prof. KRUGMAN: Well, then let's hear from Volcker.

Mr. O'REILLY: Yeah.

Prof. KRUGMAN: I've reached no judgment that--I trust him.

Mr. O'REILLY: Why doesn't your newspaper, The New York Times, do some investigating? You did 48 Abu Ghraib front-page stories...

Prof. KRUGMAN: Oh...

Mr. O'REILLY: ...but you haven't been able to do any oil for food investigations. I wonder why.

Prof. KRUGMAN: Because nobody has any information, right?

Mr. O'REILLY: Nobody has any?

Prof. KRUGMAN: Nobody has anything except these claims of all this come from Ahmad Chalabi, who The New York Times has learned a little bit to be wary of.

Mr. O'REILLY: Well, maybe you assign a couple of reporters to do that, you know. I mean, Abu Ghraib, I think we got the story there.

Prof. KRUGMAN: No, we didn't.

Mr. O'REILLY: Oh, we didn't? Forty-eight front-page stories, we still don't have it?

Prof. KRUGMAN: We didn't. No. Read the appendices. Read the appendices to the Taguba report. There's much, much worse than anything that most of the public has heard about yet.

Mr. O'REILLY: All right. Well, maybe it's right. And if there is, I want to read about it.

Prof. KRUGMAN: Yeah. Well...

Mr. O'REILLY: And I know I will in your paper. But I ain't gonna read oil for food investigation there.

Prof. KRUGMAN: But let me just come back. The...

RUSSERT: Bill, why are you suggesting The New York Times won't be aggressive in pursuing oil for food?

Mr. O'REILLY: Because they use stories to bludgeon the Bush administration. They use their front page--here's the deal.

Prof. KRUGMAN: Oh God.

Mr. O'REILLY: Abu Ghraib, horrible story, awful, OK. Off-the-chart bad. Twenty-eight front-page stories in the Chicago Trib, no bastion of conservatism. Forty-eight front-page stories, all of the last 20 just repetitive, what we already knew, in The New York Times.

Prof. KRUGMAN: So you...

Mr. O'REILLY: They use that story to drive public opinion against the present administration, which the paper despises, and that's the fact.

Prof. KRUGMAN: I think if you look--well, I'm not gonna--you know, I'm not here to defend The New York Times, which has nothing to do with what I write in the column, all right?

Mr. O'REILLY: No, I don't think that's true of your column.

Prof. KRUGMAN: So I don't want to get into this one. But let me just--you know, let's just come back to this. We went--there's a lot of evil in the world and there are a lot of threats in the world, and the Bush administration chose to take this one, which everyone--you know, Saddam is an evil man. This was a nasty regime. It would no doubt hurt us if it could. But of all the threats in the world, they chose to go after this one, and what's really crucial is they chose to neglect the pursuit of the people who actually killed lots of Americans.

RUSSERT: Why? Why?

Prof. KRUGMAN: Because--well, you know, we can only speculate on that, but what we do know is that they had this fixation on Iraq right from the beginning, before there was any evidence, before there was anything at all, and we also know that they really just don't like stuff that doesn't look good on camera.

Mr. O'REILLY: See, I'm not buying that neglected to chase Osama. I'm not buying that. I mean, he is in a position where we'd have to violate Pakistani sovereignty to go in and get him. That would mean Musharraf would be overthrown. So I'm not buying that. Look, again, that's not--Krugman's opinion on this is not irrational, all right, that the tactical war against terror might not have been well served by the Iraq adventure. That's a legitimate debate, OK? What I object to is the lying charges, the slander and defamation that comes out of the Krugman wing, if you want to call it, of the social landscape. And don't give me that. Who are you appearing with today in your book signing?

Prof. KRUGMAN: I...

Mr. O'REILLY: You're appearing with Stuart Smalley, the biggest character assassinator in the country.

Prof. KRUGMAN: That guy you compared to Goebbels?

Mr. O'REILLY: You are in with the most vile form of defamation in this country.

Prof. KRUGMAN: Gee, I have some...

Mr. O'REILLY: You are pandering to it, and I resent it, sir.

Prof. KRUGMAN: There are some people who--well, we resent you, too.

Mr. O'REILLY: Yeah, I know you do.

Prof. KRUGMAN: That's...

Mr. O'REILLY: And you know what you'll do about the resentment? You'll lie about me and attack me personally. That's what you'll do.

Prof. KRUGMAN: Let's watch that, OK? As I said, this is kind of hard to have a reasonable discussion here. But...

Mr. O'REILLY: I think it's reasonable, and Russert would throw me out of here if it wasn't.

Prof. KRUGMAN: But I think--would he? I don't think so. Anyway--but look, let's just come back to this and say that the fact of the matter is, that with a lot of threats out there in the world, if you ask the foreign policy hands what had them really scared, what do we really need to do with for the last couple of years, they said, 'Well, we got to do more about al-Qaida and North Korea.' And you said Iraq, and they said, 'Why are we talking about Iraq? You know, that's a nasty thing, but that's a real second order'...

RUSSERT: You know, why fixation? You used the word fixation. Why the fixation?

Prof. KRUGMAN: Well, you know, we have a--I think there's a mixture of things. I think it's Karl Rove thought it would play well. I think there were a bunch of guys who were around at the...

RUSSERT: So it's pol--so it's politics?

Prof. KRUGMAN: Some of it was politics, and you'd be amazed how many--how many people, including former generals, believe that. Some of it was, a lot of these guys were on--were on the scene during '91 during the Gulf War, and they felt that somehow their manhood was impaired because Saddam got away in '91. Some of it was personal. You know, 'He tried to kill my father.'

RUSSERT: We're gonna take a quick break. A lot more of Paul Krugman and his book, "The Great Unraveling," Bill O'Reilly of "The O'Reilly Factor," "Who's Looking Out for You?" right after this.

(Announcements)

RUSSERT: And we're back. Bill O'Reilly's book "Who's Looking Out for You?," "The Great Unraveling" by Paul Krugman.

