Wednesday, February 29, 2012
To No One's Great Surprise
Thought For The Day
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Not Sure Why, But...
Moron Murdoch
Attack Of The Swifties
On February 25, 1969, he led a Swift Boat raid on the isolated peasant village of Thanh Phong, Vietnam, targeting a Viet Cong leader that intelligence suggested would be present. The village was considered part of a free-fire zone by the U.S. military.Kerrey's SEAL team first encountered a peasant house, or hooch, and killed the people inside with knives. While Kerrey says he did not go inside the hooch and did not participate in the killings, another member of the team, Gerhard Klann, said that the people killed there were an elderly man and woman and three children under 12, and that Kerrey helped kill the man. Despite the differing recollections about who actually stabbed these people, Kerrey accepts responsibility as the team leader for their deaths: "Standard operating procedure was to dispose of the people we made contact with," he told the New York Times Magazine. Later, according to Kerrey, the team was shot at from the village and returned fire, only to find after the battle that some of the deceased appeared to be under 18, clustered together in the center of the village. "The thing that I will remember until the day I die is walking in and finding, I don't know, 14 or so, I don't even know what the number was, women and children who were dead," Kerrey said in 1998. "I was expecting to find Vietcong soldiers with weapons, dead. Instead I found women and children."
Swift boats. A guy named Kerrey. Starting to get the picture? I foresee the rise of the Swift Boat Veterans and John Corsi.
Given what the Swifties did to a Presidential candidate just eight years ago and to Senator Max Cleland before that-- which in my book was even more abominable-- should give us pause and ask Bob Kerrey, "Are you really ready for this?" This narrative is not, so far as I know, under much attack and Kerrey's own recollections of the incident bear witness to his own anguish about it.
That's not going to stop the Rovians from gunning for Kerrey. And I suspect it will be even nastier this time, since the Senate is legitimately in play.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Interesting Take
Undoubtedly, There Will Be Backlash
News: Pay Per
Credit Where Credit Is Due
Shoot Self In Foot? Check
Keep Fucking That Chicken, Dickie!
(CNN) -- Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has erased a 10-point deficit against rival Rick Santorum among registered Republicans in the race for the GOP nomination, according to a new Gallup poll released Monday on the eve of the Michigan and Arizona primaries.
In the new Gallup tracking poll, 31% of respondents said they would support Romney and 26% said they favored Santorum, reversing a 36% to 26% advantage for the former Pennsylvania senator last week.
A fifteen point spread. So much for values voters and Teabaggers. Obviously, they came, they saw, they vomited.
That Santorum was even given a serious lookover by Republicans indicates the desperation the party has in coming to terms with a shifting electorate, an angry population helbent on some form of class warfare, and a modestly successful President.
Emphasis on the "modest." That Obama seems a slamdunk for re-election at a time when unemployment will remain stubbornly above 8% in time for the election and the continual sword of Damocles of a threadbare economy dangling down is ludicrous.
Until you realize that George W. Bush was in very similar straights in 2004, until the Democrats managed to shoot themselves in the foot and somehow run a circus instead of a candidate. And I mean no disrespect to John Kerry as either a candidate or a potential President. I'm saying that his handlers and the DNC in general let the Republicans dictate the tenor of the dialogue, right down to smearing a war hero as a coward.
In the absence of a credible opposition candidate (think Bill Clinton in 1992,) an incumbent holds such an amazingly strong advantage over his challenger that he could have a sex scandal AND hike taxes and still win (think Bill Clinton in 1996.) We've all heard the statistic that something on the order of 90-95% of Congresscritters win re-election despite an overall approval rating of less than 30% for Congress as a whole.
The Devil you know? Perhaps. Perhaps its just an acknowledgement that the job is difficult and so long as an officerholder does the bare minimum to keep his constituents happy, he (or she) will win their approval.
Or, more likely, it's the fact that to even run for the House of Representatives requires a massive cash outlay into the millions, depending on your district. When even local officeholders like mayors or aldermen have to advertise on television, you're looking at an unhealthy situation for democracy. It stops being about people and starts being about how much money a candidate can throw against the wall.
Which reinforces the incumbent because, you know, he can wash the hands that wash him.
So a candidate who runs on a shoestring, who wants to make a campaign about issues that matter to him, can't afford to piss off people. And Santorum did just that.
Friday, February 24, 2012
Nobody Asked Me, But...
