So the centrist Third Way think tank has come up with a clever idea of making up a receipt that the government can send Joe Q. Taxpayer every year to show him what his income taxes are paying for.

enlarge

While the sample the Third Way drew up isn't accurate -- as Kevin Drum notes, Social Security and Medicare shouldn't be lumped in with all the other expenses since they're funded differently -- the idea itself is pretty cool. At the very least it should show Americans that most of our taxes go to popular entitlement programs and defense-related spending rather than ungrateful foreigners and bridges to nowhere.

But uh-oh! Megan McArdle thinks we smug liberals shouldn't celebrate just yet! Here's why:

There seems to be an unspoken assumption that opposition to spending rests on misperception of what the money is spent on; Americans tell pollsters they want to cut spending, but it turns out that what they really want cut is the imaginary fortune they think we spend on foreign aid.

But of course, it seems to me that this could just as easily go the other way: isn't it possible that the widespread support for programs like Social Security and Medicare rests on the fact that most people don't realize just how big a portion of your paycheck those programs consume?

We're busted, liberals! We can't let people know how much we're taxing them every year for entitlement programs! They'll completely revolt and Social Security and Medicare will be abolished forever!!!!

But, wait a minute, what's this? Oh hello, it's our old friend the W2 form:

enlarge

And looky there! It tells you exactly how much money your employer withheld every year for Social Security and Medicare! Wow-wee!

The lesson here is this: People like Social Security and Medicare. They're well-designed programs that have saved millions of people from poverty and medical bankruptcy in their old age. Along with desegregating the South, enacting women's suffrage and winning World War II, they're some of the very best things that American liberalism has done over the past 100 years. And come to think of it, that's a damn impressive list. Why are people ashamed to call themselves "liberals" again?

When last we saw Confederate Yankee, he was sneering derisively at people who didn't have jobs, saying that they should just get off their lazy butts and find some work. Now, however, Mr. Yankee has decided to stop attacking the unemployed and to go full-bore at the wicked elitists in the United States government.

(And yes, the fact that making fun of the jobless is about as elitist as you can get is lost on Mr. Yankee.)

At any rate rate, Mr. Yankee is now so a-miffed at them thar elitist in Warshinton that he's a-pushin' his followers to prepare for a full-blown armed insurrection:

We have moved "closer to midnight" not because of any singular act , but because of inertia of a political class that does not respect or enforce the laws, or this nation's sovereignty. We have diametrically opposed views of how our nation can and should be run, and it appears that there is very little room left for negotiation.

Propagandists for the elitists at Media Matters seem troubled by A Nation on the Edge of Revolt. They portray it as a threat when "Conservative media figures openly discuss armed revolution."

I hope they do feel threatened. Attempts at peaceable protests have been met at turns by feigned ignorance, then mockery, then attacks on the character and motives of those would not sit quietly by. Perhaps it will take a serious review of our capacity for violence to get them to realize we shall not surrender our individual liberties to their lust for power.

I love the calculus on display here: "We tried to do this peacefully, but you people laughed at us. Now we gots the right t' start the killin'!"

At the end of the post, ConfYank appears to cool his jets a bit, saying that armed revolution isn't per se his desired outcome:

I have not yet been swayed to the point of view that an armed conflict is inevitable, TN_NamVolunteer. But we are close enough that one would be wise to prepare for a possible conflict, just as one would prepare for any coming storm.

For Mr. Yankee, we imagine this preparation will consist of hording Mountain Dew and playing "Red Dead Redemption" over and over again. Heck, that thar game could teach Mr. Yankee not just t' shoot things but t' lasso the womenfolk too!

Bet them sissy public schools never taught ya t' lasso no fe-male like that 'un!

A POLITICAL REVOLT IN FRANCE

Direland has an analysis: The massive defeat of the new European Constitution by the French in today's referendum means a virtual political revolution in France. The polls have only been closed for an hour as I write, but the exit polls for French public TV show at least a 10% margin of victory for the No vote, with a large 70% voter turnout...read on

DOWNLOADS: (2004)

PLAYS: (2034)

Embed

All the news yesterday out of Rupert Murdoch's interview with Sky News was about Murdoch's endorsement of Glenn Beck's claim that President Obama is a racist who hates white people. But the rest of the interview had some even more disturbing remarks in it -- especially early on, when talking about his plan to make everyone pay for their Internet content.

