This is a non partisan blog. But seriously, this is the party of alleged "personal responsibility"??:
"Of course I'm not saying that Mark is gay," [South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford's wife Jenny] Sanford said, “but he may as well be. The moral decay in this country has claimed another victim and this time it was my family. Our marriage was perfect until these laws started passing around the country. Clearly the slow dissolution of the sanctity of marriage in America seeped into Mark’s psyche until he no longer felt compelled to abide by our vows.”
...“It’s finally happened,” said Rush Limbaugh, conservative radio personality. “America, I’ve been warning you for years that gay marriage would destroy the American family and look… there they are, a husband, wife, and four children — destroyed. When is this going to stop America? When will the liberals be satisfied? When all the marriages break up? This wasn’t Mark Sanford’s fault, this was Ted Kennedy’s fault. Sanford didn’t cheapen the value of marriage, he was victimized by the cheapening of marriage.”
Repeat. Mark Sanford Cheating on Mark Sanford's wife isn't Mark Sanfault's "fault," it is Ted Kennedy's fault (who probably does not know Mark Sanford's wife, and for all I know, probably does not even know Mark Sanford).
This is the type of logic that is being foistered upon millions of Americans daily, and which, to many, represents the soul and center of today's GOP. And yet Democrats are already in trouble of going right back to losing national elections to far right figures once again? (Though they don't seem to recognize it yet, which might well be part of the reason why.)
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Lindsey Graham, But Not Obama, Can Vote "Nay" Based on Merit
What is interesting is that Alito, Roberts (and Thomas) were all quite more extreme than Sotamayor. But, as Bob Somerby notes in the piece linked to below, one wouldn't necessarily know this from our mainstream media -- here represented by the Washington Post, chastising Obama for voting against Bush's rather far right appointees.
Here is the money line from the "unbiased" sources at the Washington Post editorial page:
[S.C. Senator Lindsey] Graham may yet vote against confirmation for Judge Sotomayor. But if he does, it seems likely to be on the merits as he views them and not as a ploy for political gain.
Yes, on the merits, no doubt, even though Graham himself, as the Post points out, noted that Sotamayor's record is more moderate than "critics" have contended.
But clearly, Obama, with respect to less moderate appointees -- who, despite solid qualifications, objectively presented less qualifaction than Sotamayor -- could not have done so. Or at least as so pronounced according to the Post's "unbiased" crystal Ball. Only Graham, voting against the most moderate of all of these nominees, and also perhaps the most objectively qualified, could be nevertheless voting "nay" on the "merits as he sees them" and "not as a ploy for political gain."
Wow president Obama, does the Washington Post ever have your number, huh. I'm probably solidly to the right of you, politically, and yet, with all due respect to the Post's idea of "deference," as an elected Senator who would represent his constituents and country first and foremost and not the President, I would have assuredly voted against Alito, and likely Roberts, on the merits, as well. Yet I guess the Post would have seen right through that -- just as they somehow were so cleverly able to in the case of President Obama -- and somehow known, unlike in the case of the honorable Lindsey Graham, who is allowed to vote against the moderate, well qualified, pulled herself up by her own bootstraps Sotamayor, "on the merits" -- that I would have only done so for "political gain" as well, huh.
Quite a work of art, that Post editorial page. Oh yes, of course, this gem of profound ignorance just yesterday, from this savant of energy policy. And yet the far right has managed to convince the country that this paper is "liberal"? We are living in wondrous times.
Here is the money line from the "unbiased" sources at the Washington Post editorial page:
[S.C. Senator Lindsey] Graham may yet vote against confirmation for Judge Sotomayor. But if he does, it seems likely to be on the merits as he views them and not as a ploy for political gain.
Yes, on the merits, no doubt, even though Graham himself, as the Post points out, noted that Sotamayor's record is more moderate than "critics" have contended.
But clearly, Obama, with respect to less moderate appointees -- who, despite solid qualifications, objectively presented less qualifaction than Sotamayor -- could not have done so. Or at least as so pronounced according to the Post's "unbiased" crystal Ball. Only Graham, voting against the most moderate of all of these nominees, and also perhaps the most objectively qualified, could be nevertheless voting "nay" on the "merits as he sees them" and "not as a ploy for political gain."
Wow president Obama, does the Washington Post ever have your number, huh. I'm probably solidly to the right of you, politically, and yet, with all due respect to the Post's idea of "deference," as an elected Senator who would represent his constituents and country first and foremost and not the President, I would have assuredly voted against Alito, and likely Roberts, on the merits, as well. Yet I guess the Post would have seen right through that -- just as they somehow were so cleverly able to in the case of President Obama -- and somehow known, unlike in the case of the honorable Lindsey Graham, who is allowed to vote against the moderate, well qualified, pulled herself up by her own bootstraps Sotamayor, "on the merits" -- that I would have only done so for "political gain" as well, huh.
Quite a work of art, that Post editorial page. Oh yes, of course, this gem of profound ignorance just yesterday, from this savant of energy policy. And yet the far right has managed to convince the country that this paper is "liberal"? We are living in wondrous times.
Lindsey Graham, But Not Obama, Can Vote "Nay" Based on Merit
What is interesting is that Alito, Roberts (and Thomas) were all quite more extreme than Sotamayor. But, as Bob Somerby notes in the piece linked to below, one wouldn't necessarily know this from our mainstream media -- here represented by the Washington Post, chastising Obama for voting against Bush's rather far right appointees.