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Light Days
Dirty Fuckin' Hippies
And Dimon acknowledges the issue highlighted by Occupy Wall Street. “I do think we’ve become a less equitable society,” he told me. “So I’d ask the question—let’s say we agree it’s become less equitable—what would you do about it?”
“I would tax dividends and interest income higher and capital gains,” said Dimon. “Have a higher tax rate. If you said there’d be a certain percent rate for people making over a million dollars and a higher percent rate for people making over $10 million, no problem with me. I don’t think people should be able to pass unlimited amounts on to their kids.”
Wow. Simply friggin' wow. In one fell swoop, Dimon acknowledges income inequity and its bad effect on the nation, prescribes a progressive income tax on the wealthy and uberwealthy, AND endorses an estate tax!
And yet, Occupy Wall Street is just a rag-tag rabble of aging unemployed free-laoding hippies and young, debt-laden college kids terrified of getting their hands dirty at the fry counter.
All of this comes against the backdrop of President Obama's announcement of a new corporate tax plan, one that will close loopholes while lowering the corporate tax rate to 25-28%.
OK, I can get behind that plan. After all, our nominal tax rate on corporations is 35% but no one actually pays that anyway, and it's about mid-pack for industrialized nations, plus we see so little benefit in society from a rate that high.
In fact, I'd go Obama one better: I'd cut the tax rate to 15%
...wait for it...
On gross revenues. No more dodging the tax man by purchasing this asset or stowing money in some tax shelter. You earn it, you pay on it, just like a person.
You'll note that, since taxable income is usually only a small fraction of gross revenues, this is a bonanza for the nation. Now, we can argue and adjust the tax rate to be sure (15% might be a bit high, but hey, if it's good enough for a poor family...) but the simple fact is, if corporations wish to have free speech like the rest of us, then they ought to be as subject to tax burdens as the least of us.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
It Must Suck To Be Newt
All Greece'd Up
Holy Shit
BAGRAM AIR BASE, Afghanistan —Deeply angered over reports that U.S. troops had burned copies of the Koran, Islam’s holy text, thousands of protesters on Tuesday tried to storm the largest U.S. base in Afghanistan.
The protests erupted early in the morning, after Afghans working inside the Bagram air base reported to local residents that a number of copies of the Koran had been burned. The incident prompted the top U.S. military officer in Afghanistan, Gen. John R. Allen, to offer a public apology and order a prompt investigation.
“When we learned of these actions, we immediately intervened and stopped them,” Allen said in a statement. “We are taking steps to ensure this does not ever happen again. I assure you … I promise you … this was NOT intentional in any way.”
It's not hard to find out that the proper way to dispose of a Koran is by burying it or releasing it into flowing waters. You can burn it, but there had better be no other option available.
It seems to me that, in the largest military base in South Asia, there's a front loader lying around idle somewhere.
You Really Want To Go There, Papist?
Santorum, a conservative Catholic, is fairly strict when it comes to religion. You might want to check out his 2008 speech at Ave Maria College — just do the Google — in which he said that "mainline Protestantism in this country ... is in shambles (and) is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it." Which may come as a surprise to many of the millions of mainline Protestants.
Indeed. Not content with sticking his foot in his mouth, Santorum proceeded Sunday to shove his kneecap in there, as well:
But on "Face the Nation" Sunday, Santorum insisted he wasn't talking about Obama's Christianity or religion at all, but, rather, about the theology of "radical environmentalism," which he explained this way:
"But we're not here to serve the Earth. The Earth is not the objective. Man is the objective. And I think a lot of radical environmentalists have it upside-down."
You know who else believes in global climate change?
While some lawmakers and ideologues blithely challenge the world's leading scientists, along with a growing number of military leaders concerned about this issue as a global security risk, they also part company with the Catholic Church and Pope Benedict XVI. The Green Pope, as some have called Benedict, has frequently addressed climate change and care for the environment as profound moral issues. The pope has touted solar energy, the benefits of local agriculture, sustainable development and the perils of hyper-consumerism. He has spoken boldly about the shameful reality of "environmental refugees" and recognizes the link between war and ecological exploitation. The Vatican has even taken steps to become the world's first "carbon-neutral state."[...]
For Catholics, caring for creation and being prudent stewards of our rivers, mountains and forests is not a trendy cause. It's a Biblical mandate, and a necessity to promote the sacred dignity of life. The Catholic Church has been in the forefront of these efforts long before rock stars and Hollywood celebrities made it cool to be "green." In particular, faith communities have a unique role to address the ways the poor and vulnerable around the world are most impacted by climate change.
