The next time you hear a politician use the word "billion," casually, think about whether you want the politician spending your tax money.
A billion is a difficult number to comprehend, but one advertising agency did a good job of putting that figure into perspective in one of its releases.
a.. A billion seconds ago it was 1959.
b.. A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive.
c.. A billion hours ago our ancestors were living in the StoneAge.
d.. A billion days ago no-one walked on two feet on earth.
e.. A billion dollars ago was only 8 hours and 20 minutes, at the rate our government spends it.
It's always interesting to check out the latest e-mail forwards. Some are funny, some are retreads of decades-old urban legends. But there's another big category: right-wing propaganda. In some cases, the groups overlap-- like the still circulating claim that sinister liberals are trying to ban religious broadcasting. That was a chain letter before the Internet, and it still gets passed around, even though it's nonsense.
But a recent posting on the above site demonstrates another means by which some over-wrought rightie spreads fictitious stories about prominent Democrats. The latest: Hillary Clinton snubbed the mothers of veterans. The tip-off this time is that the e-mail cites Newsmax as the source of its info. Newsmax, of course, is a far-right website that specializes in attacking progressives. Usually without justification.
From the forward:
"Gold Star Mothers is an organization made up of women who sons were killed in military combat during service in the United States armed forces. Recently a delegation of New York Gold Star Mothers made a trip to Washington, DC to discuss various concerns with their elected representatives. According to NewsMax.com there was only one politician in DC who refused to meet with these ladies. . .
. . . You got it! None other than the Queen herself, The Hildebeast, Hillary Clinton. She refused repeated requests to meet with the Gold Star Mothers."
It's a timely claim, in a way, since the right is outraged that she might be running for president. It's also completely false. Here's what the Gold Star Mothers themselves had to say about the "incident" on their official site:
"With regard to the NewsMax article concerning our organization, the American Gold Star Mothers, Inc., deeply regret the misunderstanding about Senator Hillary Clinton. The two mothers who visited Washington did not have an appointment with the Senator and she was not in her office on that day. We would appreciate it if the e-mails and negative comments about Senator Clinton would cease."
Case closed. Sadly, the rabid righties aren't the type to let the proverbial facts get in the way of a story.
"Gold Star Mothers is an organization made up of women who sons were killed in military combat during service in the United States armed forces. Recently a delegation of New York Gold Star Mothers made a trip to Washington, DC to discuss various concerns with their elected representatives. According to NewsMax.com there was only one politician in DC who refused to meet with these ladies. . .
. . . You got it! None other than the Queen herself, The Hildebeast, Hillary Clinton. She refused repeated requests to meet with the Gold Star Mothers."
It's a timely claim, in a way, since the right is outraged that she might be running for president. It's also completely false. Here's what the Gold Star Mothers themselves had to say about the "incident" on their official site:
"With regard to the NewsMax article concerning our organization, the American Gold Star Mothers, Inc., deeply regret the misunderstanding about Senator Hillary Clinton. The two mothers who visited Washington did not have an appointment with the Senator and she was not in her office on that day. We would appreciate it if the e-mails and negative comments about Senator Clinton would cease."
Case closed. Sadly, the rabid righties aren't the type to let the proverbial facts get in the way of a story.
With every national poll (83% opposed) condemning government interference in the Terry Shiavo matter you would think by the immense media presence of supporting talking heads that the reverse was actually true. In fact, no case in recent memory (possibly Elian Gonzales) has demonstrated the enormousimbalance between the vocal pundits of the lunatic fringe right wing and their actual lack of support bymainstream Americans.
All week long, pundit after pundit from the Right, followed politician after politician from the Right, by inundating the national media with twisted rationale and downright lies and smears of the innocent people just doing the civic jobs in a fully functioning Democracy. From one court loss to the next, the panicking pubescent pundits of the Right leaped from one cable news show to the next. An uninformed observer might believe by viewing these manic media performances that this group represented a gigantic swath of the voting populace in America. But when the dark star dust settled, there was simply no one home. In fact, no poll number in the recent history of Red State/Blue State divisive battles has reached as high as the 80% region. Clearly, the American people have spoken.