"Fahrenheit 9/11," you wrote this: "It performs an essential service. It tells essential truths about leaders who exploited a national tragedy for political gain." That's a very serious charge.

Prof. KRUGMAN: I don't see how anybody looking at this can say otherwise. I mean, right from the beginning, the--we had first people around Bush, and then Bush himself, using the war on terror as a club with which to bludgeon the other side. You know, it's--look, I was fin--the worst mail I ever got was I wrote a column a few days after 9/11 where I said, you know, they're already trying to exploit this, and people did not want to hear it. But what I heard within 48 hours was, 'You're not gonna believe this, but the guys in the House leadership is trying to use 9/11, they're trying to use this terrorist attack to pass a cut in the capital gains tax. They're saying, "How can--how can you not give the president what he wants at a time like this?"'

And the political exploitation began right from the beginning. Just eight days after, Wall Street Journal had an editorial saying, 'You know, now that we've been attacked, it's time for the Senate to confirm some conservative judges.' I mean, this is a grotesque chapter in American history, and we need to know about that.

RUSSERT: Do you believe "Fahrenheit 9/11" performs an essential service?

Mr. O'REILLY: Yeah, for Fidel Castro, who broadcast it nationwide in Cuba. You know, for Hezbollah, who wants to distribute it throughout the Middle East. You know, I mean, look, this is "Triumph of Will." That's what it is, the Nazi propaganda movie. That's what chi--"9/11" is, cut and paste, show him, Bush, as a corruptor and reinforce all of Krugman's paranoid delusions. You basically have Richard Clarke repudiating the film. Richard Clarke's a flat out--no problem with the evacuation of the Saudis, no air space was given to them, the bin Ladens were vetted. This is Richard Clarke disenfranchising the movie, all right?

RUSSERT: Former head of terrorism in the Clinton administration.

Mr. O'REILLY: And then you go down the line. I mean, I'll give you one--the most vivid example. Now I don't know how any responsible journalist could actually say that propaganda is valuable. I just don't know how anybody could do it, and that's where Mr. Krugman is.

Prof. KRUGMAN: Well ...(unintelligible) kill FOX News entirely. I mean, what the...

Mr. O'REILLY: Yeah, OK. Another cheap shot, by the way.

Prof. KRUGMAN: No, it isn't.

Mr. O'REILLY: Yes, it is.

Prof. KRUGMAN: No, it isn't.

Mr. O'REILLY: Look, you may not like FOX News, but that is a cheap shot, and...

Prof. KRUGMAN: No.

Mr. O'REILLY: ...if you don't know what the definition is, I'll give it to you later. But let me give you one fact. In 9/11 after they got through with the garbage about the Saudis and bin Ladens being evacuated, then they go to FOX News, and they say, 'And who called the race for Bush in Florida? FOX News.' OK? Flat-out lie.

We, along with NBC and everybody else, first called the race in Florida for Gore, OK? That's not what Moore says. And then it goes along the line down, distortion after distortion after distortion after distortion. I sat on the set that night. I'm watching that movie, I'm going, 'What?' He's telling the world that FOX News was the leader in trying to win Florida for Bush, when we made the wrong call along with everybody else for Gore.

Prof. KRUGMAN: But FOX News was the first network to change its call...

Mr. O'REILLY: Yes, because we were right. And that call be...

Prof. KRUGMAN: ...and that was--and that--were you right?

Mr. O'REILLY: Oh, oh, oh, this is--no, I'm glad you brought that up.

Prof. KRUGMAN: Here.

RUSSERT: All right, let...

Mr. O'REILLY: I'm glad he brought it up.

RUSSERT: Let him have a say. Mr. Krugman, go ahead.

Prof. KRUGMAN: Yeah, because I've got you saying that, 'Everyone has said that no matter how you count the votes, Bush won Florida,' and that turns out to be flatly not true.

Mr. O'REILLY: Oh, is that right? How about The Miami Herald investigation?

Prof. KRUGMAN: OK. Here we are.

Mr. O'REILLY: How about USA Today? How about the University of Chicago?

Prof. KRUGMAN: Here we are. Published by AP in November 2001, the National Opinion Research group, they looked at statewide counts under six standards, prevailing standard, two-corner standard, most conclusive, least conclusive, county by county, Palm Beach standard, and under every one of those Gore won.

Mr. O'REILLY: OK. Look, if you want to think that, fine.

Prof. KRUGMAN: Hey, guys ...(unintelligible), Russerts...

Mr. O'REILLY: All right? Now I'll--hold it, hold it, hold it.

Prof. KRUGMAN: ...you can check this out.

Mr. O'REILLY: You can check this out.

Prof. KRUGMAN: You can get--do it by Google.

RUSSERT: But Moore has said every...

Mr. O'REILLY: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, I gotta get this in.

RUSSERT: Wait, wait, wait, wait. Let me just...

Mr. O'REILLY: Miami Herald, Orlando Sentinel, USA Today and the University of Chicago investigation all went in and repudiate what he just read.

Prof. KRUGMAN: This is not true.

Mr. O'REILLY: Four--yes, it is.

Prof. KRUGMAN: It's not true. I mean, again, folks, this is the modern world. You can go check it.

Mr. O'REILLY: You can go check it.

Prof. KRUGMAN: You can do Google, you can check it. Look for--look for Florida recount. Now what is true is that if you'd done the recount that Gore wanted, which was a limited recount, Bush would have won. But at every statewide recount scenario had it going to Gore by tiny margins, but this is just not true.

Mr. O'REILLY: Look, I agree. You should go into and look at what those four investigations came up with and decide for yourself.

RUSSERT: Let me talk about another movie, "Outfoxed."

Prof. KRUGMAN: Yeah.

RUSSERT: What do you think of that?

Prof. KRUGMAN: You know, it's a--basically this is a guy who let his VCR--they did a lot of taping of FOX News and they produced a pretty--the kind of picture that you couldn't do on your own. It's a very cheaply made, very--you know, but it gives you a picture of a network that is very much a propaganda arm. And, you know, we can go through that lots of ways, but...

