This is an interesting article on Michele Bachmann from a recent New Yorker Magazine issue:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/15/110815fa_fact_lizza
Ten long pages but makes a fascinating read.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Monday, August 1, 2011
Barack Obama-Cave Man
Well, he's done it again! Faced with opposition from a radical right tea party that acted like the insane rogue elephant that didn't care if the economy tanked or not, Mr. Obama threw in the towel and gave the republicans everything they wanted without getting anything in return. He caved.
Maybe its the next step in the game for the shrewdest political thinker ever, a chess grand-master playing 5 steps ahead of everyone else, but I don't think so.
make no mistake, this was not a compromise because, once again, he got nothing in return.
At least in December he got an extension in unemployment benefits, but the republicans learned then that he could be controlled by extortion. And apparently he can.
here's Paul Krugman's take:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/01/opinion/the-president-surrenders-on-debt-ceiling.html?_r=1&hp
Maybe its the next step in the game for the shrewdest political thinker ever, a chess grand-master playing 5 steps ahead of everyone else, but I don't think so.
make no mistake, this was not a compromise because, once again, he got nothing in return.
At least in December he got an extension in unemployment benefits, but the republicans learned then that he could be controlled by extortion. And apparently he can.
here's Paul Krugman's take:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/01/opinion/the-president-surrenders-on-debt-ceiling.html?_r=1&hp
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
more thoughts on budget negotiations...
I’m not proud of my senator, Mitch McConnell and his cadre of Senate republicans who are holding the nation hostage in order to ensure that the balancing of the budget is done on the backs of the poor and what’s left of the middle class.
For eight years he sat silently as the last republican president ran up deficit spending by giving tax breaks to the wealthy and fighting two wars on credit.
When Obama took office, he was left the biggest fiscal mess since the great depression. Now, in order to further what he sees as the most important republican cause, making Obama a one term president, Mitch is complicit in a scheme to take the nation to the brink of another financial ruin. The last time, it was to allow the bankers to escape the catastrophe they created in order to create obscene salaries for the already wealthy.
This time, its to ensure failure on the part of the President, even at the cost of our country’s financial recovery. In order to cut the deficit, a combination of revenue increases and cost reductions will certainly have to take place.
Good faith negotiations are not taking place when one side announces that one of the two components, revenue increases, will not be discussed, and therefore, the arbitrary goal must be reached only through cuts in spending.
The standard argument is that you can’t increase taxes during a recession, and that those with wealth will create more opportunity (jobs) when they are allowed to accumulate additional wealth. That theory, however, just doesn’t make sense. If it were true, then where were the jobs they’ve been creating since the Bush tax cuts of 2002 and 2004? We, as a nation, can’t keep throwing ever-increasing amounts of money at the wealthy and hope that we get some of it back. What again, is the definition of insanity?
For the last twenty years, the middle class of our nation has seen decreasing pay while the richest one percent now “earn” 20 percent of its wealth. And I think I've read that the top 20% earn 50% of the wealth. Not since the roaring ‘20s has income disparity been as great.
And the solution? According to Mitch the gap must be made up by further pain to the poor and middle class.
Twenty years ago, Republicans could control the majority by making believe that they were the bastions of christian values and beliefs. Since that method started failing, they have become champions of fiscal responsibility. They can create a virtual reality that is obviously false to anyone who pays attention, but, what the hell, if enough people fall for it, it might as well be true.
People like the Koch brothers throw money at groups who in turn fund tea party types who will provide the energy to get more ideologues elected, and the process repeats itself. People don't want to be smart. They want to be told what they want to hear, to be reinforced in their beliefs, no matter how crazy those beliefs are.
If Sarah Palin wants to believe that Paul Revere rode to warn the British that we were not about to give up our arms, and that he used bells and whistles to do it, well, she's entitled to her own set of facts. The rest of us should just get used to it.
I just wonder what's going to happen when the middle class is gone and there is no one left to buy the products of the wealthy and the corporations. But I'm sure the republicans have already got that figured out.
For eight years he sat silently as the last republican president ran up deficit spending by giving tax breaks to the wealthy and fighting two wars on credit.
When Obama took office, he was left the biggest fiscal mess since the great depression. Now, in order to further what he sees as the most important republican cause, making Obama a one term president, Mitch is complicit in a scheme to take the nation to the brink of another financial ruin. The last time, it was to allow the bankers to escape the catastrophe they created in order to create obscene salaries for the already wealthy.