The problem is, the lunatic fringe on the right couldn't care less.
Gosh, I can't imagine who President Medvedev could have been talking about here, can you? At about 2 minutes in, George Stephanopoulis asks this question:
STEPHANOPOULOS: You've now met with President Obama many times. At least 15 meetings and phone calls.
MEDVEDEV: Sixteen times.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Sixteen. Okay, I knew it was 15. I wasn't sure about the 16. What do you make of Barack Obama the man?
MEDVEDEV: He's very comfortable partner, it's very interesting to be with him. The most important thing that distinguishes him from many other people – I won't name anyone by name – he's a thinker, he thinks when he speaks. Which is already pretty good.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You had somebody in your mind, I think. (LAUGHS)
MEDVEDEV: Obviously I do have someone on my mind. I don't want to offend anyone. He's eager to listen to his partner, which is a pretty good quality for a politician. Because any politician is to a certain degree a mentor. They preach something. And the ability to listen to their partner is very important for the politician. And he is pretty deeply emerged in the subject, so he has a good knowledge of what he's talking about. There was no instance in our meetings with Mr. Obama where he wasn't well prepared for the questions. This is very good. And after all, he's simply a very pleasant man with whom it's a pleasure to deal with.
Who could President Medvedev have been talking about? Who could it be, who could it be...(written with my very best Church Lady voice)?
Many of the GOP's most faithful, the kind who vote in primaries despite 115-degree heat, tired long ago of McCain the Maverick, the man who had crossed the aisle to work with Democrats on issues like immigration reform, global warming, and restricting campaign contributions. "Maverick" is a mantle McCain no longer claims; in fact, he now denies he ever was one. "I never considered myself a maverick," he told me. "I consider myself a person who serves the people of Arizona to the best of his abilities." Yet here was Palin, urging her fans four times in 15 minutes to send McCain the Maverick back to Washington.
Talk about political hackery. This ranks up there with the best of the best. Will the media start calling him Keating 5 McCain and be done with it?
The S&L scandal (The Keating 5) that he was involved with forced McCain to reinvent himself so he went the Mavericky route.
Jonathan Alter made this point on Countdown during the general election:
ALTER: [Y]ou remember the Keating Five scandal that he was a part of, which, by the way, it's crazy but there's been very little about it in the press in the last few weeks. And McCain thinks he's getting a hard time, he's really getting a free ride on the fact that he was in the middle of the last great financial scandal in our country.
John "Keating 5" McCain is been kicked around by JD Hayworth and it's shown the depths politicians will sink in order to keep their power. But you know the media will keep booking him on their Sunday Talk Shows. They're addicted to the Maverick. They think they are being "balanced." Oy.
Remember how "hope and change"-y we all felt a year ago?
Brand new president, full of feel-good soaring rhetoric. Nice big majorities in the House and Senate, it was time to feel good about the direction the country was going in again. Doesn't it feel like somewhere along the line in the last year, we've crossed over into Bizarro World?
We're told constantly that the President must stop governing from the left and embrace the center (as Chris Matthews & Co. ask again today) and yet, I'm still waiting for any politician--other than our stalwarts, like Dennis Kucinich or Anthony Weiner--to even acknowledge the left's values much less govern from them.
Meanwhile, the sleaziest person in the Bush White House--and the person acknowledged by the media as the one responsible for all matter of deception and dirty tricks--is feted once again on the Sunday shows. Karl "Turdblossom" Rove gets to offer us yet another round of "is waterboarding torture or not" on Meet the Press and Fox News Sunday, media outlets too disingenuous to remember that we've already had this discussion and decided that yes, in fact, waterboarding IS torture.
