...or, "Sunday Morning Not Quite Awake Yet Blogging." After spending almost all of Friday cycling through job boards trying to get more resumés into the pipeline after a rush of interviews early in the week, and much of yesterday putting together a kitchen trolley and catching up on errands and housework, I'm having trouble summoning up my usual Morning Quota of Outrage. So until I get back in the saddle later on, chew on these:

Glenn Greenwald takes a look back at the role ABC's Brian Ross played in perpetuating the myth that Saddam Hussein was behind the anthrax attacks. The more I hear about the Ivins suicide, and the late-breaking attempts to paint him as "a troubled man", the more the tinfoil is tingling.

Melissa writes about a horrific case in which a transgendered woman was beaten to death by her date.

Logan Murphy at C&L explains why we can't take the word of military apparatchiks on anything. Pvt. Lavena Johnson was reported to have committed suicide, and her family has been after the truth since her death. The truth, it turns out, is even worse than anyone could possibly imagine. I realize that soldiers are trained to be brutal, but it looks like some of that brutality is being committed upon the female soldiers in their midst -- and then the military is covering it up.

The inimitable Lower Manhattanite on Barack Obama's European trip and the McCain campaign's disgraceful reaction.

Pam writes about the politics of the Tennessee church shooting (complete with a list of examples of high-profile wingnuts calling for violence against liberals).

Hoffmania features a Ben Sargent cartoon that will have you either laughing yourself silly or projectile vomiting, depending on how cynical you're feeling today.

What PhysioProf said.

Skippy weighs in on the July unemployment numbers and the spin that because they weren't as God-awful as everyone said, everything's hunky-dory. I guess that means I haven't really been laid off because eight of the people in my department are KEEPING their jobs for now.

And the Thanatopsis Pleasure and Inside Straight Club Award for winning the Robert Benchley Society Award for Humor goes to Mad Kane!!!!

Congratulations also to ModFab and Mr. ModFab on their new digs. I'm not nuts about the so-called "Gold Coast" of New Jersey, but you can't beat a 20-minute commute. And the complex they're moving into, while older, is very nice and right across the street from a lovely park.

Daniel DiRito makes a case for John McCain to be, like George W. Bush before him, just the willing tool of handlers with their own agenda.

Warren Street takes a look at the suddenly-out-in-the-open history of Bruce Ivins and wonders why someone who had attempted to poison people as far back as 2000 had a security clearance at all. (And what I want to know is that with Ivins being so clearly a nutcase, why was the FBI going after Steven Hatfill for so long? And do they honestly think that revealing all this about Ivins makes them look GOOD?)

Juan Cole doesn't even have to provide commentary to his Iraq news roundup to make me shake my head in despair.

Matt Fretz says, "A pox on both your houses."

Is this the best we can do? Harry Shearer on how a crucial floodwall in New Orleans' 17th Ward is failing....again.

And DCap remembers the Edsel.

Labels: bloggers

Today's honoree: Bob Herbert of the New York Times, who in "Running While Black" gives the McCain campaign the smackdown it so richly deserves, and which the television news has lacked the cojones to do. Yesterday MSNBC was All Race Card, All the Time, which of course means I won the bet about whether the suicide of Bruce Ivins would be announced and then buried as quickly as he, and the anthrax case, is about to be.

Money quote from Mr. Herbert:

Spare me any more drivel about the high-mindedness of John McCain. You knew something was up back in March when, in his first ad of the general campaign, Mr. McCain had himself touted as “the American president Americans have been waiting for.”

Honorable mention: Joe Conason, in Salon: "Wanting the White House in the worst way."

Money quote:

By the time McCain spoke up feebly against the Swift boat campaign, the damage had been done -- to him as well as to Kerry. He had undergone a public transformation into a willing instrument of lesser men who trampled on his character and his honor, even his patriotism, just as his campaign is now seeking to do to Obama.

"They know no depths," he had complained wearily to reporters on his "Straight Talk" bus during the 2000 primaries. Now he has once more sold himself to those same forces, hoping that they will at last usher him into the White House. In his concession speech after the South Carolina primary, he said, "I want the presidency in the best way, not the worst way."