Here is the money line from the "unbiased" sources at the Washington Post editorial page:
[S.C. Senator Lindsey] Graham may yet vote against confirmation for Judge Sotomayor. But if he does, it seems likely to be on the merits as he views them and not as a ploy for political gain.
Yes, on the merits, no doubt, even though Graham himself, as the Post points out, noted that Sotamayor's record is more moderate than "critics" have contended.
But clearly, Obama, with respect to less moderate appointees -- who, despite solid qualifications, objectively presented less qualifaction than Sotamayor -- could not have done so. Or at least as so pronounced according to the Post's "unbiased" crystal Ball. Only Graham, voting against the most moderate of all of these nominees, and also perhaps the most objectively qualified, could be nevertheless voting "nay" on the "merits as he sees them" and "not as a ploy for political gain."
Wow president Obama, does the Washington Post ever have your number, huh. I'm probably solidly to the right of you, politically, and yet, with all due respect to the Post's idea of "deference," as an elected Senator who would represent his constituents and country first and foremost and not the President, I would have assuredly voted against Alito, and likely Roberts, on the merits, as well. Yet I guess the Post would have seen right through that -- just as they somehow were so cleverly able to in the case of President Obama -- and somehow known, unlike in the case of the honorable Lindsey Graham, who is allowed to vote against the moderate, well qualified, pulled herself up by her own bootstraps Sotamayor, "on the merits" -- that I would have only done so for "political gain" as well, huh.
Quite a work of art, that Post editorial page. Oh yes, of course, this gem of profound ignorance just yesterday, from this savant of energy policy. And yet the far right has managed to convince the country that this paper is "liberal"? We are living in wondrous times.
Here is the money line from the "unbiased" sources at the Washington Post editorial page:
[S.C. Senator Lindsey] Graham may yet vote against confirmation for Judge Sotomayor. But if he does, it seems likely to be on the merits as he views them and not as a ploy for political gain.
Yes, on the merits, no doubt, even though Graham himself, as the Post points out, noted that Sotamayor's record is more moderate than "critics" have contended.
But clearly, Obama, with respect to less moderate appointees -- who, despite solid qualifications, objectively presented less qualifaction than Sotamayor -- could not have done so. Or at least as so pronounced according to the Post's "unbiased" crystal Ball. Only Graham, voting against the most moderate of all of these nominees, and also perhaps the most objectively qualified, could be nevertheless voting "nay" on the "merits as he sees them" and "not as a ploy for political gain."
Wow president Obama, does the Washington Post ever have your number, huh. I'm probably solidly to the right of you, politically, and yet, with all due respect to the Post's idea of "deference," as an elected Senator who would represent his constituents and country first and foremost and not the President, I would have assuredly voted against Alito, and likely Roberts, on the merits, as well. Yet I guess the Post would have seen right through that -- just as they somehow were so cleverly able to in the case of President Obama -- and somehow known, unlike in the case of the honorable Lindsey Graham, who is allowed to vote against the moderate, well qualified, pulled herself up by her own bootstraps Sotamayor, "on the merits" -- that I would have only done so for "political gain" as well, huh.
Quite a work of art, that Post editorial page. Oh yes, of course, this gem of profound ignorance just yesterday, from this savant of energy policy. And yet the far right has managed to convince the country that this paper is "liberal"? We are living in wondrous times.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Yes, well, satirically speaking, the AP's Washington Bureau Chief clearly has no partisan ax to grind. But at least the AP itself can remain unbiased about the Sotamayor nomination. Right? Uh, not quite:
Fingers splayed, palms flat, hands bouncing up and then deliberately pressing down to the table, Sotomayor elaborated, clarified, expanded, retracted.
She drew loopy circles on her paper; she ran rhetorical circles around her past words.
"I didn't intend to suggest ..." she explained.
"What I was speaking about ..." she offered.
"As I have tried to explain ..." she parsed.
"I wasn't talking about ..." she demurred.
She was a tough critic at times.
"I was using a rhetorical flourish that fell flat," she averred.
"It was bad," she said. Of her own words.
Democrats were only too happy to take Sotomayor's rhetorical revisions at face value as she explained away the most problematic of her past remarks.
This, is your new, unbiased, Associated Press. And the article gets worse. The picture it paints of Sotamayor is quite lopsided.
It also fails to mention that one of its two star Republican critics, Jeff Sessions, lost his own bid for Judgeship when it was discovered that he was a bit of a raving racist. (Google his name, and the Ku Klux Klan, and you will get quite a veritable bounty of pieces.) The raving racist making big of Sotamayor's muddled musings about her own life experiences making her a better fit as a judge (as we here believe about ourselves, as should any aspiring jurist), and that as a Latina Women she may be able to come to a better decisions, taken somewhat out of context.
For more on this view by Sotamayor (and our own disagreement with it) see this letter to the Washington Post's Eugene Robinson on this very same topic. (Note: link to be posted shortly.)
For a bit more on Jeff Sessions, and in quite sharp, if not comical contrast to the lopsidedly skewed picture that this AP report paints, consider this little moment:
Senator Jeff Sessions (Pompous racist, Ala.) contrasted Sotomayor's "wise Latina" remark with NY Judge Miriam Cedarbaum, whom he said "believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices."
Apparently unbeknownst to Sesssions, Judge Cedarbaum was at the hearing. Judge Sotomayor replied:
"My friend Judge Cedarbaum is here,' Sotomayor riposted, to Sessions's apparent surprise. 'We are good friends, and I believe that we both approach judging in the same way, which is looking at the facts of each individual case and applying the law to those facts."