RUSSERT: Of whom? Propaganda of whom?

Prof. KRUGMAN: Of the right, of the Republican Party, or if you just like of Rupert Murdoch.

RUSSERT: And so the broadcasters and journalists on FOX News take marching orders?

Prof. KRUGMAN: Of course they do. I mean, if your fantasy was that there was a memo every morning that told you how we're gonna cover the news so as to slant it, their fantasy would be right. We've now got copies of the memo.

Mr. O'REILLY: All right. Well, look, Mr. Krugman lives in a world of his own. He embraces propaganda of the worst kind, and that's why I have very little regard for his professional analysis. I'll give you one example about that stupid thing. They put together a collage of me telling people to shut up, OK? In one of the--and this is just one. I can give you a hundred, but I don't want to waste time on it. In one of the discussions I had, I was talking to a young gay guy who was in a lot of trouble because he had outed himself in high school. And I said, 'Why don't you just shut up about your sex life?' That's what I said to him. They cut it to, 'Why don't you just shut up?' That is about as dishonest as it gets.

I can take tape of you, Tim Russert, over the last five years and I can make you look like anything I want you--to make you look like. And you know it. You know how it's done. I can make you look like a Communist. I can make you look like a fascist. That's what this guy did.

The New York Times acts as a de facto publicist for these kinds of vehicles. "Fahrenheit," this stupid thing, Stuart Smalley's defamation, every left-wing book that comes down the pipe. You know, I've had three number-one New York Times best-sellers, they haven't reviewed any of them. Every left-wing smear book that comes down stands alone. They take stuff out, like he just did, and say, 'Oh, that FOX, it's a propa--oh, yeah, of course.' I have provable stuff of what they do, and I'll stand on it.

RUSSERT: Do you think that FOX News Channel has a conservative spin to it?

Mr. O'REILLY: If you look at the FOX News commentators in prime time, starting with Hume and ending with Van Susteren, it comes right down the line, OK? Van Susteren is a liberal, Colmes is a liberal, Hannity is a conservative, I'm a traditionalist, Shepard Smith is really nothing and--you know, he's just in--a neutral guy, in the neutral zone, and Hume, I would say that he's slightly conservative, but certainly no bomb thrower. All right?

Prof. KRUGMAN: Unbelievable.

Mr. O'REILLY: It is unbelievable because you don't know what you're talking about. We put more liberals on the air than conservatives. We put more liberal voices on the air than conservatives, and we can--we have a tally every day of what we put on. There is no talking points. There is no marching order. It doesn't exist. But these people, they want you to think that. But here's the bottom line. In the Democratic convention, "The Factor" killed CNN and MSNBC from 8 to 9. You've got to assume many Republicans weren't even watching that. It was an independent Democratic audience primarily. Wiped them off the face of the Earth. And the reason is, the people know we give voice to all sides, unlike this guy and his newspaper.

RUSSERT: I'm gonna come back and give you a chance to respond...

Prof. KRUGMAN: Yeah.

RUSSERT: ...in full. Paul Krugman is here, "The Great Unraveling: Losing Our Way in the New Century." Bill O'Reilly, "Who's Looking Out for You?" We'll be right back.

(Announcements)

RUSSERT: And we're back.

Paul Krugman, you can respond.

Prof. KRUGMAN: Yeah. Actually I just want to say a word about "Fahrenheit 9/11," just to talk a little bit about Bill O'Reilly's credibility on this. Bill has said on air that Michael Moore believes that we are an evil country, and if you saw the film, you know that's not true, and actually you denied in the same program that you'd said what you just said. But anyways, I think that's a little bit of something to look out for with credibility.

Mr. O'REILLY: You want to quote me and give me the date of the program?

Prof. KRUGMAN: Oh, sure. June 28th on "The Radio Factor."

Mr. O'REILLY: On "The Radio Factor."

Prof. KRUGMAN: Yup. Not the...

Mr. O'REILLY: You're taking it not out of context, are you?

Prof. KRUGMAN: No, not at all out of context.

Mr. O'REILLY: Michael Moore has gone around the Europ--in the European press and said...

Prof. KRUGMAN: All right. Oh, come on.

Mr. O'REILLY: ...Americans are stupid, OK?

Prof. KRUGMAN: That's taken out of context. This week--the radio clip's available, MediaMatters.org.

Mr. O'REILLY: It is. All right, fine.

Prof. KRUGMAN: So go ahead. Anyway, but let me--let me--want to talk about convention coverage for a bit. Couple of things about the convention coverage. I don't know who was watching which thing. I think anyone who didn't watch it--your boss is not gonna like this either--anyone who didn't watch it on C-SPAN unfiltered was just being a fool, because all of the--all of the coverage was--on the cable networks was a lot of commentators breaking over, talking over the speeches. It didn't--FOX showed less of the speeches than any--than either of the other cable news networks. Just less coverage. You know, Al Gore gave a speech. It should have been interesting to watch. Even if you hate him, even if you think he's a lousy guy, he did, after all, get more votes than his opponent in the last election. Be curious to see, but you went right over him.

Mr. O'REILLY: I had an advance copy of the speech. There wasn't anything in there that wasn't partisan stuff, and we're not gonna do it on the Republican...

Prof. KRUGMAN: Oh. What happened--could we report the other side?

Mr. O'REILLY: Well, I'm in analysis, Krugman.

Prof. KRUGMAN: Yeah.

Mr. O'REILLY: If you don't get that by now, you're never gonna get it.

Prof. KRUGMAN: Well, you know...

Mr. O'REILLY: It's just like you. You're an op-ed guy. You don't go out and report.

Prof. KRUGMAN: Yeah.

Mr. O'REILLY: You write op-ed. I analyze.

Prof. KRUGMAN: Right. Exactly. So...

Mr. O'REILLY: All during the day we report what happens.

Prof. KRUGMAN: But that's the point. The question was: What was the coverage? Now in terms of...