That is what has changed.

Labels: Barack Obama, Bob Herbert, John McCain, racism

The Financial Services Forum has once again commissioned economists Grant Aldonas, Robert Lawrence and Matthew Slaughter to produce a report based on their "Succeeding in the Global Economy" series. The new report, "An Adjustment Assistance Program for American Workers", appears to be an expansion of ideas they first presented in last year's report, "A New Policy Agenda for the American Worker".

To give a bit of background, the Financial Services Forum is a trade association consisting of CEO's from 20 of the top financial institutions in our country. Members include Kenneth Lewis from Bank of America, Vikram Pandit from Citi, Lloyd Blankfein from Goldman Sachs, and Richard Fuld, Jr. from Lehman Brothers. As CEO's, they are profiting quite nicely from the globalization of the world economy. Unfortunately, factory workers whose jobs are being shipped to China don't have the same warm fuzzy thoughts about free trade.

Until announcements like these start to outnumber announcements like these, it behooves our chief executives to stave off calls for tariffs and other protectionist policies by offering more generous unemployment benefits. The Adjustment Assistance Program (AAP), as described in the white paper, would help out workers by offering wage-loss insurance, continued health insurance coverage, penalty-free withdrawals from 401(k) and IRA plans, expanded access to worker training programs, and a more progressive approach to funding these programs through various payroll taxes. The expansion of unemployment benefits is one of the few programs we'll be seeing that will align the interests of both the working classes and the business community.

Although the authors take great pains to explain that globalization is not the cause of most of our job losses, they choose to model these proposed expanded unemployment benefits along the lines of the Trade Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance programs, which are programs for production workers who become unemployed due to "...increased imports or shifts in production out of the United States."

I am not shy about admitting that I'm not all that good at taking a 30-page report and condensing it down to a single blog post review. I'll let you read the report if you're so inclined. It's well-written and easy to follow. I do want to comment on what I think are certain eye-opening highlights.

Wage-Loss Insurance
Like last year's report, this current report makes no pretense that the economic fortunes of average Americans are improving. Among the findings (on page 6 of the current report)

In 2007, for example, private-sector employment expanded by about 900,000 jobs. But this net increase masked the far more dramatic shifts below the surface – the economy created about 30 million jobs, while losing roughly 29 million. What that means is that, based on an average of four 40-hour work weeks a month, about 25,000 jobs are destroyed and created every hour that America is open for business.

Also on page 6:

Economic change and adjustment is essential to the health of the U.S. economy. Without all of this reallocation, average living standards would be harmed not helped. That said, adjustment presents very real costs to American workers, communities, and firms. There is considerable evidence that involuntary job loss can be costly. About two-thirds of displaced workers find new full-time jobs—but at an average wage loss of 13-17%. And this average disguises a wide range of experiences: 36% gained re-employment at or above previous earnings, whereas 25% suffered earnings losses of 30% or more.

The authors, and indeed, probably a lot of corporate executives, seem sensitive to one set of statistics from last year's report (page 37:)

....the share of national income accounted for by the top 1 percent of earners reached 21.8 percent in 2005—a level not seen since 1928. From 2004 to 2005, the mean income change reported by the bottom 90 percent of tax filers was a decline of about 1 percent; in contrast, the mean change for the top 1 percent of filers was a rise of 14 percent.

The AAP would set up a wage-loss insurance program that would replace 50% of a worker's lost wages for up to two years following the date of the job loss. On page 12 of the .pdf file, the authors reiterate that the program would be limited to workers age 45 and over, which is an obvious nod to the widespread impression that age discrimination against older workers is thriving. This program would obviously take the sting out having to take a lower paying job after losing your prior job.

I'm puzzled by this part of the current report (page 11 of the .PDF file);

Some have voiced concerns about possible moral-hazard implications of wage-loss insurance. One is that it would encourage the unemployed to take low wage jobs rather than continue searching for higher wage jobs, and would thereby result in fewer high-wage jobs in the overall economy.