As also noted in this short piece, Cedarbaum, herself, later stated: "I don't believe for a minute that there are any differences in our approach to judging, and her personal predilections have no affect on her approach to judging."
Game, Set, Match -- Sotamayor. (For more on Sotamayor, from one of her professors at Princeton, as noted by Somerby.)
But to the AP's hatchet piece (and we really hate to use that term, but this is NOT journalism), Jeff Sessions was one of its stars. Imagine that.
It's not until late in the "news" article that one sees that even the AP had some equivocation over its own journalistic skulldoggery: "Sotomayor seemed to be feeling her oats as she held her own hour after hour." Huh, seriously? After quoting no less than Jeff Sessions as the authority with respect to what the AP quite unsupportedly decided to label "after the fact revisions"?
Of course, the view of the coherent far right is quite distinct, yet expresses shock at the "nasty attack" that the "AP's Nancy Benac" hurled at Sotamayor. (One expects MSNBC"s Keith Olbermann to not cite this blog for support, I suppose, as opposed to -- see piece bottom)
This comment (which was agreed to by some others) was quite typical:
.....For God sakes, is Sotomayor the best that our country’s supposed best and brightest can serve up?
Well, She did graduate as co Valedictorian at Princeton, was an editor of the Yale Law Review, and does bring more federal judicial experience than any Supreme Court appointee in over half a century. But perhaps it's a valid point. But was it similarly made when Alito, Roberts, or Thomas were appointed? (Thomas being appointed by the same man, George Bush, Sr., who first appointed Sotamayor to the federal bench.)
But Sotamayor is the Obama administration nominee, though she seems to have been a rather stricter adherer to the rule of law than many judges, she probably leans a bit more liberal than conservative, she made one befuddled comment that at its true core actually makes some sense, and so the far right must program itself to immediately dislike her. Or so it seems.
Fingers splayed, palms flat, hands bouncing up and then deliberately pressing down to the table, Sotomayor elaborated, clarified, expanded, retracted.
She drew loopy circles on her paper; she ran rhetorical circles around her past words.
"I didn't intend to suggest ..." she explained.
"What I was speaking about ..." she offered.
"As I have tried to explain ..." she parsed.
"I wasn't talking about ..." she demurred.
She was a tough critic at times.
"I was using a rhetorical flourish that fell flat," she averred.
"It was bad," she said. Of her own words.
Democrats were only too happy to take Sotomayor's rhetorical revisions at face value as she explained away the most problematic of her past remarks.
This, is your new, unbiased, Associated Press. And the article gets worse. The picture it paints of Sotamayor is quite lopsided.
It also fails to mention that one of its two star Republican critics, Jeff Sessions, lost his own bid for Judgeship when it was discovered that he was a bit of a raving racist. (Google his name, and the Ku Klux Klan, and you will get quite a veritable bounty of pieces.) The raving racist making big of Sotamayor's muddled musings about her own life experiences making her a better fit as a judge (as we here believe about ourselves, as should any aspiring jurist), and that as a Latina Women she may be able to come to a better decisions, taken somewhat out of context.
For more on this view by Sotamayor (and our own disagreement with it) see this letter to the Washington Post's Eugene Robinson on this very same topic. (Note: link to be posted shortly.)
For a bit more on Jeff Sessions, and in quite sharp, if not comical contrast to the lopsidedly skewed picture that this AP report paints, consider this little moment:
Senator Jeff Sessions (Pompous racist, Ala.) contrasted Sotomayor's "wise Latina" remark with NY Judge Miriam Cedarbaum, whom he said "believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices."
Apparently unbeknownst to Sesssions, Judge Cedarbaum was at the hearing. Judge Sotomayor replied:
"My friend Judge Cedarbaum is here,' Sotomayor riposted, to Sessions's apparent surprise. 'We are good friends, and I believe that we both approach judging in the same way, which is looking at the facts of each individual case and applying the law to those facts."
As also noted in this short piece, Cedarbaum, herself, later stated: "I don't believe for a minute that there are any differences in our approach to judging, and her personal predilections have no affect on her approach to judging."
Game, Set, Match -- Sotamayor. (For more on Sotamayor, from one of her professors at Princeton, as noted by Somerby.)
But to the AP's hatchet piece (and we really hate to use that term, but this is NOT journalism), Jeff Sessions was one of its stars. Imagine that.
It's not until late in the "news" article that one sees that even the AP had some equivocation over its own journalistic skulldoggery: "Sotomayor seemed to be feeling her oats as she held her own hour after hour." Huh, seriously? After quoting no less than Jeff Sessions as the authority with respect to what the AP quite unsupportedly decided to label "after the fact revisions"?
Of course, the view of the coherent far right is quite distinct, yet expresses shock at the "nasty attack" that the "AP's Nancy Benac" hurled at Sotamayor. (One expects MSNBC"s Keith Olbermann to not cite this blog for support, I suppose, as opposed to -- see piece bottom)
This comment (which was agreed to by some others) was quite typical:
.....For God sakes, is Sotomayor the best that our country’s supposed best and brightest can serve up?
Well, She did graduate as co Valedictorian at Princeton, was an editor of the Yale Law Review, and does bring more federal judicial experience than any Supreme Court appointee in over half a century. But perhaps it's a valid point. But was it similarly made when Alito, Roberts, or Thomas were appointed? (Thomas being appointed by the same man, George Bush, Sr., who first appointed Sotamayor to the federal bench.)