Mr. O'REILLY: The coverage was what we wanted it to be, not dictated by you or anybody else...

Prof. KRUGMAN: Right.

Mr. O'REILLY: ...and we'll do the same thing with the Republicans.

Prof. KRUGMAN: Well, that's--well, let's see if you give equal numbers of hours...

Mr. O'REILLY: Absolutely. I will on my program.

Prof. KRUGMAN: ...let's see--will you?

Mr. O'REILLY: Yes, I will.

Prof. KRUGMAN: We're watching.

Mr. O'REILLY: And where did you get that little evil quote, by the way? You don't listen to "The Radio Factor."

Prof. KRUGMAN: Oh, no, but I get--but they have video clips. They have--they have a clip.

Mr. O'REILLY: Oh, who--well, who gave it to you?

Prof. KRUGMAN: Yeah, it is MediaMatters.

Mr. O'REILLY: MediaMatters. Oh, I see. A real objective Web site.

Prof. KRUGMAN: Hey, wait a second...

Mr. O'REILLY: Hey, Mr. Propaganda, you ought to take and do your own research, pal, and stop taking the left-wing garbage and throwing it out there for the folks.

Prof. KRUGMAN: What have I said that's false?

Mr. O'REILLY: Do your own research.

Prof. KRUGMAN: Come on.

Mr. O'REILLY: That's out of context, and you know it.

Prof. KRUGMAN: It helps me. It is not.

Mr. O'REILLY: It helps you, baloney.

Prof. KRUGMAN: They've got the clip. You guys can listen to it.

Mr. O'REILLY: You are about the most unobjective person on the face of the--MediaMatters...

Prof. KRUGMAN: Oh, come on.

Mr. O'REILLY: Why don't you just call Fidel? Call him up and have at it. He'll tell you what's going on.

Prof. KRUGMAN: Oh, wonderful. Now that we got the great ...(unintelligible) ends up being a Communist.

RUSSERT: Wait, wait...

Mr. O'REILLY: MediaMatters. Oh, my--that's like me calling some Klan operation.

Prof. KRUGMAN: Hey.

Mr. O'REILLY: Why don't I call the Ku Klux Klan?

Prof. KRUGMAN: Here we go. Here we go. Here we go.

RUSSERT: Read the quote. Read the quote and...

Mr. O'REILLY: What a bunch of garbage, MediaMatters.

Prof. KRUGMAN: Yeah, the quote is, 'So this is the United States, who has freed the world from communism, freed the world from fascism, from the axis powers, freed the Pacific from Japanese, OK? All of this, but according to Moore we bring sadness and misery to places all around the globe.'

Mr. O'REILLY: That's right. He said that.

Prof. KRUGMAN: 'This says Michael Moore. He believes this. He believes that we are an evil country.' Now I saw a film, a flawed film, a lot of things that were overstated...

Mr. O'REILLY: OK. Read...

Prof. KRUGMAN: ...but I think that there were a lot of things in that film that showed that this is a guy who really does love his country.

Mr. O'REILLY: All right. You want to think he loves his country, you go (unintelligible).

Prof. KRUGMAN: And he loves the working pow--people of America, and if you could watch that...

Mr. O'REILLY: Hezbollah feels the same way that you do.

Prof. KRUGMAN: Oh, come on. Guilt by association.

Mr. O'REILLY: Come on what?

Prof. KRUGMAN: Somebody picks it up, somebody picks up, you know, there are--there are--there are actual--there are right-wing hate groups who like to quote you. Do you think that makes you guilty of everything that they do?

Mr. O'REILLY: You know what? I never call those right-wing hate groups up to get my quotes.

Prof. KRUGMAN: That's...

Mr. O'REILLY: You call the left-wing hate groups up to get your propaganda. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. Do your own research.

Prof. KRUGMAN: This--somebody who runs a Web site that's the equivalent of the Ku Klux Klan?

Mr. O'REILLY: Do your own research. Do your own research.

Prof. KRUGMAN: Come on, guy.

RUSSERT: All right. To be continued. Paul Krugman. You can read him Tuesdays and Fridays in The New York Times. His book, "The Great Unraveling: Losing Our Way in the New Century." Bill O'Reilly, you can listen to him every day on the radio, watch "The O'Reilly Factor" on FOX News Channel. "Who's Looking Out for You?"

Thank you, gentlemen, for a very interesting hour.

Mr. O'REILLY: Lively.

Prof. KRUGMAN: Exciting.

Mr. O'REILLY: Lively.

Prof. KRUGMAN: Exciting.

RUSSERT: Lively and spirited.

Prof. KRUGMAN: OK.

RUSSERT: See you next weekend.

LOAD-DATE: August 15, 2004

Spineless Dems Listen Up!

2010-03-22T16:37:00.004-04:00

Wake up Spineless Senate Democrats! At this moment the Republicans are right where you want them to be. For the next week (please don't make it more than a week) you will have the opportunity to discuss and debate (though really you'll just be clearing the procedural hurdles thrown in front of you by the Republicans) the reconciliation "fix" that the House has just sent your way. You should be able to get more than the 51 votes required, and if you can't do it easily, SHAME them.

Explain clearly to the American people that a vote against the fix is a vote FOR the original Senate bill with the Gator Aid, the Louisiana Purchase and the Cornhusker Kickback. Get out there on CNN, on MSNBC, and yes, even FoxNews and tell the American people that if the Senate fails to act now, the original Senate bill remains the law of the land with all of that wasteful corrupt money. That a vote against the reconciliation fix, or attempts to filibuster are really votes for special deals and siphoned money. If you explain this to the American people, and remember to speak slowly and pronounce each syllable clearly, you might get more than 51 votes. You might even get more than 60 votes. Hell, if you really get the message out, you might get some real bi-partisan action on the "fix".

We're not done yet!

2010-03-21T23:26:00.002-04:00

Tonight the House of Representatives passed the sweeping Health Insurance Reform legislation known as HR 3590 or better known as the Senate bill. At the time of this writing the House is in a position to also pass the Reconciliation Bill (HR 4872) which attempts to fix many of the problems with the Senate bill.

