The debate rages on, and thanks to media spin and constant false equivalencies, at least one poll has 57% of its respondents rejecting any possibility of inflammatory speech having any influence over Jared Lee Loughner's actions on Saturday morning. Welcome to the confluence of media echoes and denial.

It was predictable, this la-la-la response. Kneejerk, even. No one wants to believe that words can influence, because that would require individuals to own their own words. God forbid.

This is true in every context but politics, it seems. I believe there are some things one doesn't say to their spouse unless they really mean it. Words like "I want a divorce", "I hate you", "I want to be with someone else" are not things one says unless they're prepared to follow through with the appropriate actions. This is because once that barrier is broken, it cannot be rebuilt. The foundations of that marriage are forever weakened and possibly broken. Matt Taibbi takes that one step further.

Which makes sense. If we're being honest with ourselves, we in the media understand that our job descriptions do not entirely overlap with the requirements of good citizenship. If you're in a marriage, or are a parent or living with parents, or have brothers or sisters or close friends, when you argue over a difficult issue, you don't just take out all the weaponry in your arsenal and blast away. In the interests of preserving the relationship, and because you respect and love the other person as a human being, you argue as politely and respectfully as possible. And your goal in arguing is always to fix the actual problem -- there's no other, ulterior motive.

That's just not the case in either journalism (and I should know-- more on that momentarily) or politics. In politics, you don't need to treat everyone with decency and humanity, just 51% of the crowd. Actually, given that half or less than half of all people don't vote, the percentage of people who require basic decency and indulgence is probably even lower than that, maybe 20-25% of the population. There's plenty of power and money to be won by skillfully stimulating public anger against some or all of the rest, and there are few rewards for restraint.

Continue reading »

Booman Tribune: Sharia is the New Fluoridation

TPMLive Wire: One huge state budget crisis that nobody is willing to talk about

pandagon: Why being anti-choice is misogynist, period

TalkLeft: Obama to issue signing statement on Guantanamo restrictions in funding bill

They gave us a republic: OK Mr. Holder...what's the excuse going to be this time?

Climate Progress: Climate Change is the next security threat

Infrastructurist: Conservative mag tells conservatives why they should care about public transit

The Mahablog: No cause, just movement

Climate Progress: Judge rules against Cuccinelli's witch-hunt aimed at Michael Mann and climate science

Blog of Rights: If the government thinks you should be dead, it should at least tell you why

Economist's View: Economists of all stripes will descend upon Robert Barro over the next 36 hours.

Vagabond Scholar: Engaging the opposition, and a wingnut checklist

The Bush Oil Co., er, Administration great scat!

A former disgraced official at the White House Council on Environmental Quality who resigned days after the New York Times reported he had changed some government reports on global warming is joining oil giant ExxonMobil .

Philip Cooney, the former chief of staff of the council and a former energy industry lobbyist, will be working for Exxon beginning in the fall, company spokesman Russ Roberts said on Tuesday.

The New York Times first reported Cooney's job with Exxon on its Web site. The newspaper said another Exxon spokesman declined to describe the former White House official's new job.

Cooney resigned from his White House post on Friday, two days after the newspaper reported he edited some descriptions of climate research in a way that cast doubt on links between greenhouse gas emissions and rising temperatures.

Bush Administration official, oil executive . . . same diff.

In perhaps one of the largest turnarounds in modern political history, only six months after winning reelection, Bush has apparently squandered his mandate and now finds himself a lame duck, his powerful political capitol spent. Yes, dear readers, America is finally on to the man and it is doubtful that his presidency will survive the next two years.

So unlikely is his political survival that we here at the RECOVERING LIBERAL feel completely comfortable in beginning what amounts to as a countdown to IMPEACHMENT (Drum Roll Please!).

And what a lovely impeachment it will be, televised and tivo'd, and commented on by AL and Randi at AIR AMERICA while being dutifully dissected by our brothers and sisters in the BLOGGING COMMUNITY Including: BLONDESENSE, AMERICAblog, ,  DAILY KOS, and of course here in the red, white and blue pages of the LIB.

We are confident that in the next twenty-four months Dubya and the gang will be relegated to their rightful place in history as the war criminals, thieves and zealots that they most definitely are.