But Sotamayor is the Obama administration nominee, though she seems to have been a rather stricter adherer to the rule of law than many judges, she probably leans a bit more liberal than conservative, she made one befuddled comment that at its true core actually makes some sense, and so the far right must program itself to immediately dislike her. Or so it seems.
Yes, well, satirically speaking, the AP's Washington Bureau Chief clearly has no partisan ax to grind. But at least the AP itself can remain unbiased about the Sotamayor nomination. Right? Uh, not quite:
Fingers splayed, palms flat, hands bouncing up and then deliberately pressing down to the table, Sotomayor elaborated, clarified, expanded, retracted.
She drew loopy circles on her paper; she ran rhetorical circles around her past words.
"I didn't intend to suggest ..." she explained.
"What I was speaking about ..." she offered.
"As I have tried to explain ..." she parsed.
"I wasn't talking about ..." she demurred.
She was a tough critic at times.
"I was using a rhetorical flourish that fell flat," she averred.
"It was bad," she said. Of her own words.
Democrats were only too happy to take Sotomayor's rhetorical revisions at face value as she explained away the most problematic of her past remarks.
This, is your new, unbiased, Associated Press. And the article gets worse. The picture it paints of Sotamayor is quite lopsided.
It also fails to mention that one of its two star Republican critics, Jeff Sessions, lost his own bid for Judgeship when it was discovered that he was a bit of a raving racist. (Google his name, and the Ku Klux Klan, and you will get quite a veritable bounty of pieces.) The raving racist making big of Sotamayor's muddled musings about her own life experiences making her a better fit as a judge (as we here believe about ourselves, as should any aspiring jurist), and that as a Latina Women she may be able to come to a better decisions, taken somewhat out of context.
For more on this view by Sotamayor (and our own disagreement with it) see this letter to the Washington Post's Eugene Robinson on this very same topic. (Note: link to be posted shortly.)
For a bit more on Jeff Sessions, and in quite sharp, if not comical contrast to the lopsidedly skewed picture that this AP report paints, consider this little moment:
Senator Jeff Sessions (Pompous racist, Ala.) contrasted Sotomayor's "wise Latina" remark with NY Judge Miriam Cedarbaum, whom he said "believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices."
Apparently unbeknownst to Sesssions, Judge Cedarbaum was at the hearing. Judge Sotomayor replied:
"My friend Judge Cedarbaum is here,' Sotomayor riposted, to Sessions's apparent surprise. 'We are good friends, and I believe that we both approach judging in the same way, which is looking at the facts of each individual case and applying the law to those facts."
As also noted in this short piece, Cedarbaum, herself, later stated: "I don't believe for a minute that there are any differences in our approach to judging, and her personal predilections have no affect on her approach to judging."
Game, Set, Match -- Sotamayor. (For more on Sotamayor, from one of her professors at Princeton, as noted by Somerby.)
But to the AP's hatchet piece (and we really hate to use that term, but this is NOT journalism), Jeff Sessions was one of its stars. Imagine that.
It's not until late in the "news" article that one sees that even the AP had some equivocation over its own journalistic skulldoggery: "Sotomayor seemed to be feeling her oats as she held her own hour after hour." Huh, seriously? After quoting no less than Jeff Sessions as the authority with respect to what the AP quite unsupportedly decided to label "after the fact revisions"?
Of course, the view of the coherent far right is quite distinct, yet expresses shock at the "nasty attack" that the "AP's Nancy Benac" hurled at Sotamayor. (One expects MSNBC"s Keith Olbermann to not cite this blog for support, I suppose, as opposed to -- see piece bottom)
This comment (which was agreed to by some others) was quite typical:
.....For God sakes, is Sotomayor the best that our country’s supposed best and brightest can serve up?
Well, She did graduate as co Valedictorian at Princeton, was an editor of the Yale Law Review, and does bring more federal judicial experience than any Supreme Court appointee in over half a century. But perhaps it's a valid point. But was it similarly made when Alito, Roberts, or Thomas were appointed? (Thomas being appointed by the same man, George Bush, Sr., who first appointed Sotamayor to the federal bench.)
But Sotamayor is the Obama administration nominee, though she seems to have been a rather stricter adherer to the rule of law than many judges, she probably leans a bit more liberal than conservative, she made one befuddled comment that at its true core actually makes some sense, and so the far right must program itself to immediately dislike her. Or so it seems.
Fingers splayed, palms flat, hands bouncing up and then deliberately pressing down to the table, Sotomayor elaborated, clarified, expanded, retracted.
She drew loopy circles on her paper; she ran rhetorical circles around her past words.
"I didn't intend to suggest ..." she explained.
"What I was speaking about ..." she offered.
"As I have tried to explain ..." she parsed.
"I wasn't talking about ..." she demurred.
She was a tough critic at times.
"I was using a rhetorical flourish that fell flat," she averred.
"It was bad," she said. Of her own words.
Democrats were only too happy to take Sotomayor's rhetorical revisions at face value as she explained away the most problematic of her past remarks.
This, is your new, unbiased, Associated Press. And the article gets worse. The picture it paints of Sotamayor is quite lopsided.
It also fails to mention that one of its two star Republican critics, Jeff Sessions, lost his own bid for Judgeship when it was discovered that he was a bit of a raving racist. (Google his name, and the Ku Klux Klan, and you will get quite a veritable bounty of pieces.) The raving racist making big of Sotamayor's muddled musings about her own life experiences making her a better fit as a judge (as we here believe about ourselves, as should any aspiring jurist), and that as a Latina Women she may be able to come to a better decisions, taken somewhat out of context.