This time, its to ensure failure on the part of the President, even at the cost of our country’s financial recovery. In order to cut the deficit, a combination of revenue increases and cost reductions will certainly have to take place.
Good faith negotiations are not taking place when one side announces that one of the two components, revenue increases, will not be discussed, and therefore, the arbitrary goal must be reached only through cuts in spending.
The standard argument is that you can’t increase taxes during a recession, and that those with wealth will create more opportunity (jobs) when they are allowed to accumulate additional wealth. That theory, however, just doesn’t make sense. If it were true, then where were the jobs they’ve been creating since the Bush tax cuts of 2002 and 2004? We, as a nation, can’t keep throwing ever-increasing amounts of money at the wealthy and hope that we get some of it back. What again, is the definition of insanity?
For the last twenty years, the middle class of our nation has seen decreasing pay while the richest one percent now “earn” 20 percent of its wealth. And I think I've read that the top 20% earn 50% of the wealth. Not since the roaring ‘20s has income disparity been as great.
And the solution? According to Mitch the gap must be made up by further pain to the poor and middle class.
Twenty years ago, Republicans could control the majority by making believe that they were the bastions of christian values and beliefs. Since that method started failing, they have become champions of fiscal responsibility. They can create a virtual reality that is obviously false to anyone who pays attention, but, what the hell, if enough people fall for it, it might as well be true.
People like the Koch brothers throw money at groups who in turn fund tea party types who will provide the energy to get more ideologues elected, and the process repeats itself. People don't want to be smart. They want to be told what they want to hear, to be reinforced in their beliefs, no matter how crazy those beliefs are.
If Sarah Palin wants to believe that Paul Revere rode to warn the British that we were not about to give up our arms, and that he used bells and whistles to do it, well, she's entitled to her own set of facts. The rest of us should just get used to it.
I just wonder what's going to happen when the middle class is gone and there is no one left to buy the products of the wealthy and the corporations. But I'm sure the republicans have already got that figured out.
Monday, June 27, 2011
About those budget negotiations...
Republicans prove every day that hypocrisy is not a fatal disease.
After 8 years of W's leadership in which 2 unfunded wars were fought, and allowing the complete collapse of the economy, they've realized that deficits are not a good thing and we are in a crisis.
The government will run out of money around the first of August unless the debt ceiling is raised and in the discussions to raise it, republicans are demanding massive cuts (trillions over the next ten years) but say that any tax increases are off the table. Allowing the federal government to default on its obligations is generally believed to be a very, very bad thing.
And republicans know that democrats are too responsible to allow default, and they will therefore use that good trait against them.
This is not negotiation, it is extortion. Taxes on the rich are lower than they have been in over 50 years, yet they should not be required to share the burden that the middle class have found imposed on them in the last few years.
It wouldn't be fair to ask some sacrifice of them, so we must punish the poorest of the population by cutting funding to what has become essential services.
and one of my favs, Paul Krugman writes:
After 8 years of W's leadership in which 2 unfunded wars were fought, and allowing the complete collapse of the economy, they've realized that deficits are not a good thing and we are in a crisis.
The government will run out of money around the first of August unless the debt ceiling is raised and in the discussions to raise it, republicans are demanding massive cuts (trillions over the next ten years) but say that any tax increases are off the table. Allowing the federal government to default on its obligations is generally believed to be a very, very bad thing.
And republicans know that democrats are too responsible to allow default, and they will therefore use that good trait against them.
This is not negotiation, it is extortion. Taxes on the rich are lower than they have been in over 50 years, yet they should not be required to share the burden that the middle class have found imposed on them in the last few years.
It wouldn't be fair to ask some sacrifice of them, so we must punish the poorest of the population by cutting funding to what has become essential services.
and one of my favs, Paul Krugman writes:
Debt Limit Stakes
So, here’s where we are on the debt limit discussions: Democrats have agreed to large spending cuts, but are holding out for doing something about
a rule that lets businesses value their inventory at less than they bought it for in order to lower their tax burden, a loophole that lets hedge-fund managers count their income as capital gains and pay a 15 percent marginal tax rate, the tax treatment of private jets, oil and gas subsidies, and a limit on itemized deductions for the wealthy.
And Republicans walked out.