That they will be taken to task for lying about the WMD'S and for generally disregarding the will of the American people, who mostly believe that war should only be fought only when our nation is at jeopardy and not because war is good business.

We further believe that they will be held to answer for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives squandered as collateral damage in this War for Oil as well as for the senseless loss of our own troops, and for the ongoing pain and suffering of those soldiers, sailors and marines lucky enough to survive their tour of duty in Iraq.

Additionally, it is our sincere hope that they will be charged for their crimes against the environment and for the senseless destruction of the air that we breath, the water that we drink, and the food that we eat in the name of shameless profit.

Lastly, it is our fondest desire they be made to pay dearly for the climate of hate, which they have engendered, endorsed and fueled with their draconian approach to the maters of gay rights, stem cell research and evolution, as well as their support for those who preach hate in God's name.

And these are just some of the things which we would like to see them answer for in this life. God, I'm sure, has a few issues of his own to discuss with them.CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOS, and of course here in the red, white and blue pages of the LIB.

We are confident that in the next twenty-four months Dubya and the gang will be relegated to their rightful place in history as the war criminals, thieves and zealots that they most definitely are.

That they will be taken to task for lying about the WMD'S and for generally disregarding the will of the American people, who mostly believe that war should only be fought only when our nation is at jeopardy and not because war is good business.

We further believe that they will be held to answer for the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives squandered as collateral damage in this War for Oil as well as for the senseless loss of our own troops, and for the ongoing pain and suffering of those soldiers, sailors and marines lucky enough to survive their tour of duty in Iraq.

Additionally, it is our sincere hope that they will be charged for their crimes against the environment and for the senseless destruction of the air that we breath, the water that we drink, and the food that we eat in the name of shameless profit.

Lastly, it is our fondest desire they be made to pay dearly for the climate of hate, which they have engendered, endorsed and fueled with their draconian approach to the maters of gay rights, stem cell research and evolution, as well as their support for those who preach hate in God's name.

And these are just some of the things which we would like to see them answer for in this life. God, I'm sure, has a few issues of his own to discuss with them.

Wild West Law goes National

via BlondeSense

You know that insane law we are about to get here in Florida? The law that allows someone to shoot first and don’t worry about it? A whole bunch of you guys poo-pooed it. You said my state was nuts. Okay, you were exactly right, but guess what? This law has its own little road show sponsored by the NRA and it could be appearing in your state next. You can read about it in the Washington Post today

“NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said in an interview that the Florida measure is the "first step of a multi-state strategy" that he hopes can capitalize on a political climate dominated by conservative opponents of gun control at the state and national levels.”

Well, here's a little treasure (PDF) from the Pacific Research Institute (aka right wing hatchery of the west). Sarah Palin has written the foreward for their "Tort Liability Index", where she brags about how "reformed" Alaska's tort system is.

Alaska has the second-lowest monetary tort payouts of any state, controlling for the size of each state’s economy. Our tort costs are particularly low for businesses—another reason for entrepreneurs to locate here. We also have some of the lowest medical liability costs in the country. We appreciate doctors in Alaska and welcome them with open arms, not abusive lawsuits.

Imagine that. If the Deepwater Horizon were to have sunk off the coast of Alaska after destroying all the wildlife in the area, they could've gotten off EASY. Because Sarah Palin was all about watchin' out for the doctor and entrepreneur.

I wonder if I could sue for injuries suffered from slamming my head on the desk repeatedly.

Given these sweeping benefits, all states would do well to follow Alaska’s example and enact legal reforms that eliminate lawsuit abuse. The state motto, after all, is “North to the Future.”

It would be irresponsible of me to simply rant about the idiocy of Sarah Palin writing any kind of foreward for any kind of think tank publication without at least looking at this wonderful tort liability climate in Alaska and sharing that information. So I went looking, and what I found is, well...interesting. (Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer)

• Life has a price - If you die in Alaska as the result of someone else's negligence, the most you are worth is $400,000 or $8,000 times your life expectancy. Period.
• Grievous injury has a price too - If you are injured or disfigured and the injury/disfigurement is permanent, the maximum you're worth is $1,000,000 or $25,000 x life expectancy.
• Punishment has its limits, too - If it is found that you have been wronged intentionally, punitive damages may be part of the verdict. Those limits range from a $500,000 maximum for an individual injury to $7,000,000 for intentionally inflicted financial injury (e.g. embezzlement, securities fraud, etc). However, if the issue is unlawful employment practices, the cap drops drastically to a maximum of $200,000 for small employers and $500,000 for employers with more than 500 employees.