(Emphases added for contrast)
Yea, that world leader who Santorum suggests we should model our own laws and customs on. One wonders if the Pope is now mainstream Protestant or if Santorum has decided to convert to Evangelicalism.
The right wing of this country will spend the next several months playing "Wack-A-Mole" with President Obama, trying to find any weakness in his armor that can be summed up in a soundbite. You see, it's hard to say he's been horrible with the economy since people intuitively grasp that the economy was bad, got worse, but is now better.
It's hard to say he's been on the wrong side of social issues, since the grand majority of people agree with his centrist, principled stances.
And it's hard to paint him as corrupt because, hello, not a whole lot of "there" there.
So the hammer keeps bashing, and the President keeps ducking back into his hole until all that's left for conservatives is to hit themselves in the head with the hammer and cry foul.
Friday, February 17, 2012
Nobody Asked Me, But...
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Maybe It Was Performance Anxiety
Shark Jumped? Check
China Steps In
Budget For Me, Nothing For Thee
President Barack Obama’s budget for 2013 will set off a vitriolic battle. Republicans will rail against the Democrats’ “class warfare” and Democrats will rail against the Republicans’ “coddling of the rich”. Yet it is mostly for show. The rich will win in their fund balances while probably losing at November’s presidential polls, and the poor and working class will probably re-elect Obama but suffer a continuing decline in relative and perhaps absolute incomes.
Consider the bottom line of the Obama budget. The policy is to cut total primary (non-interest) federal spending from about 22.6 to 19.3 per cent of gross domestic product from 2011 to 2020, while revenues would rise from recession lows of about 15.4 per cent of GDP in 2011 to some 19.7 by 2020. Compare that with Republican congressman Paul Ryan’s budget a year ago. Mr Ryan’s budget aimed for about 17 per cent of GDP in primary outlays by 2020, with revenues at about 18 per cent of GDP. The difference is modest, but the important fact is this. Both sides are committed to significant cuts in government programmes relative to GDP. These cuts will be especially swingeing in the discretionary programmes for education; environmental protection; child nutrition; job re-training; transition to low-carbon energy; and infrastructure. The entire civilian discretionary budget will amount to only 2 per cent of GDP, or less, as of 2020, in the budget plans of both Obama and the Republicans.
Sachs is right: The budget battles of the 21st Century have been narrowed down to paring away at the middle class.
Worse, this was a predictable situation. Indeed, it was predicted ahead of the first Clinton administration, that eventually, defense spending, Social Security and Medicare, and debt service on the cumulative budget deficits, the latter two mandatory figures, would choke the life out of any discretionary spending (except defense, which for some odd reason is not considered discretionary *koffkoffPORKkoffkoff*)
And then President Clinton took the then-bold (and now, radical) step of raising taxes on the wealthy while lowering them on the job-creating middle classes.
Yea, "job-creating middle class." That works in two ways, and please allow me this digression: First, 99% of jobs in this country are created by small businesses. 90% of small businesses are owned by people who make less than $50,000 from those businesses. You can't get much more "middle class" than $50K (use Google, the figures are out there.) Second, the middle class is the engine that keeps consumption going. Computers, cars, housing, iPads, food, clothing, shelter, all these sectors thrive on the middle class.
There are many more poor (Sachs and Olbermann both pointed out last night that one in two Americans now live in a low-income household, a staggering figure,) but they can only spend so much after they've paid rent. And let's face facts, it's the middle class that is caught up in keeping up with the Joneses.
But I digress....Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy, created 23 million jobs with his tax cuts on the middle class, and not only balanced the budget, but left a surplus.
Squandered immediately, I should point out, which brings us back to where we are now: the same boat as 20 years ago, deciding who should get hurt least.
In fairness to Obama's budget, he wants to raise taxes on the wealthy while maintaining Bush's middle class tax cuts, such as they were. And it is true that just cutting up the Bush era credit card of tax cuts would provide a neat little surplus in not-too-short order.
Here's the thing, tho: the argument over the budget, centered as it is around discretionary spending, mirrors the battle for re-election that Obama faces this year. There is so little left once you take defense, Social Security, and debt service off the table (in the election, staunch Republicans and Democrats) that the scraps are what will be left.
