The violation of the no-fly zone Wednesday led more than 30,000 people to quickly leave the White House complex, the Capitol and the Supreme Court and triggered an eight-minute "red alert" at the White House.

At the time, Bush was riding a bicycle at a wildlife center in suburban Maryland and wasn't told of the alert until after he had completed his ride at 12:50

According to the latest campaign finance report, Wal-Mart has spent more than $280,000 trying to overturn one local ordinance. This makes this little local election the most expensive in Flagstaff's history. The Wal-Mart money is spent on full-page newspaper ads and mailings, both full of vicious Orwellian rhetoric implying that a zoning ordinance that limits store size is somehow the same as burning books. Yeah, go figure.

So, when H. Lee Scott Jr. says that Wal-Mart doesn't do that sort of thing anymore, he's a liar....I'm so surprised.

If nothing else, this small snippet of debate between Rush Limbaugh and Williams Shatner casts some light on how right wing lunatics look at health care:

SHATNER: Here’s my premise, and you agree with it or not. If you have money, you are going to get health care. If you don’t have money, it’s more difficult.

LIMBAUGH: If you have money you’re going to get a house on the beach. If you don’t have money, you’re going to live in a bungalow somewhere.

SHATNER: Right, but we’re talking about health care.

LIMBAUGH: What’s the difference?

SHATNER: The difference is we’re talking about health care, not a house or a bungalow.

LIMBAUGH: No. No. You’re assuming that there is some morally superior aspect to health care than there is to a house.

SHATNER: No, I’m not moral at all. I want to keep the subject, for the moment, on the health care thing.

There's a somewhat mind-numbing economic analysis here which undertakes to ask the question of whether the health care market is somehow different from any other market, while leaving moral questions aside.

Here's my problem: I don't see how you can leave moral questions aside. Health care is NOT some kind of free-wheeling profit-driven economic market. Or at least, it shouldn't be. Morals ARE a substantial part of the health care debate. Trying to create an argument for distribution of goods and/or services according to demand where the demand can only be met by those with the means to meet it is an exercise in intellectual floggery.

Of course Rush blathers on at the end about how this is his business, this argument about health care, and he has the knowledge to hold the high ground in the argument.

I wonder. Did he gain that knowledge from dabbling in the free oxycontin market or somewhere else?

DOWNLOADS: (193)

PLAYS: (1306)

Embed

Ed Gillespie. Karl Rove. Bob Schieffer. Associated Press. George Will. Politico. ABC. The list goes on and on with names and media outlets spinning the issue of foreign funds being injected into our elections as a trifling matter, unworthy of our attention.

It's not trifling; it's a major big deal, but I don't think anyone has done an especially good job of explaining it, so I'm going to give it my best shot.

All of the denials and debunkers seem to center around the Chamber of Commerce's insistence that AmCham funds just don't amount to much. Click any article above and you'll find Bruce Josten's vehement denial that AmCham funds are scrupulously segregated and separate from other funds. Yet they fail to mention money flowing in from the Business Councils, and what they ignore even more is that the Chamber of Commerce, by their own admission, can accept as much money as they want from any member - foreign or domestic -- without reporting, disclosing, or otherwise telling anyone about it.

In August of this year, before any news of foreign contributions came out, a Chamber of Commerce employee (and whistleblower) wrote a letter outlining how the Chamber handles donations in excess of annual dues:

According to a letter from a U.S. Chamber of Commerce employee, who wishes to remain anonymous, companies that give money to the Chamber are promised their donations will not be disclosed, even to the Government.

[...]

They are given specific instructions on how to circumvent campaign finance regulations. This is what Mr. Donohue uses to up the ante with companies so they will give more money. Mr. Donohue has given these same instructions to our lobbyists to pass on to companies... Mr. Donohue also promises companies that the Chamber's lawyers, lobbyists and public relations will provide a wall of protection for them in case they have any troubles with regulators or law enforcement officials, and he uses examples of past members who have been able to hide behind the Chamber.... It is a fact that the Chamber coordinates directly with the Republican Party on issues, ads, legislation, candidates and everything else. Steve Law is in daily contact with Mr. Donohue and he was chosen to lead the Karl Rove group American Crossroads so there would be that coordination. That group is the de facto Republican National Committee.