Think about it. There’s a significant chance that failing to raise the debt limit could provoke a renewed financial crisis — and Republicans would rather take that chance than allow a reduction in tax breaks on corporate jets.
What this says to me is that Obama cannot, must not, concede here. If he does, he’s signaling that the GOP can extract even the most outrageous demands; he’s setting himself up for endless blackmail. A line has to be drawn somewhere; it should have been drawn last fall; but to concede now would effectively mean the end of the presidency.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
in the NYT today-zipper trouble, apology medley:
My Bad: A Political Medley
By THOMAS VINCIGUERRA
Published: June 8, 2011
After a week of sometimes indignant public denials and insistence that he was the victim of an Internet hacker, a weeping and stammering ... [Representative Anthony D. Weiner] acknowledged at a news conference that he had sent the photo of himself in his underwear to ... a college student in Seattle.
— The Times, June 7
TODAY, I want to briefly address a private matter. (1) I’d like to take this time to clear up some of the questions that have been raised over the past 10 days or so, and take full responsibility for my actions. (2)
There’s no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate. (3) I was blind to how arrogant and self-centered I had become; I did not recognize that I thought mostly of myself. The worst part about this is I even tried not to become caught up in my own self-importance. Unfortunately, the urge to believe in it was stronger than the power to fight it. (4) I know that my public comments and my silence about this matter gave a false impression. (5)
I made a serious mistake. (6) I haven’t told the truth, and I’ve done things I deeply regret. (7) I’ve been unfaithful to my wife. (8) That was a mistake, and I deeply regret it. (9) This is no time for evasions, denials or alibis. I fully accept responsibility and I am truly sorry for my actions. (10)
I can only tell you I was motivated by many factors. First, by a desire to protect myself from the embarrassment of my own conduct. I was also very concerned about protecting my family. (11) To all those I have disappointed and hurt, these words will never be enough, but I am truly sorry. (12)I regret the harm that my actions have caused my family, my staff and my constituents. (13)
As an elected official, I fully realize that my life is open for public criticism and scrutiny, and I take full responsibility for the mistake in judgment I made in attempting to handle this matter myself. (14) Over the course of my public life, I have insisted — I believe correctly — that people, regardless of their position or power, take responsibility for their conduct. I can and will ask no less of myself. (15)
I’ve let down a lot of people. That’s the bottom line. And I let them down and in every instance I would ask their forgiveness. Forgiveness is not an immediate process, it is in fact a process that takes time and I’ll be in that process for quite some weeks and months and I suspect years ahead. (16) I do not believe that God tortures any person simply for its own sake. (17) I do believe in a forgiving God. And I think most people, deep down in their hearts hope there’s a forgiving God. Somebody once said that when we’re young, we seek justice, but as we get older, we seek mercy. There’s something to that, I think. (18)
As we go through the process of working through this there are going to be some hard decisions to be made, to be dealt with. (19) I owe a humble thank you to the many people who helped to get me here, and who helped me serve effectively. (20) I am very proud of the things we have accomplished during my administration. (21)
But I guess where I’m trying to go with this is there are moral absolutes and that God’s law indeed is there to protect you from yourself, and there are consequences if you breach that. This press conference is a consequence. (22) I ask that the media respect my wife and children through this extremely difficult time. While I deserve your attention and criticism, my family does not. (23)
Thank you for watching. And good night. (24)
•
(1) Eliot Spitzer, March 10, 2008.
(2) Anthony D. Weiner, June 6, 2011.
(3) Newt Gingrich, March 8, 2011.
(5) Bill Clinton, Aug. 17, 1998.
(8) Mark Sanford, June 24, 2009.
(9) Larry Craig, Aug. 28, 2007.
(10) Jesse Jackson, Jan. 18, 2001.
(12) John Edwards, Jan. 21, 2010.
(13) Christopher Lee, Feb. 9, 2011.
(15) Mr. Spitzer, March 12, 2008.
(17) James E. McGreevey, Aug. 12, 2004.
(23) Arnold Schwarzenegger, May 17, 2011.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Colbert on Rand Paul
Stephen Colbert had a segment on Rand Paul and terrorism, here is a link to the clip:
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/colbert-by-rand-pauls-own-standards-hes-a-terrorist-video.php?ref=fpb
It amazes me that these tea partiers (Paul, Bachmann, Palin) can say pretty much anything and not be held to a consistency standard that other pols are held to.