And finally, pending the vote for the weakest possible health care reform--one made pathetic by the obstructionism of Republicans and the spineless timidity of Democrats--the noisiest, whiniest, most dishonest Republicans (Graham, Boehner, Cantor) get to go on after WH adviser David Axelrod to keep telling the public that they don't want health care reform. Face the Nation adds insult to injury by also inviting the head of AHIP to complain about what little restrictions remain in the bill. But is there anyone from HCAN on to advocate for the people?
Surely, you jest. Not in Bizarro World.
ABC's "This Week" - White House senior adviser David Axelrod; Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.
CBS' "Face the Nation" - White House press secretary Robert Gibbs; Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.; Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla.; Karen Ignagni, president and CEO of America's Health Insurance Plans.
NBC's "Meet the Press" - Axelrod; Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C.; Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.; and Karl Rove, a former adviser to President George W. Bush.
NBC's "The Chris Matthews Show" - Panel: Dan Rather, Katty Kay, Helene Cooper, Joe Klein. Topics: Obama's Road to Reelection: To the Left or To the Center? Mr. Universe: Why Is Obama's Popularity Abroad A Political Liability At Home? Meter Questions: Should Obama Move To the Center Instead of the Left As A Reelection Strategy? YES: 11 NO: 1;
Will "Repeal Health Care" Be A Winning Slogan For Republicans This Fall? YES: 5 No: 7.
CNN's "State of the Union" - Axelrod; House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.
CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS" - Richard Holbrooke, U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan.
"Fox News Sunday" - Gibbs; Rove; Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md.; Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va.
Here's a really good post on the deficit wars - and the myth of economic "recovery." [via Corrente]
For about 20 years now, I've been warning people that the continuing rise in home values was unsustainable - and bad for the economy. I can't stress this enough: Shelter is shelter, and not an investment. Speculating in residential real estate on the basis of constantly-increasing equity is a relatively recent development that drives a lot of bad economic and social consequences. (Don't even get me started on what a very bad idea it is to use property taxes to fund school systems.)
Using houses as ATM distorted many things in the economy, not the least of which was the parallel stagnation in wages. Think about this: since the 70s, we've seen a steady rise in women working outside the home, a rise in property values, and a monstrous increase in personal debt.
Yet wages never kept pace with any of that. (In fact, those of us who still have jobs are now working harder for less money than we earned in the 1970s.) But with a working spouse bringing in additional income and home equity loans, we could convince ourselves that increasing equity was the same as earning more.
It also kept things calm on the domestic political front, because we bought the illusion that the economy was rewarding us. (Which is one of the reasons why otherwise conservative Republicans were always so supportive of women going to work. It helped keep wages low.)
Even though I see great amounts of psychic pain in the transition, I believe that deflated housing prices are an ultimate good. Housing simply shouldn't cost this much when we aren't earning enough to pay for them; we shouldn't have to take out equity loans to get by.
Which is why I'd recommend that you read Jesse's entire article. He points out that the bulk of Obama's bailout funds and the thrust of his policies is aimed not at bailing out underwater mortgages for drowning homeowners, but to reinflate the value of the bad housing assets.
In other words, to continue the class war on behalf of the bankers.
In a segment of a wide-ranging interview, available here, former New York Govenor Eliot Spitzer gives his impression of the effectiveness of Barack Obama's first year in office and advises the Democratic leadership in Congress that the key to the mid-term elections is to give voters a clear and unequivocable Democratic candidate to re-elect, rather than a frightened, ineffectual politician moving to the right for expediency's sake.
While Spitzer's shine has been tarnished by his peccadillos, his own clear-eyed view of the party and reform are difficult with which to argue. Sadly, inside the Beltway, I don't think this message is getting through, so I'm laying it out clearly now for our friends in DC to show their bosses.
Wouldn't you prefer an unapologetic defender of Democratic Party values (who does not get all the legislation passed due to the political gamesmanship) over someone who will get legislation passed, only by watering it down and capitulating to demands to accomodate the Right?