While this might seem like a victory, no one should fool themselves into thinking the fight for Health Care Reform is over. The Senate will still need to deal with the Reconciliation fixes and we, the people, will need to stay on them to help the Senate Democrats push through the many road blocks that Mr. McConnell and his cohorts will try to throw up in the way of starting to fix America's broken health care system.

I wish that I was as optimistic as Charles Krauthammer is pessimistic when he disparagingly remarks that this is the start of nationalized health care for this country. If only we were fortunate enough to have a nationalized health care system that doesn't worry about CEO profits and compensation but instead, focuses on the health and wellbeing of the people of this country. We have begun to change the health care system but we have so much further to go, so keep calling your Senators, and your House Representatives and thank the ones that have stuck by this and chastise those who have not.

It is also important to note that as the Republicans and 30+ Democrats vote against the Reconciliation bill that fixes many of the problems of the Senate bill (Cornhusker kickback, Louisiana purchase, Gator Aid) they are in essence voting FOR those things that they criticized. Sadly, not enough of the hollow talking heads on Cable News will take these politicians to task for voting for these things they cried foul about just last week. Such is politics.

Health Insurance Reform: Learning to Settle

2010-03-20T15:55:00.004-04:00

After 15 months of discussions, debates, procedural votes, false hope inspiring votes, disappointing special elections, televised summits, gut wrenching compromises, childish use of props, fear mongering television pundits, and Dennis Kucinich being force fed a bowl of shit that he had to eat on camera, we are now approaching the latest best hope for some sort of health insurance reform. Let me say clearly that the current bills suck. They are absolutely the wrong way to fix health care in America but it's all we've got right now so get on those phones and call your representatives to support the vote.

What's wrong with the bill?

Leave aside the twitter #hcr tag for the moment and recognize that this bill is not Health Care Reform, but rather Health Insurance Reform. This bill attempts to fix the massive problems in the health care system without fundamentally changing the system itself. What we need to overhaul the American health care system so that it is fair, efficient, and accessible to all. By mandating that people purchase insurance without the guarantee of a public option, the bill will ensure that tax payers money will be directed to the insurance companies which will, at some point, trickle down to the doctors, nurses, lab technicians, and hospitals that treat patients. By not creating a single payer system the bill will continue to guarantee that insurance companies get to keep a third of all monies spent on health care as company profits. And if the Stupak language or measures similar to it are included in the bill, it will force private insurance companies to drop, or make so complicated that most women will not purchase, coverage for abortions. The Stupak language, going even further than the Hyde Amendment would require women to not only sign up separately for abortion coverage, but would have to pay a separate premium for that service if the need should ever arise. This has nothing to do with their claims that they want to prevent federal money from paying for abortions, and everything to do with their goals to outlaw the procedure, something that should not be tangled into an already complex issue like health care reform. Simply put, this bill does not go far enough to effectively reform health care, so if we were at this point in March of 2009 I would advocate that we kill this bill and start over, but we are not in March of 2009.

If Medicare is so wonderful, why don't we expand it to everyone?

Thanks to Senator Coburn's (R-OK) obstructionist move back in December, the American public was denied the opportunity for even the debate on a single payer system. This was really too bad because one of the first things the Republicans did to oppose health care reform was to talk of the money that would be taken from Medicare, America's first single payer system. It was ironic and refreshing to see the very same people who year after year have attempted to kill the federal government's most popular program wax day and night on the cable news channels about how important Medicare is and why we must protect it. It would have been wonderful if, there on the Senate floor, members could have been asked to their faces if Medicare is so wonderful, why then are we denying it to the majority of the country because they aren't 65 yet? Why not expand Medicare to those 55 and up as a buy-in program? Or 45 and up? Or, better yet, expand it to everyone and stop wasting the 20% that the insurance companies are spending on CEO salaries, and unnecessary paperwork that wastes doctors' time.

But if it's wrong, why should Congress pass it?

As has been said over and over by President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid, we cannot afford to wait any longer to address the fundamental flaws in our privatized health care system. Too many people are suffering from the tactics and games that the insurance companies are playing with the lives of the American people. Too many people are forced to stay with terrible insurers because they know that with their pre-existing conditions, they will never get coverage elsewhere. Too many people are stuck working jobs they hate because the fear of not being able to find insurance in the individual market is daunting, and rightly so. Too many people are ignorant of the fact that America is spending far more per capita on its health care than any other developed country and not getting better outcomes. Too many people are falling for the Glen Becks and Sean Hannitys who spew lies castigating publicly provided health care while simultaneously pretending to defend medicare. We need Congress to pass this bill so that we can move on and deal with one of the many other issues that the country should be working on at the moment.

Go ahead and be stupid

2010-03-04T10:56:00.001-05:00

After reading the USA Today article about an organized fight brewing against the teaching of Climate Change along the same lines as Evolution, I am left with one overriding thought. Go ahead South Dakota and Kentucky. Go ahead and do a disservice to the children in your state by making them even dumber than the generation before them. Go ahead and make the children of your state the laughing stock of whatever part of the country they go to that has not crippled education for ideological goals.

But why stop there? If you're going to aim to be the most ignorant state in the union why stop at Climate Change and Evolution? Make teachers teach a more balanced view of math. Sure, 2 + 2 = 4 in those liberal states but Kentuckians and South Dakotans should not be bound by that elitist mentality of arithmetic. And just because some book worm somewhere says that America has 50 states, is no reason that individual states should be bound by such a despotic "facts."

What should schools teach about global warming? - Green House - USATODAY.com

Cheney released from hospital - CNN.com

2010-02-24T12:12:00.000-05:00

Cheney released from hospital - CNN.com

That's a shame.