On the one hand, it is certainly true that workers would have an incentive to take a job more quickly because remaining unemployed would now be more costly. This could lead them to take lower paying jobs than they might otherwise take. On the other hand, however, a high-wage job would now be more valuable and less risky. This might actually create an incentive to search longer when unemployed. [Emphasis mine.] We believe that the magnitude of these implications of wage-loss insurance are likely to be small, and are unlikely to offset the benefits of such insurance.

When I think of moral hazard, I think in terms of disapproving of programs that lead people to stay on the public dole for longer periods of time. The authors obviously want people to be more selective and hold out for higher paying jobs.

To me, the job market is a lot like selling a house. You may get a not-so-good offer now, but you may receive even worse offers in the future. We don't have crystal balls, so we have no way of knowing whether we are making the correct decision until it's too late to act. A lot of people would jump at the first semi-reasonable offer tossed their way because they simply cannot afford a longer period of unemployment. If people are pessimistic about their chances at re-employment, I'm not sure this 50% wage replacement incentive would keep people out of the job market for longer periods of time.

The authors also hint on page 12 that this program might only cover workers who have been employed at the same job for two or more years. This would obviously not work for people who have been forced into a career of short-term contract work, where two years of employment with the same company is an almost unheard of luxury.

Finally, I'm scratching my head at this statement on page 8:

Moreover, it [wage-loss insurance] can also benefit society by allowing workers to take riskier but higher-output jobs that pay higher wages.

Are they implying that too many workers are turning down a lot of risky but higher paying jobs? What are these risky high pay jobs? Are these start-up jobs? For example, an employee may opt to earn $80,000 at Pfizer rather than $120,000 at some frat boy's start-up company? Is there some sort of national crisis because too many people are turning down high paying jobs?

I figured out 15 years ago that we have no way of predicting job security. I worked for a company that was definitely on the downward slope, but managed to hang on for another three years. Several employees bolted for a new branch office being opened by an old and prestigious New York firm. The new branch office closed down just before Christmas that year. It might just be me, but I tend to go for the money unless I knew for certain the management is populated by idiots and I'd be miserable at the job.

Regardless, I'm sure many workers would consider themselves lucky to be faced with such a dilemma.

Health Insurance (Beyond COBRA)
It's amazing how the cost of health care continues to rise and the scope of health care coverage continues to fall no matter what policies are enacted. I think we all know COBRA used to be affordable but is now prohibitively expensive. We also know that COBRA does nothing for you if your employer never offered health care to begin with.

I actually like the AAP solution, of having unemployment insurance pick up all of the COBRA payments for workers while they are still receiving unemployment payments. If a worker can demonstrate that he or she is receiving medical coverage through a spouse, the worker could then collect an additional 10% bonus in their weekly unemployment check.

In a way, a worker could be better off with their medical coverage while unemployed. For example, a worker could be paying most or all of their medical premiums while employed. I assume that under the AAP, 100% of the COBRA costs would be picked up regardless of how much the worker was paying previously.

THE CATCH is, if your employer did not provide medical coverage, you would still lack medical coverage during unemployment. This fact sheet from the National Coalition on Health Care has all sorts of interesting tidbits. However, I'll zero in on one in particular.

The percentage of people (workers and dependents) with employment-based health insurance has dropped from 70 percent in 1987 to 59 percent in 2006. This is the lowest level of employment-based insurance coverage in more than a decade.

So, obviously, the trend is that the percentage of people with employment-based health insurance will decline in the next decade rather than rise.

Penalty-Free 401(k) and IRA Withdrawals
Penalties are already waived for certain situations, like for purchase of a first home, education costs, etc. The AAP would allow penalty-free withdrawals if you lose your job. Taxes on the withdrawals could be waived for payment of health insurance premiums.

I suppose this is a nice proposed benefit. However, it sucks that we don't have pensions anymore, and we need to tap into our retirement savings to get through economic downturns. For many people, like tech workers stuck in the short-term contract trap, raids on 401(k) accounts are common even when the economy is firing on all cylinders.