Rupert, Rupert, Rupert. He just doesn't understand how the Internet works. If he continues to actively try to destroy the "fair use" of content, readers from all across the political spectrum will revolt against him. Even from his own side. Murdoch hates Google and every other search engine because he thinks by having Google linking to his stories, they are kleptomaniacs and robbing him. When asked why he just doesn't remove his websites from Google searches now, he replies that he will after he turns them all into "just for pay" only sites. If he feels they are ripping him off then why doesn't he do it now? The answer is he can't afford to do that. I dare him to do it.

newsroomamerica writes:

When challenged that his news organisations could just remove themselves from the search engines, he said "I think we will. But that's when we start charging. We do it already with the Wall Street Journal. We have a wall but its not right to the ceiling, you get the first paragraph of each story. If you are not a paying subscriber of WSJ.com you get a paragraph and a subscription form.

Was this WSJ model what we can expect to see in other online publications? "Maybe, maybe. There's a doctrine called 'fair use', which we believe could be challenged in the courts and bar it all together. But it's ok, we are getting a lot of advertising revenue so we will take that slowly."

The doctrine of fair use defines the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as news reporting, and is a content gathering cornerstone for most mainstream media, including publications owned by Mr Murdoch.

The NY Times already tried the firewall approach and failed.

Jamie Holly emailed me and said:

When a search engine goes to a website it reads a file called robots.txt. This is like an instruction manual for search engines on what to search and not to search. You can view my robots.txt file here.

So what does the robots.txt file on foxnews.com say?

Well look at that. Not only is Fox allowing Google, but they are giving specific directions to Google to read files and index those items. So in an analogy sense this is like inviting someone into your home, pointing out all your valuables and asking them to take them. You even help them carry them out the door and wave good bye with a big old smile, then go inside and call the police reporting you've just been robbed.

And Murdoch going after "fair use" is really interesting. The big question under section 107 of the copyright law has always been this:

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

Fair use is allowed for:

for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research.

Google only shows a headline and around 128 characters, which a lot of times isn't even a full sentence for their "news" service, which is also considered a very valuable "research" tool. If he thinks some judge would rule that as not being fair use then he is dumber than I thought.

I really hope Murdoch does go after Google legally on this. It would be so much fun to watch. Of course the only lawyer that I think would take Murdoch's case is Orly Taitz.

Glenn Beck joins the Net Neutrality fight by standing with Rupert and the wealthy as usual. Beck says Net Neutrality would 'destroy the free market that created the Internet'. Oh really?

Yes ma'am, may I have another?

Glenn Beck's idea of 'freedom': Letting corporations control what you read on the Internet

Does Murdoch really believe that every other content provider in one form or another will suddenly join up with him and boycott Google and turn the net into a pay-per-view outlet?

I can only imagine the fun hackers would have at destroying his website security if he actually tried to implement it.

Rudy Giuliani recently argued that U.S. military generals, by virtue of their service, necessarily have more credibility than practically anyone else. With that in mind, I wonder what Giuliani and others who share his approach to foreign policy have to say in response to the 20 generals who have defied tradition and rejected the Bush policy in Iraq.

The generals acted independently, coming in their own ways to the agonizing decision to defy military tradition and publicly criticize the Bush administration over its conduct of the war in Iraq.

What might be called The Revolt of the Generals has rarely happened in the nation’s history.

In op-ed pieces, interviews and TV ads, more than 20 retired U.S. generals have broken ranks with the culture of salute and keep it in the family. Instead, they are criticizing the commander in chief and other top civilian leaders who led the nation into what the generals believe is a misbegotten and tragic war.

It’s become fashionable in some circles to believe that patriotism demands uniformity. If you support the troops, the argument goes, then you support their mission. To even question the merit of a war while combat is ongoing is, to some, a sign of disloyalty.

These generals, thankfully, believe the opposite — they have a duty to speak out, and they will not shirk their responsibilities.