Afghan Leader Asserts Control Over Election Body - NYTimes.com

2010-02-24T01:15:00.000-05:00

Afghan Leader Asserts Control Over Election Body - NYTimes.com

Read this article about how Hamid Karzai is going back on any promises he made following his stolen election to reform the Afghan electoral system and root out corruption. If you were still of the blissfully ignorant mentality that "we need to stay the course in Afghanistan" then this says it all. We are now accomplices in any future election fraud and responsible for the bloodshed that results from corrupt officials eased into power by Karzai's puppet election commission.

Bring on the Filibuster

2010-02-17T12:29:00.000-05:00

If only Harry Reid would follow The Nation's advice in this matter we might actually get the legislation we deserve. Unfortunately, he isn't likely to force Senators Coburn and Graham to pull on their Depends and stand at their podiums for hours on end filibustering Obama's latest Treasury department nominee. It's so much easier and more convenient to simply put forward a procedural filibuster these days, and since the soft spoken Nevadan doesn't seem to possess a spine, they'll get to keep filibustering without having to say a word.

Bring on the Filibuster

End the abuse of the filibuster rule

2010-02-11T21:34:00.000-05:00

C-SPAN Video Player - Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) Press Conference on Filibuster Rule

Senator Tom Harkin has proposed legislation to diminish the ability of senators in the minority to hold up legislation with filibusters. It's a nice attempt, but what would be really nice is if they could no longer have procedural filibusters, but instead had to talk the whole time. Let the people of America tune in to C-SPAN and watch Senator Coburn make an ass of himself while wearing those big boy diapers.

New York Senate Moves Toward Expelling Monserrate - NYTimes.com

2010-02-09T23:16:00.000-05:00

About damn time!

New York Senate Moves Toward Expelling Monserrate - NYTimes.com

Ahmadinejad gives James Cameron's Avatar two thumbs up

2010-02-09T19:08:00.003-05:00

Iranian President Ahmadinejad seen here at the Tehran opening of James Cameron's Avatar 3D. While he found the Na'vi lack of clothing troublesome, he was impressed with the overall messages of the film and is keeping an eye out for his own "jakesully".

Entire Jon Stewart Interview - Video - FoxNews.com

2010-02-05T17:11:00.001-05:00

As much as it pains me to link to foxnews.com, here's the entire Jon Stewart interview with Papa Bear.

Sarah Palin's husband was closely involved in governing decisions, e-mails show - latimes.com

2010-02-05T16:50:00.000-05:00

Sarah Palin's husband was closely involved in governing decisions, e-mails show - latimes.com

Happy Birthday Norman Rockwell

2010-02-04T00:08:00.001-05:00

Thanks to Google for reminding me.

Opting Out

2010-02-01T18:04:00.004-05:00

Now that Virginia's Senate has passed legislation preventing Washington from mandating the purchase of health insurance, I think it's time that states with legislatures against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan followed up with their own versions of these silly laws. Granted, it wouldn't accomplish much, just as Arizona and Virginia's laws will likely not matter when a final health insurance subsidy bill is finally passed by the filibuster-stuck Senate.

But what would a "left" version of this nonsense look like? It's hard to imagine because typically, the voices on the left are not as shrill, apocalyptic or stupid as the teabaggers and their ilk. I guess the first thing would be for state legislatures around the country to start passing laws prohibiting their residents federal income taxes to go towards either of the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. Instead of screaming about the tyrannical government that might make people purchase health insurance, "the folks" could be up in arms about this ongoing requirement to pay all that "war insurance" that doesn't ever seem to do as much good as a doctor's visit or some much needed surgery.

From there we might hope to see some states, feeling the crunch that such high rates of incarceration are putting on the budget, begin to decriminalize non-violent drug offenses so that they can focus on crimes that are hurting the community and save the billions that are going to processing, housing, and feeding people convicted of non-violent possession charges.

Finally, it's high time that these profit making mega churches started forking over some money. If they want to live a life of poverty and renounce material possessions fine. If they stick to wearing their scratchy habits and live simply off the donations from Sunday mass, fine, let them keep their tax free status. But if the preachers are wearing jewelery worth more than many members of their congregation make in a year, or drive around in fancy "pimped" out cars with spinning rims, or live in palatial mansions bought and paid for by the tithes that they force on their congregation, then these churches need to start paying taxes. And I mean a lot of taxes!

While I recognize that the likelihood of any of these things happening are about as likely as Obama suddenly becoming the radical progressive that FoxNews says he is, or that many of us wished he was, it would still be a great thing to see. The truth is that the Democrats seem to be either spineless, corrupt, or both (Bernie Sanders is an independent and does not fall under the afore mentioned categories). They are ineffective politicians who seem to keep waiting for some goodness to sink into their colleagues across the aisle and vote for what's right for the country, as opposed to what's right for Wall Street, the big corporations, and the richest 1%.

Dumb Voters: The Real Problems Behind Citizens United Vs. the FEC

2010-01-26T16:55:00.002-05:00

Just as hurricane Katrina and the recent earthquake in Haiti have exposed deeply rooted problems in New Orleans and the Caribbean nation, so too has the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United vs. the Federal Elections Commission exacerbated the problems of money in politics. While saying that money in politics is bad might sound good if you're standing on top of a rented pickup truck to a crowd of tea-baggers, the truth is that running a campaign, especially a statewide or nationwide campaign, cost a lot of money.

A lot of that money goes towards legitimate expenses like money for offices, phone lines, electric bills, travel costs, and most importantly, pizza and caffeine for campaign volunteers. That money also goes to pay salaries for the paid staffers, who have left behind other jobs to devote themselves completely to the campaign. They don't always get a lot of money, and if the campaign finds itself short on money, they might get a few IOUs instead of actual paychecks, but that's fair because they are putting in long hours and doing a job that probably can't be trusted to the college interns. Finally, a distressingly large amount of campaign cash goes to "pollsters" and "consultants."

Firms like Mark Penn's Penn, Schoen, & Berland Associates LLC are among the recipients of large amounts of campaign dollars. They ran up millions of dollars in bills for Hillary Clinton's failed presidential campaign, going after Obama even when the end for Hillary was in sight. But still, to say that Mark Penn is the problem is scapegoating, pure and simple. The problem isn't that people think up the stuff that wins voters, it's that voters are so ill informed on the issues that big spending can tilt the scales and win an election.