Retraining and Continued Education
We most often think of factory workers being retrained for skilled jobs when the factories shut down. As a matter of fact, that was the entire rationale for shutting down our factories over here and shifting production overseas. Thanks to retraining benefits, factory workers are supposed to better off after the factories close. I did a post at a site called Central Sanity, where I found that the Department of Labor determined that workers under the Trade Adjustment Assistance programs made 77% of their previous wage upon re-entering the work force. A Heritage Foundation report (one of the few times you'll ever find me quoting the Heritage Foundation) and a Government Accounting Office report both state that it's almost impossible to determine the outcomes of these retraining efforts.

Besides retraining factory workers, all workers need continuous education just to keep up with advances in their career fields. The AAP would offer expanded retraining opportunities for the unemployed as well as tax incentives to enable the currently employed to get additional training. One good point the authors come up with is the necessity of:

.....ending the absurdity of allowing the deductibility of training expense against income taxes only when those expenses are related to a worker’s current job. This is, in effect, a non-adjustment policy – one that provides an incentive to stay put, rather than build skills that would allow a worker to adjust with his or her employer and with the economy as a whole.

We would, as a consequence, recommend expanding the definition of training that qualifies for a deduction from current income taxes. All such expenses should be deductible, whether related to a current job or some prospective future job.

One gripe I've had with employer-paid training is that employers are increasingly reluctant (with good reason, I suppose) to provide training for any activities that might help you advance in your career field. This is one of my favorite proposals in the entire paper. If I foresee my job and/or employer disappearing, I have a good incentive to train for a new career field ahead of time when the pink slip hits my pay envelope.

Another recommendation is to set up 401(k)-like Worker Adjustment Accounts. Great. Just one more account to drain my paycheck, like my 401(k), HSA, Dependent Care, etc. accounts.

Unemployment Insurance
The final part of the paper deals with how funding for unemployment insurance benefits could be more progressive, which would allow funding of the wage-insurance, health insurance and educational programs through the AAP plan. Although the authors bring up how unemployment insurance does not cover part-time workers, and does not cover workers who have not worked the minimum amount of time, the AAP does not appear to offer any coverage for these categories. (Unless I'm really missing something.)

Final Thoughts
I laud the authors for offering serious proposals to address worker anxieties. Although the Financial Services Forum is a very prestigious trade group, I'm not sure when or if any of these proposals will be passed into law. Unless our corporate handlers adopt a completely different mindset, the recommendations offered by the authors will probably be the best we can hope for. The proposed AAP program repairs a few of holes in our safety nets, but does nothing to get rid of the underlying job volatility we suffer through.

(Cross-posted at Carrie's Nation.)

Labels: globalization, unemployment

It's no secret that B@B is Rachel Maddow Girlcrush Central, so we were thrilled to see that unlike the New York Times, The Nation isn't afraid to show Maddow's face in the first article to really do Our Heroine justice.

Money quote:

"People feel the media is piling on Hillary Clinton," she said, "and they're coming to her defense with their votes." For Matthews, who'd been enjoying near rapturous pleasure over the presumptive early-season thumping of his personal hobgoblin, there could not have been worse news than that his own commentary might have paved the way for Clinton's triumph. Yet here was just this headline, delivered by Maddow, looking like Sylvester the Cat, practically licking yellow feathers from the corners of her mouth.

Labels: Rachel Maddow, real journalism

I heard about this on Countdown last night and even in my advanced state of cynicism, could hardly believe my ears:

Speaking at the Campus Progress journalism conference earlier this month, Seymour Hersh — a Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist for The New Yorker — revealed that Bush administration officials held a meeting recently in the Vice President’s office to discuss ways to provoke a war with Iran.

In Hersh’s most recent article, he reports that this meeting occurred in the wake of the overblown incident in the Strait of Hormuz, when a U.S. carrier almost shot at a few small Iranian speedboats. The “meeting took place in the Vice-President’s office. ‘The subject was how to create a casus belli between Tehran and Washington,’” according to one of Hersh’s sources.