Similarly, the budget and the election link in this fashion: how those scraps are viewed and disposed of will determine if Obama wins, or whomever the Republicans set up to lose wins.
All Obama really needs to do is to change the dialogue and show that there's more meat than these burnt dry scraps. And that works in both arenas.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Santorum Bubbles Up
Same-Sex Marriage Is Officially Here To Stay
Interesting Story, If True
THE head of Israel's foreign intelligence service made a secret trip to Washington this month to gauge the likely US reaction to a unilateral Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.
The content of Mossad chief Tamir Pardo's discussion with his American counterparts has been revealed in a Newsweek article titled ''Obama's Dangerous Game With Iran''.
Unnamed US officials claim that Mr Pardo's line of questioning to David Petraeus, the CIA chief, ran: ''What is our [US] posture on Iran? Are we ready to bomb? Would we [do so later]? What does it mean if [Israel] does it anyway?''
That certainly sounds like the contemplation of an imminent attack to me.
Much of this alarm is centered on the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report last fall that suggested strongly that Iran was developing a weapons program. Iran has denied that, claiming any nuclear facility development was for peaceful purposes, like domestic energy requirements.
The IAEA has been strangely reticent in the wake of preliminary talks last week, to characterize Iran's defense, saying only that the talks were "good" and that more talks will take place next week.
A clearer picture, however, is given by the reactions of both French and Chinese diplomats have been urging Iran to better cooperate with the IAEA inspectors, who may already have a report in the pipeline that paints a not-flattering picture of Iran.
Today's events make it likely that Iranian policy will stiffen.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Clouds Darken
Assad-hole
A Short Prayer
Robert Kagan: So Close, Yet So Far
Both Beijing and Moscow already protect dictators like Syria's Bashar al-Assad. If they gain greater relative influence in the future, we will see fewer democratic transitions and more autocrats hanging on to power. The balance in a new, multipolar world might be more favorable to democracy if some of the rising democracies—Brazil, India, Turkey, South Africa—picked up the slack from a declining U.S. Yet not all of them have the desire or the capacity to do it.
The Definition Of "Behind The Curve"
Even with the president’s approval rating showing signs of life and the Republicans busily bashing themselves over the head — “one is a practicing polygamist and he’s not even the Mormon,” retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor recently quipped about her party’s two frontrunners — America continues to track right, according to polling data released by the Gallup Organization last week.
Polling on things like political bent is usually inaccurate, wildly so. It is unspecific, and subject to an awful lot of interpretations, particularly if the questions are designed to be clever.
Indeed, this is likely a lagging poll. As was made clear by the Komen debacle, America is starting to realize that the fruits of the progressive movement are in danger of being taken away, and are starting to fight back.
Indeed, all one has to do is to look at the bounce in support, so easily poo-poohed by Floriduh, that Barack Obama has received after starting to stand firm on his ground. And of course, the positive view most Americans have about the Occupy Wall Street movement and its goal of income equality (I'm sure some idiot will troll me with a Rasmussen poll showing high negatives. That happens when you take a poll at the local bierhallen.)
If anything, Americans are starting to wake up to the fact that for thirty years, they've let their lifestyles be dictated by a monster worse than Big Government: Big Business. Every year, the anti-spending protests on Black Friday grow larger. The local food movements increase volume. Local shopping, a way to make the community stronger, is a far more attractive option for people who see the big box stores, both bricks and mortar and in cyberspace, as a metaphor for isolationism.
This will continue, I think. It's an election year, and already the Occupy Movement has made splashes in DC at the CPAC convention, where Andrew Breitbart has his lunch stolen by protestors, similar to his drunken rant out a restaurant window in Santa Monica a few years back: incoherent and irrelevant.
They've followed the primary season around, making small splashes in states and getting on the local news, something they desperately needed in order to put a human face on the protest movement, which had been limited out of necessity to mostly large urban marches and camp-ins.
The conventions will be prime turf for them to make their very non-violent and polite message heard. Indeed, both sides of the aisle have begun to incorporate the OWS message into their rhetoric. When Newt Gingrich...Gingrich!...can attack Mitt Romney as an out-of-touch billionaire corporatist tool, you know you've had an impact!
So while to say America is a conservative country is not totally inaccurate, to say its becoming more conservative is idiotic. About the only "proof" Floriduh provides is a chart that shows America is getting stupider, and as we all know, stupid = conservative.
We smarten up real quick, though.