If the American people were well enough informed on the issues facing the country, then all the billions of dollars in corporate America wouldn't mean much. But because of our ignorance and our apathy, a few million here and a few million there make a big difference come election day. So, due to our inability fulfill our responsibilities as citizens of a democratic republic, the Supreme Court ruling, that will allow unlimited corporate money to pay for ads for or against any candidate, will further the problems of money in politics.

The ever brilliant Wally Shawn

2010-01-25T11:59:00.006-05:00

Many of you will undoubtedly remember Wally from The Princess Bride. Here he is reading from his book of essays (titled "Essays"). I'll let his words do the talking, but suffice it to say, he has the kind of amazing insight that should be shared by our politicians today.

From the C-Span archives

2010-01-22T19:32:00.001-05:00

Norm MacDonald at the 1997 White House Correspondents dinner.

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/ID/148953&start=2123&end=3251

Good bye Conan

2010-01-22T18:33:00.002-05:00

It's official. Conan is leaving NBC's The Tonight Show after only 7 months on the air. Why? Because Jay "the douche bag" Leno had a smarted manager and legal team when his contract was written. Unlike Conan, Jay actually had the time slot designated in his contract, so if NBC wanted to move him to placate their local affiliates (whose news ratings Jay was killing) they would need him to agree to the move and sign a new deal or risk having to pay him $150 million.

The end result is a much less funny late night show on NBC that appeals to the elderly and the dumb. Because seriously, if your idea of humor is watching a bobble head bounce around and chuckle at his own jokes all night then you deserve to watch Jay.

Now I must admit, I am not a regular viewer of the late night shows. Given their need to churn out material on a nightly basis, and the push to sell whatever crappy movie the guest that night is in, much of the show (any of them) is pretty boring, but consistently, the bits that Conan has been doing at the top of the show and up until the first guest is on has been the best of the 4 main late night shows over the past decade. And when it comes to guest interview moments the best ones have almost always come from Late Night with Conan O'Brien when he allowed some comedian buddy of his to sit in on an interview with someone promoting their crappy movie (case in point below).

So farewell Conan. I hope you get another show soon and I hope that Jay Leno's cars all rust apart and that his core audience finally figures out how to change the channel (old people are bad with remote controls) and NBC pays dearly for this mistake. They don't really have any decent shows left other than Thursday night's lineup so to hell with them.

Presenting, the next Senator from the state of Massachusetts....

2010-01-19T23:06:00.004-05:00

Way to go Massholes! To all those morons that complained that Obama had not delivered enough change yet, and that things were moving too slowly in Congress, you should be real happy now. With the GOP gaining their crucial 41st vote, all legislation will now suffer one of two fates: grind to a halt or get gutted to the the point where it is no longer worth passing.

One such piece of legislation is the current health care reform bill, aka, the health insurance bill. I call it that because in order to get even members of their own party on board, the Democratic leadership tore out the soul of health care reform and turned what could have been a great advance in American politics and society into little more than a handout to insurance companies. With Scott Brown joining the Senate, Democrats will either need to find something incriminating on Olympia Snow and Susan Collins, or rip out even more of the health insurance bill.

The biggest problem with the health care bill (Senate version) is that it has already been compromised to death. The American people are proving themselves to be dumber than a box of rocks by buying (and then stuffing into their mouths) the echo chamber feces that tells them that this bill was written by Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro. The false outrage at things like Harry Reid's comments and the efforts to provide health care to America's poor is sickening and needs to stop.

But it won't. The party of "No" is finding power in the ability to deny and delay. Tactics that would not work if people would simply pay attention and turn off American Idol, Top Chef, or the 20th season of Flavor of Love. Chances are that come November, the Republicans will be hammering home the fact that the Democrats haven't done anything despite majorities in both houses of Congress and the oval office. And the public will continue to eat that shit up and holler back "yeah! they haven't done anything!"

*****AUTHOR'S NOTE*****

The closing to this post contains language not suitable for all audiences. If you do not want to see any offensive language you may as well just stop reading here. Take a look at C-SPAN or Google News.

If you still want to read on, don't complain about the language used.

*****AUTHOR'S NOTE*****

So fuck you Joe Lieberman for dragging your feet before Christmas.

And fuck you Ben Nelson for trying to block insurance companies from covering abortions.

And fuck you Max Baucus for gutting the public option.

And fuck you Tom Coburn for forcing the reading of Senator Sanders' amendment and then leaving the room while it was being read.

And finally, fuck you Senate Democrats for being spineless, gutless, cowardly little wimps who can't even get a decent bill passed with 60 votes. Maybe you need to learn some lessons from your colleagues across the aisle who seem to be able to pass whatever piece of shit legislation Karl Rove and Dick Cheney could dream up.

Haiti - MORE TO COME

2010-01-18T09:22:00.002-05:00

There is an awful lot to be said about the devastating earthquake that has claimed over 50,000 lives in Haiti already. For now though, please click the link below and sign the petition to eliminate Haiti's debt. The best relief that could possibly be given to the decimated country would be for the wealthy nations that control the IMF to forgive Haiti of all or at least most of its debt. So long as the country is shackled by hundreds of millions in debt obligations, it will never be able to build up a fruitful society.

http://one.org/international/actnow/haiti/index.html?rc=haitipaste

Harry Reid is no Trent Lott

2010-01-12T10:46:00.004-05:00

Crocodile Tears: To weep crocodile tears is to put on an insincere show of sorrow. (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/104800.html)

Ever since it was revealed in Mark Halperin and John Heilemann's new book "Game Change", that Senate majority leader Harry Reid used the terms "light skinned" and "no Negro dialect" in reference to then candidate Obama the infonews media have been salivating more than Rush Limbaugh in a Mexican pharmacy.