During the journalism conference event, I asked Hersh specifically about this meeting and if he could elaborate on what occurred. Hersh explained that, during the meeting in Cheney’s office, an idea was considered to dress up Navy Seals as Iranians, put them on fake Iranian speedboats, and shoot at them. This idea, intended to provoke an Iran war, was ultimately rejected:

HERSH: There was a dozen ideas proffered about how to trigger a war. The one that interested me the most was why don’t we build — we in our shipyard — build four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy seals on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Straits of Hormuz, start a shoot-up.

Might cost some lives. And it was rejected because you can’t have Americans killing Americans. That’s the kind of — that’s the level of stuff we’re talking about. Provocation. But that was rejected.

Labels: Dick Cheney, insanity, You can't make this shit up

Look, I have no beef against Luke Russert. Amidst all the hue and cry and rending of garments and the week-long grief-fest that took place on all three networks after Tim Russert's sudden death, it was Russert's own son, one of a very few people who had a blood-born right to be curled up in a fetal position in the corner, who managed to pull himself together and conduct himself with class and dignity when people three times his age were blubbering like infants on national television for a full week.

But isn't there something just a little bit wrong when there are no doubt thousands of kids who are "A" students in their journalism majors who are going to be toiling away covering council meetings in Anytown, USA for the next five years trying to get some actual experience, and this guy gets a TV correspondent gig on a national network based on who his dad was -- especially when Rachel Maddow is out there suffering the indignity of having to parry crap from the likes of Pat Buchanan night after night?

Again, this is no knock on young Mr. Russert, who is at least saying the right humble-type things:

Russert told MSNBC.com that he realizes some might say it was only his name that got him the job. But he's ready for the challenge and plans to work hard, he said.

"I'm not trying to be my father. He's irreplaceable. I'm simply trying to do something that I think there's a real niche for, that there's a calling for, that has to do with youth, not just in the election but in politics from now on," Russert said.

In a statement, he said he was "humbled and grateful" for the opportunity.

Still, isn't it bad enough that we can't escape from political dynasties, do we have to set them up in the media too? Have we learned nothing from the Hack That Is Chris Wallace?

Labels: nepotism

If John McCain has lost the Murdoch Street Journal, how long is it before he loses everyone else?

Is John McCain losing it?

On Sunday, he said on national television that to solve Social Security "everything's on the table," which of course means raising payroll taxes. On July 7 in Denver he said: "Senator Obama will raise your taxes. I won't."

This isn't a flip-flop. It's a sex-change operation.

He got back to the subject Tuesday in Reno, Nev. Reporters asked about the Sunday tax comments. Mr. McCain replied, "The worst thing you could do is raise people's payroll taxes, my God!" Then he was asked about working with Democrats to fix Social Security, and he repeated, "everything has to be on the table." But how can . . .? Oh never mind.

I mean seriously....when you have a columnist at the Wall Street Journal not only using the kind of snark usually reserved for Democratic candidates with a brain in their heads, but very nearly slips in a Firesign Theatre reference, you know we are living in Very Strange Times.

There's a certain hysterical undertone to the McCain campaign these days. No one who doesn't feel that he was supposed to have a clear path to the presidency by running against That Clinton Woman and instead finds himself running against a rock star would allow his campaign to claim that his opponent is no different from Paris Hilton or Britney Spears or Lindsey Lohan.

I don't see what they're so upset about; after all, Faux Noise and CNN and everyone on MSNBC other than Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow is firmly in the McCain camp forevermore. Their candidate can't even construct a coherent English sentence anymore but he's less than ten points down in the polls -- a gap that's only one really effective Scary Negro Muslim Commie ad away from narrowing.

Of course McCain is trying to pander to so many constituencies now that he sounds alternately appallingly craven and utterly pathetic. He's trying to get the Christian Scold vote while at the same time chipping away at independents who could just as easily go for Obama. And the result is that not only has the so-called Straight Talk Express started running making all local stops and is in danger of derailing at any moment, but he's sounding more like one of Grandpa Simpson's disjointed rants every day.