For more on this view by Sotamayor (and our own disagreement with it) see this letter to the Washington Post's Eugene Robinson on this very same topic. (Note: link to be posted shortly.)
For a bit more on Jeff Sessions, and in quite sharp, if not comical contrast to the lopsidedly skewed picture that this AP report paints, consider this little moment:
Senator Jeff Sessions (Pompous racist, Ala.) contrasted Sotomayor's "wise Latina" remark with NY Judge Miriam Cedarbaum, whom he said "believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices."
Apparently unbeknownst to Sesssions, Judge Cedarbaum was at the hearing. Judge Sotomayor replied:
"My friend Judge Cedarbaum is here,' Sotomayor riposted, to Sessions's apparent surprise. 'We are good friends, and I believe that we both approach judging in the same way, which is looking at the facts of each individual case and applying the law to those facts."
As also noted in this short piece, Cedarbaum, herself, later stated: "I don't believe for a minute that there are any differences in our approach to judging, and her personal predilections have no affect on her approach to judging."
Game, Set, Match -- Sotamayor. (For more on Sotamayor, from one of her professors at Princeton, as noted by Somerby.)
But to the AP's hatchet piece (and we really hate to use that term, but this is NOT journalism), Jeff Sessions was one of its stars. Imagine that.
It's not until late in the "news" article that one sees that even the AP had some equivocation over its own journalistic skulldoggery: "Sotomayor seemed to be feeling her oats as she held her own hour after hour." Huh, seriously? After quoting no less than Jeff Sessions as the authority with respect to what the AP quite unsupportedly decided to label "after the fact revisions"?
Of course, the view of the coherent far right is quite distinct, yet expresses shock at the "nasty attack" that the "AP's Nancy Benac" hurled at Sotamayor. (One expects MSNBC"s Keith Olbermann to not cite this blog for support, I suppose, as opposed to -- see piece bottom)
This comment (which was agreed to by some others) was quite typical:
.....For God sakes, is Sotomayor the best that our country’s supposed best and brightest can serve up?
Well, She did graduate as co Valedictorian at Princeton, was an editor of the Yale Law Review, and does bring more federal judicial experience than any Supreme Court appointee in over half a century. But perhaps it's a valid point. But was it similarly made when Alito, Roberts, or Thomas were appointed? (Thomas being appointed by the same man, George Bush, Sr., who first appointed Sotamayor to the federal bench.)
But Sotamayor is the Obama administration nominee, though she seems to have been a rather stricter adherer to the rule of law than many judges, she probably leans a bit more liberal than conservative, she made one befuddled comment that at its true core actually makes some sense, and so the far right must program itself to immediately dislike her. Or so it seems.
Healthcare Reform Should Equal Lower Cost
Maybe the answer should be less, not more?
"The House bill would expand insurance coverage by increasing Medicaid eligibility and delivering tax credits to people earning as much as 400 percent of the poverty level, or about $43,000 a year for an individual. Small businesses and individuals who had trouble buying insurance would be able to shop for plans through new purchasing groups dubbed "exchanges." Individuals who did not purchase insurance by 2013 would face a penalty of 2.5 percent of their income, and employers that did not provide coverage to their workers would be fined as much as 8 percent of their payroll, a provision the CBO estimates would generate $30 billion a year. "
"The House bill would expand insurance coverage by increasing Medicaid eligibility and delivering tax credits to people earning as much as 400 percent of the poverty level, or about $43,000 a year for an individual. Small businesses and individuals who had trouble buying insurance would be able to shop for plans through new purchasing groups dubbed "exchanges." Individuals who did not purchase insurance by 2013 would face a penalty of 2.5 percent of their income, and employers that did not provide coverage to their workers would be fined as much as 8 percent of their payroll, a provision the CBO estimates would generate $30 billion a year. "
Since we are spending a little talked about fortune on Health care, and this plan is going to cost a small fortune more, perhaps the answer lies at least somewhat in reducing costs?
Making insurance -- let alone mandatory insurance, which is far worse -- an even bigger part of the equation, seems to be quite the opposite. It would seem that at least part of the answer should lie in working towards more direct consumer involvement in their own health care and insurance, and a focus on efficient, catastrophic and other streamlined forms of "protective" rather than "convenience" insurance -- the latter of which has only served to create a fortune costing mountain of paperwork and administrative overhead, and a large fortune in insurance company profits.
It seems that this bill might well be rewarding the big lobbyists, more than anyone.
Perhaps the extremely unethical access that the Washington Post insists that it was not trying to sell, was not even really necessary after all?
Monday, July 13, 2009
The point is, anyone objective could legitimately be skewering Palin far more than has been done -- on her record, rhetoric, and constant manipulations.
This is a far different matter than sexism. And when it has even minimally been done, Palin has falsely accused her critics of precisely such sexism and other irrelevancies, using her rhetoric much like a bludgeon. And the media have played right into it. (Speaking of which; here, the winners of our sellout of the year club, giving voice to the "genius" that is Sarah Palin. We'll address the blatant manipulations in this energy and logic obscenity laced piece, a bit later.)
Of course, this is the same person, who when skeptics noted that the then vice presidential nominee's experience was limited to 20 months as governor of a state with a population under that of many small cities, and had been major of a town of around 6800, viciously wielded this same rhetoric like a weapon, vociferously claiming that they and "the media" were "attacking small town America;" Or that, in a pejorative context, then candidate (and now President) Obama was "not like you or I." Frighteningly misleading rhetoric, that.