And speaking of Rand Paul, I do approve of the fact that he recently questioned the reenactment of the Patriot Act without any Senate discussion. But even a broken clock is right twice a day......
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/colbert-by-rand-pauls-own-standards-hes-a-terrorist-video.php?ref=fpb
It amazes me that these tea partiers (Paul, Bachmann, Palin) can say pretty much anything and not be held to a consistency standard that other pols are held to.
And speaking of Rand Paul, I do approve of the fact that he recently questioned the reenactment of the Patriot Act without any Senate discussion. But even a broken clock is right twice a day......
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Why family needs to be taken in small doses:
I haven't posted in a few weeks and wanted to commit something to print. The following is a true story about a recent family event which may help to explain my occasional insanity:
My brother-in-law, Dan is from the Murray, Ky. area. When my sister Jo and Dan lived in Hazel, near Murray, Jo owned a retail store named "Miss Bradies." Dan was an auctioneer.
A man from Murray lives at my sister, Sue's and Mom's assisted living place, and they talked.
Turns out, the guy had a grandfather who's estate was auctioned off years ago, and he thought Dan auctioned the stuff and he wanted g-dad's law books and thought Dan had bought them. and he'd like to see/meet Dan.
Dan, when told the story, said he knew the guy's family, but wasn't the auctioneer. Doesn't have the books.
OK? goofy, homey story totally debunked, right?
Wrong. Not so fast, at least not in my family. The story sprouted huge legs, took off and has resisted every attempt to discredit it. In my family, it'll be a legend in about 6 more months. It drives me crazy, and at a dinner last week, it had a new wrinkle:
Everyone was late and mom had already gone back into this small dining room at the end of a hall. I seated mom and asked Sue to stay with her and I'd wait at the front door and show the guests where to go.
after a minute Sue comes up behind me.
she left mom because she wanted Dan, who was late already, to meet that guy who was then in the adjacent big dining room.
And she explained to me that Dan had bought some of his granddad's books AND JO HAD SOLD SOME OF THE AUCTION STUFF AT HER STORE!!!!!!!
a brand new twist to a family folklore story!!
She got mad at me when I reminded her that the underlying story, that Dan was the auctioneer, was false, and that the new variation had to also be false. But sister Sue would have none of this blasphemy, she has her story. To give a new reason for introducing them she says, "Well, they're both from western Kentucky!" I told her yes, but so are 100,000 other people.
Dan came in, she led him over to the guy and Dan was captured for about 15 additional minutes while 7 people waited to order dinner.
And worst of all, I'm the only person that thought the entire exercise was crazy.
My brother-in-law, Dan is from the Murray, Ky. area. When my sister Jo and Dan lived in Hazel, near Murray, Jo owned a retail store named "Miss Bradies." Dan was an auctioneer.
A man from Murray lives at my sister, Sue's and Mom's assisted living place, and they talked.
Turns out, the guy had a grandfather who's estate was auctioned off years ago, and he thought Dan auctioned the stuff and he wanted g-dad's law books and thought Dan had bought them. and he'd like to see/meet Dan.
Dan, when told the story, said he knew the guy's family, but wasn't the auctioneer. Doesn't have the books.
OK? goofy, homey story totally debunked, right?
Wrong. Not so fast, at least not in my family. The story sprouted huge legs, took off and has resisted every attempt to discredit it. In my family, it'll be a legend in about 6 more months. It drives me crazy, and at a dinner last week, it had a new wrinkle:
Everyone was late and mom had already gone back into this small dining room at the end of a hall. I seated mom and asked Sue to stay with her and I'd wait at the front door and show the guests where to go.
after a minute Sue comes up behind me.
she left mom because she wanted Dan, who was late already, to meet that guy who was then in the adjacent big dining room.
And she explained to me that Dan had bought some of his granddad's books AND JO HAD SOLD SOME OF THE AUCTION STUFF AT HER STORE!!!!!!!
a brand new twist to a family folklore story!!
She got mad at me when I reminded her that the underlying story, that Dan was the auctioneer, was false, and that the new variation had to also be false. But sister Sue would have none of this blasphemy, she has her story. To give a new reason for introducing them she says, "Well, they're both from western Kentucky!" I told her yes, but so are 100,000 other people.
Dan came in, she led him over to the guy and Dan was captured for about 15 additional minutes while 7 people waited to order dinner.
And worst of all, I'm the only person that thought the entire exercise was crazy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)