Now look at those caps, and think about the 11 employees of BP killed on the Deepwater Horizon and ask yourself whether or not tort reform is such a good thing.

Palin's little foreward and endorsement of these practices just cements her as a straight-up Republican. Nothing to see here, folks, move along.

Oh, and if anyone sees evidence of actual thought going on in the "think tanks", let me know, okay?

(h/t The Daily Dish)

The Plum Line: White House versus Wellpoint

The Moderate Voice: Ramblings of a Fake American

The Aristocrats: Dark, Dark Place

DownWithTyranny!: Screw Greenpeace, can't we at least pretend that the upcoming energy "reform" bill does more good than harm?

Media Matters Action Network: Huh? American Family Association says the military is run by "fundamentalist Muslims and homosexual activists"

Bob Cesca's Awesome Blog!: Worse than those stupid plastic balls

There's a new NY Times/CBS poll on the teabaggers, and guess what? It only confirms what we've been saying all along. They are mostly white male conservative sore losers who hate the poor and hate President Obama. Which means of course that they dislike black people, and are staunch Birthers and climate-change deniers. And they fall in line with the GOP because they do not want a third party.

The NY Times gave 17 Tea Party people 34 minutes of free ad time by posting videos of each one of their complaints. Did the Times do that for the blogosphere when we first started to rise? Did they do it when there were major Iraq war and immigration reform protests? Nope.

Anyway, Digby has a full rundown on the poll, so read the whole post because it's awesome. I'll only quote her wrapup.

They say the don't like the GOP 54% to 43%. But 92% of them despise the Democrats.

--

There's nothing particularly surprising about the rest of them either. These people are nothing new. They have different iterations, but when you get right down to it they are, quite simply, the far right. They hate poor people (especially blacks) and they hate government that helps poor people (especially blacks.) They are deluded about taxes and spending and are paranoid about the government being infiltrated by "the other." They believe they are the only "true" Americans and alternate between insisting that their "traditional values" are best represented by the Bible or the Constitution, both of which they believe they are ordained by God to properly interpret. And they do not really believe in democracy which is really why they hate the government.

When they lose they stage a national hissy fit of epic proportions and persuade the Village (where they are perceived as the personification of the heartland of America) that they are something very important. Now that they have their very own TV and radio networks featuring crazed right wing demagogues 24/7, they are more successful on those terms than ever. But they are nothing new, nothing new at all. They are mostly a bunch of cranky, white men with money who are trying desperately to hang on to their privileges. Same as it ever was.

They are what we have called "Republicans" for at least the last 30 years.

Most of them get their information from FOX News because they don't read websites and only 6% believe George Bush had anything to do with the deficit. Oh, and only 20% of them have heard of Ron Paul and they just love Glenn Beck. Why the media is spending so much time trying to figure these people out is a mystery to me now. They are arch-conservative racist wingnuts who hate the government, but still want their Social Security and Medicare.

Poll after poll will say the same thing. When they lose they get angry. When they get angry they make f*&ked up signs and scream in town hall meetings about the Constitution.

UPDATE: Rick Perlstein writes an incredible historical comparison in the NY Times about the teabaggers of today and yesteryear.

Watching the rise of the Tea Party movement has been a frustration to me, and not just because it is ugly and seeks to traduce so many of the values I hold dear.

“I just don’t have time for anything,” a housewife told a news magazine in 1961. “I’m fighting Communism three nights a week.”

Even worse has been the overwhelming historical myopia. As the Times’s new poll numbers amply confirm — especially the ones establishing that the Tea Partiers are overwhelming Republican or right-of-Republican — they are the same angry, ill-informed, overwhelmingly white, crypto-corporate paranoiacs that accompany every ascendancy of liberalism within U.S. government.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (1698)

PLAYS: (3002)

Embed

[H/t Dave]

Well, at least Howard Kurtz -- unlike Bill O'Reilly -- didn't completely sucker for Lou Dobbs' wildly overblown tale of someone taking a shot at his home.