By the way, what other famous historical rhetoritician used such type of "not like you or I" logic?
This was also a person who could not name one single news source that she read. Who held open political rallies where secret service blocked reporter's access to everyday citizens; whose own presidential campaign staffers, fairly or not, have expressed grave concerns over her, and was found by the Alaska Legislature to have "abused her powers" as Governor, and mislead about it after the fact; allegedly claimed dinosaurs and humans once coexisted (a claim that was never refuted by Palin); couldn't cite a single Supreme Court case other than Roe v. Wade; just like she repeatedly claimed that she opposed the "bridge to nowhere" when she had been a vocal supporter until it became a national boondoogle and Congress made it clear Alaska was not getting another dime for the project; boasted to Americans how she called for divestiture of Alaska investments in Sudan,when in fact it was her administration that blocked the bill calling for divestiture; lashed out at "Washington's 'good 'ole boy' network" while back at home taking such nepotism, cronyism, and favoritism to new heights; when explaining her foreign policy credentials because "Alaska is close to Russia" mysteriously claimed "we have trade missions back and forth;" labeled herself an energy expert yet claimed that Alaska "produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy" when in fact Alaska produces about 1/7th of that amount; as major tried to fire a librarian who wouldn't cooperate with her untoward, and multiple inquiries ("on behalf of a constituent") as to how to ban books; presided as major over the billing of rape victims for evidence gathering exams; campaigned for vice president on an anti federal pork platform, but as major went so far as to use taxpayer money to hire a lobbying firm, in raising almost 27 million dollars in federal money, for a town that averaged around 6,800 residents; did very well to distinguish us from our enemies, by proclaiming that soldiers in Iraq were on a "task from God;" etc.
But of course, how bad can she be, she is going to campaign for Democrats! What open mindedness. We'll see how many she actually campaigns for. We're pretty sure it will be zero. Of course, if she is really clever and wants to play the "skewering media" and voters like a fiddle, she actually will campaign for one, just for show.
This is a far different matter than sexism. And when it has even minimally been done, Palin has falsely accused her critics of precisely such sexism and other irrelevancies, using her rhetoric much like a bludgeon. And the media have played right into it. (Speaking of which; here, the winners of our sellout of the year club, giving voice to the "genius" that is Sarah Palin. We'll address the blatant manipulations in this energy and logic obscenity laced piece, a bit later.)
Of course, this is the same person, who when skeptics noted that the then vice presidential nominee's experience was limited to 20 months as governor of a state with a population under that of many small cities, and had been major of a town of around 6800, viciously wielded this same rhetoric like a weapon, vociferously claiming that they and "the media" were "attacking small town America;" Or that, in a pejorative context, then candidate (and now President) Obama was "not like you or I." Frighteningly misleading rhetoric, that.
By the way, what other famous historical rhetoritician used such type of "not like you or I" logic?
This was also a person who could not name one single news source that she read. Who held open political rallies where secret service blocked reporter's access to everyday citizens; whose own presidential campaign staffers, fairly or not, have expressed grave concerns over her, and was found by the Alaska Legislature to have "abused her powers" as Governor, and mislead about it after the fact; allegedly claimed dinosaurs and humans once coexisted (a claim that was never refuted by Palin); couldn't cite a single Supreme Court case other than Roe v. Wade; just like she repeatedly claimed that she opposed the "bridge to nowhere" when she had been a vocal supporter until it became a national boondoogle and Congress made it clear Alaska was not getting another dime for the project; boasted to Americans how she called for divestiture of Alaska investments in Sudan,when in fact it was her administration that blocked the bill calling for divestiture; lashed out at "Washington's 'good 'ole boy' network" while back at home taking such nepotism, cronyism, and favoritism to new heights; when explaining her foreign policy credentials because "Alaska is close to Russia" mysteriously claimed "we have trade missions back and forth;" labeled herself an energy expert yet claimed that Alaska "produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy" when in fact Alaska produces about 1/7th of that amount; as major tried to fire a librarian who wouldn't cooperate with her untoward, and multiple inquiries ("on behalf of a constituent") as to how to ban books; presided as major over the billing of rape victims for evidence gathering exams; campaigned for vice president on an anti federal pork platform, but as major went so far as to use taxpayer money to hire a lobbying firm, in raising almost 27 million dollars in federal money, for a town that averaged around 6,800 residents; did very well to distinguish us from our enemies, by proclaiming that soldiers in Iraq were on a "task from God;" etc.
But of course, how bad can she be, she is going to campaign for Democrats! What open mindedness. We'll see how many she actually campaigns for. We're pretty sure it will be zero. Of course, if she is really clever and wants to play the "skewering media" and voters like a fiddle, she actually will campaign for one, just for show.
"Unfortunately, neither Democratic nor Republican senators will decry the post-New Deal rulings that transformed our constitutional order from what Princeton professor Stephen Macedo has called "islands of [government] powers in a sea of rights" to "islands of rights in a sea of [government] powers."So we hope that this Georgetown Law Professor, penning this today in the Wall Street Journal, was an outspoken critic of the Bush Administration impositions upon the 1st (the anticipation of enormous nets of surveillance potentially chilling, embarrassing, political or otherwise private speech) the 4th ("...to be secure in one's person's, houses, papers and effects.......no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause"), the 5th (due process), or the 9th (the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution "shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people") Amendments to the Constitution.
He must be particularly outraged by a Congress that a few years ago passed the UIGEA which effectively banned the ability to fund online poker -- telling people what games of short term chance, long term skill, they can and can't play from the privacy of their own home with their own funds, as well as other notible infringements upon individuals in what should otherwise be private matters.