["I can say for certain that there is a vast amount of secrecy about what money comes in and what it is used for. I can say that there have been large cash transactions that have taken place that I do not believe have been ever placed in any accounting system. I also know that money meant for one thing has actually been redirected to another thing on orders from Mr. Donohue and without the knowledge of the company that gave the money. I also know that if there was an audit done of the Chamber's finances and cross referenced to those companies that gave money, there would be vast discrepancies between income and outlays."]

See that last bolded section there? That's why these foreign funds are a huge, major big deal. Here's a hypothetical to illustrate how the money could flow.

Continue reading »

Paul Krugman has a terrific column out today about China, and why it's absolutely crucial that the US join Japan in calling out the Chinese for keeping their currency weak in order to continue feeding their trade surplus.

Some background: If discussion of Chinese currency policy seems confusing, it’s only because many people don’t want to face up to the stark, simple reality — namely, that China is deliberately keeping its currency artificially weak.

The consequences of this policy are also stark and simple: in effect, China is taxing imports while subsidizing exports, feeding a huge trade surplus. You may see claims that China’s trade surplus has nothing to do with its currency policy; if so, that would be a first in world economic history. An undervalued currency always promotes trade surpluses, and China is no different.

This is especially bad right now, because our economy desperately needs the manufacturing sector to revive in order to grow again. Because China has a strange hybrid capitalist/communist economy, their currency manipulation rewards Chinese companies while keeping workers' wages low.

Underneath all of this, there is the fear that putting too much pressure on the Chinese to reform their currency policy would cause them to sell off US Treasury bonds. Krugman has an answer to that, and so do I:

Continue reading »

The Sideshow: Something old, something new

Lawyers, Guns & Money: To know is to hate?

Wonk Room: Mitchell reaffirms 'linkage' in remarks on direct talks

AlterNet: Dylan Ratigan's Crusade

field negro: "Your glasses or your life"

Dennis Perrin: In Gawd's Image

The top ten think tank directors make a between $450,000 and nearly $1 million per year. Conservative think tanks seem to pay better, probably because they're funded with a lot of money from the Billionaire Boys' Club.

I wonder how I can get one of those jobs. I can think. I spend all day thinking. Maybe that's the problem.

Wired Science: Help BP learn how to use photoshop

Lawyers, Guns & Money: Privatize by Stealth

No More Mister Nice Blog: Iran The Long Game

Unqualified Offerings: Media spokesmodels

TalkLeft; What Jeralyn was reading a few hours ago...

Whiskey Fire: BREAKING: NPR Journalist Naked Lesbian Sex Scandal Proves Obama Secret Commie!

'
The Gregory Brothers--Smoking Lettuce

Welcome to another game of "You Just Don't Get It": Sunday Morning Edition. Once again the Villagers have decided that they will approach the issues of the day without context, without background and without respect for their viewers. Which is why we'll have Tim Geithner on both This Week and Meet the Press, defending the economy, dismissing why we need Elizabeth Warren on heading the new consumer agency. But will anyone mention that Geithner's sticky little fingers were all over the financial meltdown in the first place? And Newt Gingrich will be on Fox News Sunday wailing and gnashing about the Obama administration, without ever 'fessing up to the fact that it was his party's leadership and policies that put us barrelling down the wrong track. And don't even get me started on the discussion of civil rights and racial politics that Bob Schieffer is presumably leading on Face the Nation. I'll lay even money that at some point during the hour he'll ask the panel if it's possible for blacks to be racist. Like I said, they just don't get it.

ABC's "This Week" - Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

CBS' "Face the Nation" - Abigail Thernstrom, vice chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights; Michael Eric Dyson, sociology professor at Georgetown University; Cornel West, a professor of African-American studies and religion at Princeton University.

NBC's "Meet the Press" - Geithner.

NBC's "The Chris Matthews Show" - Panel: Amy Walter, Howard Fineman, John Heilemann, Cynthia Tucker. Topics: Will African Americans Stick With Obama This Year? Will This Year's Elections Be an Historic Wave Year, and Is it Better for Obama to Lose Control of Congress?

CNN's "State of the Union" - Berkeley Law School Dean Christopher Edley; author John McWhorter; Mort Zuckerman, publisher of the New York Daily News; former CIA director Michael Hayden.

CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS" - Is the United States making any real progress in Afghanistan? What about Pakistan? Find out what the Obama administration's man in the region has to say about the matter. Watch Fareed's exclusive interview with U.S. Special Representative Richard Holbrooke.

"Fox News Sunday" - Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga; Howard Dean, former national Democratic Party chairman; the Rev. Jesse Jackson.

So, what's catching your eye this morning?

DOWNLOADS: (666)

PLAYS: (1868)

Embed

Howard Kurtz had to twist like a pretzel for this, and it's truly ironic to see Politico's Roger Simon step up and set Howie straight.

KURTZ: Now, Rush Limbaugh also loves to stir controversy by design. And this week, he talked about the president and made a bit of news. Let's take a listen.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: That's exactly the same thing you could say about Obama. He wouldn't have been voted president if he weren't black.

Somebody asked me over the weekend why does somebody earn a lot of money, have a lot of money? I said because he's black. If Obama weren't black, he'd be a tour guide in Honolulu or he'd be teaching Saul Alinsky constitutional law or lecturing on it in Chicago.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

KURTZ: Of course here we are talking about Rush.

But did you find those comments to be more than just the usual Limbaugh rhetoric?

SIMON: You mean did I find them to be racist and repugnant? Yes, I found them to be racist and repugnant.

KURTZ: Why racist? Can't a case be made just on part of this that if Obama was a white freshman senator, he wouldn't have beaten Hillary for the nomination?

SIMON: I think anyone who beat Hillary for the nomination had something going for him besides race. And let's be fair. His race was not going for him. We only said that after he won.

He had to win in states where there was almost no black population. If he had lost in Iowa, the first Democratic contest, he would have been through. There are no black people in Iowa. He convinced white people that he really was an agent of change.

KURTZ: That's a good point.

First Howie tells us how Rush was just stirring controversy, that he didn't really mean it, but was just stirring it up for the sake of having a discussion. And when that doesn't work he tries really, really hard to convince the audience that there's some grain of legitimate thinking behind Limbaugh's amazing racist nastiness.

This goes beyond any attempt at "objectivity", and really, there's no real reason for any serious reporter to even try and be "objective" about Rush Limbaugh anyway. Objectivity should not apply when the subject is clearly wrong. What happened to pointing out the Emperor's nakedness?

Let's get serious for a minute, Howie. Any argument that starts with "If Obama were a white freshman senator..." is a racist argument. Period. It marginalizes any skill Obama has in favor of his race, status and position.

With each day that passes, CNN is sinking lower into the abyss. The idea of Howard Kurtz hosting a show called "Reliable Sources" is, well...laughable.

Oh, what a gift to John McCain. We've all seen commercials/infomercials like this before. If you just fork up $1,000, you can learn how to realize all of your dreams by learning how to get rich by applying for government grants. The hawkers claim you can send your kids to the best schools, live in that big house you always wanted, and live your dreams for the low, low price of $1,000 to attend the only conference on the planet designed for YOU.

"In less than 30 days, one student had his first grant for $110,000.00"

Hayworth quite shamelessly claims that it's totally all right to do this, because the grant money isn't really the government's anyway, it's YOURS.

Hayworth: "The money is out there. The opportunities are out there. And it's not really the government's money, it's YOUR money...The government can invest in YOU."

On its face, Hayworth's participation is just a cynical money grab. But it points out just how hypocritical this faux-conservatism is. Hayworth has no problem quoting President Reagan, the New Jesus of the Right, even as he argues that it's perfectly okay to bilk the government because that money is YOURS. His argument is predicated on the idea that government just hands out money to anyone who asks for it, with no expectation that these grants would actually be used for the purpose they are intended.

If their sales claims were taken on their face, it would look, smell, and be something like fraud. However, rest easy. What this group does is get people to shell out $1000 to sit in a day-long seminar intended to convince the audience it's too complicated for ordinary people. Then they spend some time pitching their services.

Free enterprise at its best. Make a market where none exists on the back of taxpayer funds, then charge the greedy and the gullible for the privilege of telling them they're too stupid to actually learn how to do it, then rescue them by making them pay more.

Would Arizona actually elect this guy? I know AB1070 gives them cover for the crazies, but really? We need this kind of soulless shill in the Senate?

(h/t David Weigel, Washington Post)