The fact that it has now become an accepted fact that Mr. Reid's comments were "insensitive" and "racist" is a testament to the "truth" making power of repetition. While the Nevada senator's comments were unwise given his position and how they might be used against him at a later date, they are not in any way false or racist. Mr. Reid was giving his opinion of the American electorate. He was not saying that Obama's "light skin" or his lack of a "Negro dialect" were characteristics that he himself sought out in a candidate, but rather, that those attributes were things that Mr. Reid felt the American people would react well to, and he was right.

Despite what Michael Steele's said about Reid's comments being "that's anachronistic language that harkens back to the 1950s and '60s, and it confirms to [Steele] a mind-set that is out of step with where America is today," it sadly is not as out of step as he would like to pretend. As recently as 2007 the Kenneth and Mamie Clark's doll experiments were recreated by film maker Kiri Davis, and the results were the same. Black children consistently chose the white dolls over the black ones.

Looking back at Senator Lott's comments in 2002 we find a very different sort of statement being made. In those comments made on Strom Thurmond's birthday, Senator Lott said that Mississippi was proud of supporting his segregationist campaign "and if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either." Given that Strom Thurmond's campaign was about keeping Jim Crow laws and retaining a segregated society (except where Carrie Butler was concerned) voicing support for it is support for a racist platform and racist policies and is, an offensive and racist statement to make.

The problem with Mr. Reid's comments are not that he said them, or that they are racist, but that they are true. While some, like Whoopi Goldberg, may argue that President Obama is not technically "light skinned", he's no Wesley Snipes and the end result is that he did not scare white people. Pointing out racism, or speculating on how the general population (the white general population) might react to someone based on their skin tone and inflection is not a racist act. Feigning outrage and demanding resignations is nothing but political maneuvering, and does nothing to address the systemic racial problems that exist in America today, but then those have never been big priorities of the GOP.

From the Washington Post

2009-12-21T23:55:00.001-05:00

Thank you C-SPAN

2009-12-19T13:44:00.002-05:00

My apologies if this post does not load quickly or correctly but there are a number of video clips that all should see.

By now, you have hopefully heard of or seen this little fracas between Senator Lieberman (back stabbing asshole) of Connecticut and the wonderful junior senator from Minnesota, Al Franken. In the exchange, Joe "Droopy" Lieberman asks for more time to drone on some more and Al Franken, presiding over the senate objects in his capacity as Minnesota's senator.

After Lieberman is denied his extra "moment" Republican John McCain expresses his disgust at someone being denied that extra time. He goes so far as to say he has never, in his 20 years in the senate seen someone denied time to finish their remarks. Poor old John, but it would seem that his memory is fading, or he is lying through his teeth because look at who objected to a similar request from the senior senator from West Virginia.

Thanks C-SPAN.

Putrid Pundits

If we can understand this slide...we can win in Afghanistan

How Weinergate differs from GOP Sex Scandals

More Proof that Democrats have no Political "Strategery"

Don't Make Us Work 'Til We Die

From The Answer Sheet

Why are Democrats so stupid?

Look who's begging for a Federal handout now

Expatriate restrictions: Let all Canadians vote - thestar.com

Michelle Rhee: Education reform huckster - Education - Salon.com

There's Gold in them thar hills!

The KIPP "miracle"

Finish your Broccoli before you start demanding Ice Cream Sundaes for Dessert

Surprise, Surprise, it's happening else where too

Give all Canadians the right to vote | views from away

If it swims, quacks and walks like a duck...

Why Teacher Evaluations Shouldn't be tied to Student Test Scores

78% of Americans don't believe in Evolution by Natural Selection

What does $1.3 billion buy these days?

TV REVIEW: The Chicago Code

All the oil's gone they say...but the full extent of the damage is just beginning

Republicans don't know what they want

More problems with Teach for America

Ravitch: The Problem with Teach For America

University of Rochester's Campus Times pens another winner

Not the problems principals should have to focus on

GOP wants to put Government between women and their doctors

My response to University of Rochester's Campus Times call for School Vouchers

The People have spoken

President Obama: "This is the public option debate all over"

Where the hell is Joe the plumber?

And yet many of America's poor continue to vote GOP

Taylor Marsh: Yes We Cave

Wishful thinking

GOP block Middle Class Tax Cuts

Can military handle a repeal of gay ban? - CSMonitor.com

Still sneaking around like a thief in the night

But the troops say they don't want it!

The End of Unemployment Benefits: The Consequences

Way to go old people - this is why you'll lose your Social Security and Medicare

The TSA: Making Dumb People Feel Safe Since 2001

Patricia Williams: Notes From the Washington Mall

Tax Cuts for the Rich = Senate Majority for the GOP

Merry Xmas out of work America - Bye Bye Benefits

Simplify the tax code?

Bush Lied...Literary Integrity Died

Not Far Enough...to the left

Might as well earn it

Blue Dogs Dumped - Swampland - TIME.com

Wow! Washington State you people are idiots!

Time to put the Blue Dogs down

Voting, misunderstood - by Seth Godin

Voting, misunderstood

Rally to Restore Sanity

Grading 'Waiting for Superman' | The Nation

National Shame

Waiting for Superman...part 1

Farewell Rick Sanchez, it was just a matter of time

You don't need video games, your brain's already rotten

Pledges, promises and black eyes

The Nation: The Big Green Buy

WikiLeaks and classified information

Newsroom - Video/Audio: U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Vermont)

The real problems with Teach for America

Companion Guide to WHPB

BOOSH!!!

Obama's Katrina

Look who's asking for Big Government help now

From CSPAN

A quick note on Religion

The Real Difference: Tea Baggers vs Anti-war Rallies

Obama sneaks in and out of Afghanistan

Stop the lies!

Learn the lessons

Slope Radio music on the blog

GOP Bullshit: It's absurd because you have been absurd

GOP Bullshit: Colloquies with your own party are stupid

GOP Bullshit: More on Amendments

GOP Bullshit: Amending the bill

From the Archives: Paul Krugman vs Bill O'Reilly