He's probably horrified by the idea of indefinite detention for detainees -- detainees about whom we are not certain are guilty of any crime (more notes here).
Or does "inherent right" largely mean the right to produce any product whatsover, completely unregulated, and in so doing, pollute the very air that you, I and others breathe, even to the point of unduly, and collectively, effecting the health, and even, quite significantly, the mortality rate, of everyone who lives under the same skies? That seems to be what it is often confused with, when hears constitutional rhetoric these days. Not necessarily always by Georgetown Law professors, however (to say the least), so we don't know.
A google search, for now, didn't indicate much, in one direction or the other. More later.
We covered this below, but we still think it's kinda funny: More proof that gay marriage simply does not work.
We covered this below, but we still think it's kinda funny: More proof that gay marriage simply does not work.
Speaking of health care reform, the lack of adequate discussion of the wasteful costs involved, and just in case you otherwise missed it:
"You may have missed the story because it broke on the eve of the July 4th weekend. The publisher of THE WASHINGTON POST, Katharine Weymouth — one of the most powerful people in the nation's capital — invited top officials from the White House, the Cabinet and Congress to her home for an intimate, off-the-record dinner to discuss health care reform with some of her reporters and editors covering the story.
But she then invited CEOs and lobbyists from the health care industry to come, too — providing they fork over $25,000 a head, or a quarter of a million if they want to sponsor a whole series of these cozy little get-togethers. And what is the inducement she offers them? Nothing less than — and I'm quoting the invitation verbatim — "An exclusive opportunity to participate in the health care reform debate among the select few who will actually get it done."
It is?
And if one travels to the link that "backs up" this claim, one can also learn -- hold onto your seats now -- that the fictional movie Saturday Night Fever, was a work of fiction. Yes, I kid you not. "Did you know that ...the basis for Saturday Night Fever, and thus probably for everything you think you know about disco -- was a fabrication?" Gasp. Does Johnny Travolta know about this?
Also, apparently, "Saturday Night Fever" was really "Quadrophenia." I mean,they both had "troubled kids" revolving around a music scene. So why not.
Next this site is going to be telling us that the Who's Quadrophenia, was "made up" also.
And if one travels to the link that "backs up" this claim, one can also learn -- hold onto your seats now -- that the fictional movie Saturday Night Fever, was a work of fiction. Yes, I kid you not. "Did you know that ...the basis for Saturday Night Fever, and thus probably for everything you think you know about disco -- was a fabrication?" Gasp. Does Johnny Travolta know about this?
Also, apparently, "Saturday Night Fever" was really "Quadrophenia." I mean,they both had "troubled kids" revolving around a music scene. So why not.
Next this site is going to be telling us that the Who's Quadrophenia, was "made up" also.
Bob Somerby has been asking for weeks why health care reform has to cost countless hundreds of billions of dollars additional, and why we have to spend so much on health care to begin with.
He has also been repeatedly asking why the media has not been asking these questions, or even covering the issue of cost, relative to what many other industrialized countries actually spend in return for similar services.
These are actually pretty good questions.
They are also questions that do should not fall so easily fall into the over abused, and often highly misleading and improperly designated categories of so called "left," and "right" -- as government spending on medicare, and medicaid, is the second highest category of spending in our national budget, after defense. That's a lot of money.
It seems to us that perhaps "reform" should include some level of savings. And perhaps this savings could help to pay for the additional coverage that we seem reasonably, to want to be able to provide to those without any means to pay for it themselves
But we think the place to start is by moving away from excessive over insurance, which saps away much of the money actually "spent" on health care.
But most of the talk so far seems to be in the direction of furthering over insurance. This would seem to go hand in hand with the seemingly presumed idea that healh care "reform," somewhat contradictorily, needs to cost somewhere upwards of a trillion dollars over and above the gargantuan sums that we are already spending. Doesn't it?
He has also been repeatedly asking why the media has not been asking these questions, or even covering the issue of cost, relative to what many other industrialized countries actually spend in return for similar services.
These are actually pretty good questions.
They are also questions that do should not fall so easily fall into the over abused, and often highly misleading and improperly designated categories of so called "left," and "right" -- as government spending on medicare, and medicaid, is the second highest category of spending in our national budget, after defense. That's a lot of money.
It seems to us that perhaps "reform" should include some level of savings. And perhaps this savings could help to pay for the additional coverage that we seem reasonably, to want to be able to provide to those without any means to pay for it themselves
But we think the place to start is by moving away from excessive over insurance, which saps away much of the money actually "spent" on health care.
But most of the talk so far seems to be in the direction of furthering over insurance. This would seem to go hand in hand with the seemingly presumed idea that healh care "reform," somewhat contradictorily, needs to cost somewhere upwards of a trillion dollars over and above the gargantuan sums that we are already spending. Doesn't it?
"The word “environmentalist” usually conjures images of dreadlocked campaigners in tie-dyed T-shirts who eat only organic muesli and never travel by car." Really? To who, the far far right? Particularly since a majority of Americans identify themselves as environmentalists.
But the author of this report then notes that this is so "70s." (Except back in the 70s, who knew that muesli was actually pretty good stuff? Probably just a bunch of tie dyed wearing dread locked hippies who never travelled by car.)
More seriously, among other intriguing arguments put forth in this article in the always intriguing (and sometimes quite good) "American Conservative" magazine, the author postulates that the "green industrial complex" (you have to read the article to see what that is) "implicitly denigrates production, since all forms of modern manufacturing emit CO2."