In fact, on yesterday's "Reliable Sources" show on CNN, Kurtz hosted a pretty frank discussion of the likelihood that Dobbs was trying to martyr himself and attack his critics by claiming they were shooting at him -- when there's extremely high likelihood that this was a stray bullet from a rifle shot by a hunter in the nearby woods.

Most of the frank talk can be credited to Margaret Carlson, who was in Feisty mode. Unfortunately, she was counterbalanced by Lyin' John Fund, who managed to completely obfuscate why Dobbs is in trouble for the way he discussed immigration:

KURTZ: Margaret, if some nut was actually taking a shot at Lou Dobbs and his wife, is it fair for him to then blame it on the media climate surrounding his fervent opposition to illegal immigration?

CARLSON: No, but he loves doing it. Speak of your own publicity machine, Lou Dobbs generates so much about his own self. And he takes extreme views in part for ratings.

KURTZ: But that suggests he doesn't believe what he's saying.

CARLSON: You know, I think like Glenn Beck and some of these others, you come to believe when you're saying because it is so satisfying to you in terms of ratings and income. Listen, the police who investigated this said that it's hunting season, and there was a bullet mark in the attic on the third floor of his house. That he and his wife were in the same place at the same time, there's no evidence of that.

I mean, it sounds to me from the evidence that he was blowing this up into -- to be a victim -- to be a victim of the media when there's absolutely no, just no evidence that somebody was shooting at him or his wife.

KURTZ: John Fund, we don't know exactly what happened, but it is true that New Jersey state police did kind of play down this incident.

Did Dobbs go too far in trying to tie this to his stance on immigration?

FUND: I think, look, my brother was in law enforcement, and it's always a close call, because if you talk about people threatening you or possibly taking a shot at you, that can encourage other people to go after you. So I probably would have stayed away from it simply for reasons of security. But this issue of what his views are...

KURTZ: Just briefly.

FUND: ... "The Wall Street Journal" is very pro-legal immigration. But Lou Dobbs' views are not that extreme. He basically says we should enforce the laws we have on the books involving illegal immigration. Characterizing it as extreme, I think mischaracterizes his position.

KURTZ: That is a debate for another day. We'll have you back.

Actually, Dobbs' "position" on immigration sounds reasonable when he starts talking about how he thinks we ought to increase immigration levels. But that was after he started getting called out for his incessant extremism. Before that, it's true he didn't explicitly call for mass deportations -- rather, he frequently argued for an aggressive policy of rounding up illegal immigrants and making their lives so miserable they left on their own. Basically an attrition-by-oppression plan. (And he has in fact expressed his avid support for deportation.)

But the reason Dobbs is viewed as an extremist on immigration has much less to do with his stated "position" on immigration, and everythign to do with his "reportage" on immigration and its outrageous and racially incendiary content -- the effects of which are felt in such real-world phenomena as an outbreak of anti-Latino hate crimes:

As for the claim that the Latino-bashing is something else -- the neutral and completely benign criticism of illegal immigration generally -- we've known this is nonsense for some time, especially Lou Dobbs' case. If Dobbs and cohorts like FAIR (an SPLC-designated hate group) really were only concerned about only illegal immigration, then Dobbs needs to explain:

* Why he makes up phony statistics connecting immigration generically with a supposed increase in diseases like leprosy.

* Why he broadcasts white-supremacist mythology about a Hispanic “Aztlan” conspiracy to return the Southwest to Mexico.

* Why he continually claims that Latino immigration is responsible for an increase in crime.

* Why he once said that this wave of immigration is turning America into “a third world cesspool” (a remark that has since been removed from the CNN website).

* Why he constantly promotes the notion of making English the official U.S. language.

* Why he regularly refers to this wave of immigration as an “invasion.”

* Why he regularly hosts anti-immigrant voices from white-supremacist groups and vigilante scam artists like the Minutemen and yet neglects to explain his guests' troubling backgrounds.

That, and much more, constitute the reasons Dobbs is viewed as an extremist on immigration.

John Fund can sugarcoat it and hope everyone forgets about Dobbs' real record of race-baiting on immigration. It's a common right-wing tactic to whine that all they want to talk about is immigration and yet doing so brings reflexive accusations of racism, and that's so unfair. But the fact is, we'd all love to talk about immigration with dealing with racism -- but right-wingers like Lou Dobbs do their best to make sure we have to.