AP Via Yahoo:

Former World Bank chief Paul Wolfowitz, who resigned amid a furor over his handling of a bank pay package for his girlfriend, has joined the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank, as a visiting scholar.

AEI's president, Christopher DeMuth, made the announcement Monday. Wolfowitz will work on entrepreneurship and development issues, Africa and public-private partnerships, the group said in a release.

Wolfowitz's last day as head of the World Bank, a major poverty-fighting institution, was on Saturday, ending a stormy two-year run.

He was essentially forced to step down from the World Bank after a special panel found that he broke bank rules in arranging a hefty pay raise for Shaha Riza, his girlfriend and bank employee. Wolfowitz's handling of the pay package prompted a staff revolt and calls by Europeans and others for him to resign. Read more...

The Spy Who Billed Me: An outburst of indifference has greeted the announcement by office of the Director of National Intelligence that the year-long study on the use of industrial contractors by the intelligence community was not going to be released.  The number and use of industrial contractors was suddenly a matter of 'national security.'

raw story: Join the 'REAL ID' Revolt

Locked Out: The lack of gender and ethnic diversity on cable news continues.  Related: Somebody get this woman a writer

KnoxViews: Phony Fred

TomPaine: Montana has recently been the central front in the war on the middle class, and the onslaught Big Sky country experienced shows that this fight could be coming to a town near you.

New and improved Martini Revolution...go look!

Blah3.com: Great...another incompetent Bushista taking 'full responsibility.'

The Poor Man Institute: Keyboard Kommando Komix proudly presents...

earth family alpha: Facts are stubborn things. Especially when they are beyond belief.

Media Citizen: Striking a spark for a Net revolt

Inflatable Dartboard: Introducing"The Little Orange Vest Project"....tiny orange hunting vests that people can carry around, slide on their finger and hold up proudly in the air. (hat tip to Bring it On!)

My Left Wing: Rove and Abramoff are old pals "The Little Orange Vest Project"....tiny orange hunting vests that people can carry around, slide on their finger and hold up proudly in the air. (hat tip to Bring it On!)

My Left Wing: Rove and Abramoff are old pals

Unqualified Offerings

Pretty much every massacre Saddam Hussein’s regime committed was undertaken as part of a war or civil war. (Iraq’s Kurds have been in periodic armed revolt since the 1960s, its Shiites since the time of the Iran-Iraq War.) Many of the individuals and families he slaughtered were connected to attempted coups and assassinations. The Dawa Party at the time of Dujail cleaved to an enemy power, theocratic Iran.

If you believe there can be such a thing as a war crime, Saddam Hussein is a notorious war criminal and deserves whatever he gets. If you believe in “war the way it needs fighting, with grim ferocity and cold unconcern for legalistic niceties,” then Saddam Hussein is your boy. You and he are brothers under the skin. If you believe that there can be war crimes when our enemies commit them, but not when we or our allies do
What’s surpassingly interesting is that the people who bleat loudest about the morality of our crusade seem to keep a healthy supply of a-moralists around to justify the rough stuff. Read it all...",0]);D(["ce"]);D(["ms","869e"]);//-->, then perhaps Saddam Hussein himself would be shamed by your company.

What’s surpassingly interesting is that the people who bleat loudest about the morality of our crusade seem to keep a healthy supply of a-moralists around to justify the rough stuff. Read it all...

Anderson just published the book called South Park Conservatives, The Revolt against Liberal Media Bias. O'Reilly had him on and if you can stand to watch the segment, he says That Air America isn't successful because its not funny and un-American.

Download | play -WMP

Download | play -QT

His explanation of Bill Bennet getting over 120 station affiliates immediately as he began his talk show is because of "liberal bias." Ridiculous! Corporate money had nothing to do with it? Rush and Ann are just so funny, that's why they are so successful. Telling the "truth" doesn't mean much. It took FOX three years and Monica Lewinsky to get them in the black after losing millions. Oh and O'Reilly claims that FOX gives a traditional POV. Anderson basically said that FOX decides what is news worthy. lol

Anyway, I'm sure some of you can dissect this book and segmet for us. He will be all over FOX and 24/7 TV in the coming weeks.

Al Franken fires back and debunks Brian Anderson: Click here: It's during the first segment.