This is a flawed, and important enough, concept, that we thought we'd briefly address it here. All forms of manufacturing emit CO2, since we were not concerned about excessive CO2 emissions. But all forms of manufacturing do not have to emit CO2, to put it mildly. In fact, the manufacturing of that which helps produce other energy sources not only does not have to produce CO2 (if non CO2 energy sources are utilized therein) but in turn helps render other manufacturing non CO2 emitting, while itself contributing further to economic growth.
The article talks about "stagnating economies," when what we are really looking at, is stagnating ideas of what growth necessarily has to be circumscribed, defined, and enabled by. There is a whole new world out there of non carbon emitting energy possibilities. But it's pretty old school not to see it, particularly when one of the main sources, the sun, is staring us in the face some dozen or so hours each day.
But the author of this report then notes that this is so "70s." (Except back in the 70s, who knew that muesli was actually pretty good stuff? Probably just a bunch of tie dyed wearing dread locked hippies who never travelled by car.)
More seriously, among other intriguing arguments put forth in this article in the always intriguing (and sometimes quite good) "American Conservative" magazine, the author postulates that the "green industrial complex" (you have to read the article to see what that is) "implicitly denigrates production, since all forms of modern manufacturing emit CO2."
This is a flawed, and important enough, concept, that we thought we'd briefly address it here. All forms of manufacturing emit CO2, since we were not concerned about excessive CO2 emissions. But all forms of manufacturing do not have to emit CO2, to put it mildly. In fact, the manufacturing of that which helps produce other energy sources not only does not have to produce CO2 (if non CO2 energy sources are utilized therein) but in turn helps render other manufacturing non CO2 emitting, while itself contributing further to economic growth.
The article talks about "stagnating economies," when what we are really looking at, is stagnating ideas of what growth necessarily has to be circumscribed, defined, and enabled by. There is a whole new world out there of non carbon emitting energy possibilities. But it's pretty old school not to see it, particularly when one of the main sources, the sun, is staring us in the face some dozen or so hours each day.
"The word “environmentalist” usually conjures images of dreadlocked campaigners in tie-dyed T-shirts who eat only organic muesli and never travel by car." Really? To who, the far far right? Particularly since a majority of Americans identify themselves as environmentalists.
But the author of this report then notes that this is so "70s." (Except back in the 70s, who knew that muesli was actually pretty good stuff? Probably just a bunch of tie dyed wearing dread locked hippies who never travelled by car.)
More seriously, among other intriguing arguments put forth in this article in the always intriguing (and sometimes quite good) "American Conservative" magazine, the author postulates that the "green industrial complex" (you have to read the article to see what that is) "implicitly denigrates production, since all forms of modern manufacturing emit CO2."
This is a flawed, and important enough, concept, that we thought we'd briefly address it here. All forms of manufacturing emit CO2, since we were not concerned about excessive CO2 emissions. But all forms of manufacturing do not have to emit CO2, to put it mildly. In fact, the manufacturing of that which helps produce other energy sources not only does not have to produce CO2 (if non CO2 energy sources are utilized therein) but in turn helps render other manufacturing non CO2 emitting, while itself contributing further to economic growth.
The article talks about "stagnating economies," when what we are really looking at, is stagnating ideas of what growth necessarily has to be circumscribed, defined, and enabled by. There is a whole new world out there of non carbon emitting energy possibilities. But it's pretty old school not to see it, particularly when one of the main sources, the sun, is staring us in the face some dozen or so hours each day.
But the author of this report then notes that this is so "70s." (Except back in the 70s, who knew that muesli was actually pretty good stuff? Probably just a bunch of tie dyed wearing dread locked hippies who never travelled by car.)
More seriously, among other intriguing arguments put forth in this article in the always intriguing (and sometimes quite good) "American Conservative" magazine, the author postulates that the "green industrial complex" (you have to read the article to see what that is) "implicitly denigrates production, since all forms of modern manufacturing emit CO2."
This is a flawed, and important enough, concept, that we thought we'd briefly address it here. All forms of manufacturing emit CO2, since we were not concerned about excessive CO2 emissions. But all forms of manufacturing do not have to emit CO2, to put it mildly. In fact, the manufacturing of that which helps produce other energy sources not only does not have to produce CO2 (if non CO2 energy sources are utilized therein) but in turn helps render other manufacturing non CO2 emitting, while itself contributing further to economic growth.
The article talks about "stagnating economies," when what we are really looking at, is stagnating ideas of what growth necessarily has to be circumscribed, defined, and enabled by. There is a whole new world out there of non carbon emitting energy possibilities. But it's pretty old school not to see it, particularly when one of the main sources, the sun, is staring us in the face some dozen or so hours each day.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Hilarious Headline of the week: "Palin Willing To Campaign For Democrats." And it's posted on the Huffington Post, among other places.
Yes, Palin is willing to campaign for Democrats. This Palin. Now attempting to play Democrats (who if you ask them, never get played) -- and of course, once again, the voters -- like a fiddle.
I suppose we could give about a thousand examples of how Machiavellian this is, and how, of course, the media (and Huff Post) is playing into it. But what would be the point.
Yes, Palin is willing to campaign for Democrats. This Palin. Now attempting to play Democrats (who if you ask them, never get played) -- and of course, once again, the voters -- like a fiddle.
I suppose we could give about a thousand examples of how Machiavellian this is, and how, of course, the media (and Huff Post) is playing into it. But what would be the point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)