Has there ever been a worse man running a political organization than Micheal Steele? I mean, I agree with his take here from the other day on Hannidate, but I doubt his RNC peeps do. They attacked him the following day which made him back off. I have to say he's been a really interesting character. He's stuck more shoes in his mouth than any politician that comes to memory since Kristol's boy named Dan Quayle. I do hope they don't fire him because he gives us so much material to work with.
HANNITY: Predictions for the election?
STEELE: Predictions for the election, I think that overall -- and we're beginning now to do the assessments on the various races. But I think overall, given what we know so far and what this administration's proclivities are, we're going to see, I think, nice pick-ups in the House. I think we're going to see nice...
HANNITY: More specific.
STEELE: Well, I can't give a number right yet. Because like I said, we're just now beginning to look at the races. And we have races where it hasn't been clear...
HANNITY: Do you think you can take over the House? Do you think Republicans...
STEELE: Not this year. And Sean, I would say honestly.
HANNITY: You don't think so?
STEELE: Well, I don't know yet, because all the candidates we still have vacancies that need to get filled. But then the question we need to ask ourselves is, if we do that, are we ready?
HANNITY: Are you?
STEELE: Are we...
HANNITY: Answer your own question. Are we -- do you think they're ready?
STEELE: I don't know. And that's what I'm assessing and evaluating right now. Those candidates that are looking to run have to be -- have to be anchored in these principles. They have to be -- they have to understand...
HANNITY: I'm agreeing with what you're saying. I think...
STEELE: They have to understand these steps, because if they don't, then they'll get to Washington, and they'll start drinking that Potomac River water. And they'll get drunk with power and...
"The NRCC's goal - as the campaign arm of the House Republican Conference - has always been to recapture the majority in 2010. Independent political analysts and even liberal columnists have stated that Republicans have a very real shot at taking back the majority in 2010. Make no mistake about it, we are playing to win," said Ken Spain, NRCC Communications Director.
Instead, ask yourself these questions: Why is it that the moderates conservatives always get their way - at the expense of liberals, and of alleged Democratic party values? Why is the compromise always on our end? Why aren't people like Bart Stupak being told to "put on their big boy pants" and swallow compromise to get health care reform?
And why isn't some progressive politician introducing a bill to cut off funding for special education or any other services at Catholic schools? After all, how is providing the services from a trailer at the far end of the school parking lot not an "accounting trick"? Why aren't liberals aggressively challenging the tax-exempt status of the Catholic church?
I was under the impression we had freedom of religion in this country. Apparently, I was wrong.
WORCESTER - Opening up a major fissure in the US Senate race, Attorney General Martha Coakley said yesterday that she opposes the landmark health care bill approved by the House Saturday because it contains a provision restricting federal funding for abortion.
Coakley, in her boldest gamble of the campaign, said that fighting for women’s access to abortions was more important than passing the overall bill, despite its aim of providing coverage for 36 million people, establishing a public insurance option, and prohibiting insurers from discriminating against patients with preexisting conditions.
“To pretend that now the House has passed this bill is real progress - it’s at the expense of women’s access to reproductive rights," Coakley said in an interview, after making similar comments yesterday morning on Boston radio station WTKK-FM.
[...] Coakley’s opposition to the bill put her squarely at odds with her three rivals for the Democratic nomination, including US Representative Michael E. Capuano, who voted in favor of the plan and blasted Coakley’s stance yesterday, calling it “manna from heaven" for his campaign.
“I find it interesting and amazing, and she would have stood alone among all the prochoice members of Congress, all the members of the Massachusetts delegation," Capuano said in an interview. “She claims she wants to honor Ted Kennedy’s legacy on health care. It’s pretty clear that a major portion of this was his bill."
He went on: “If she’s not going to vote for any bill that’s not perfect, she wouldn’t vote for any bill in history. She would have voted against Medicare, the Civil Rights bill. . . . Realism is something you have to deal with in Washington."
Why is it that "realism" is always and inevitably at the expense of women, gays and minorities? Is that the new Democratic value?
UPDATE: Apparently Capuano has since changed his position, saying he'll vote against the bill if Stupak amendment stays.