Labels: John McCain, pandering

Last night Carrie e-mailed me that her blog, Carrie's Nation, has been designated as a spam blog. Now Skippy informs me that his blog too has been designated a spam blog.

What is Google doing?

Labels: blogs, tinfoil

Pardon me if my Spidey-sense starts tingling just a little bit with this news:

A top U.S. biodefense researcher apparently committed suicide just as the Justice Department was about to file criminal charges against him in the anthrax mailings that traumatized the nation in the weeks following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, according to a published report.

The scientist, Bruce E. Ivins, 62, who worked for the past 18 years at the government's biodefense labs at Fort Detrick, Md., had been told about the impending prosecution, the Los Angeles Times reported for Friday editions. The laboratory has been at the center of the FBI's investigation of the anthrax attacks, which killed five people.

Ivins died Tuesday at Frederick Memorial Hospital in Maryland. The Times, quoting an unidentified colleague, said the scientist had taken a massive dose of a prescription Tylenol mixed with codeine.

OK, let me first ask this; How did he get a massive dose of prescription Tylenol with codeine? Anyone who's ever been prescribed codeine in any form knows that you only get the bare minimum that you need.

OK, I'll buy that the government's claim after settling with Steven Hatfull that they were "making significant progress" means they were closing in on this guy. I'll even buy that a scientist would commit suicide before going to prison for sending anthrax-laced letters to Americans. But what gets the Spidey-sense going is this: Why these targets?

A quick Google search reveals almost nothing on Bruce E. Ivins other than articles about his suicide and some research papers on post-exposure vaccination. No ties to wingnut groups, nothing suspicious -- except that nagging problem of the nature of the targets of the attacks. Not a conservative in the bunch, and all of them people or buildings associated with people vexing to George W. Bush. I'm not going to put the tinfoil on just yet, but there is a very slight odor coming from this news.

UPDATE: Richard Blair isn't afraid to don his tinfoil chapeau, and makes a compelling case that something about all this doth stinketh to high heaven.

Labels: anthrax, domestic terrorism

Check out yesterday's New York Post front page:



See the headline on the left? When Rupert Murdoch takes over every remaining newspaper in the country, EVERY paper will look like this.

But still....those potty-mouthed bloggers should be ashamed of themselves. They aren't REAL journalists like the fine people who decided that the only kind of fat cat worthy of the front cover and a demeaning headline was of the feline ilk -- and a female one at that.

UPDATE: So now the headline is a gay slur. "Princess Chunk" is a prince. And he was abandoned because his owner was foreclosed out of her home.

Labels: hack journalism

Gee....big oil has been so good to John McCain he might even leave Cindy for them:

Campaign contributions from oil industry executives to Sen. John McCain rose dramatically in the last half of June, after the senator from Arizona made a high-profile split with environmentalists and reversed his opposition to the federal ban on offshore drilling.

Oil and gas industry executives and employees donated $1.1 million to McCain last month -- three-quarters of which came after his June 16 speech calling for an end to the ban -- compared with $116,000 in March, $283,000 in April and $208,000 in May.

John McCain sure likes to hang around with people who rake in the bucks, doesn't he:

Exxon Mobil Corp. posted a 14% rise in second-quarter net income, boosted by high oil prices, but results were tarnished by falling production figures that worried investors.

Exxon Mobil's profit of $11.68 billion, or $2.22 a share, up from $10.26 billion, or $1.83 a share, a year earlier, wasn't enough to distract investors from a 7.8% drop in its production of oil and natural gas. The earnings also missed Wall Street expectations of $2.52 a share, according to analysts surveyed by Thomson Reuters.

So...profits are way up, but production is down. Gee. ya think there's a connection?

Side note: I had a little bit of fun today. After years of being tailgated and bullied by Hummer drivers, I had a bit of revenge today. I pulled up to my neighborhood station, right behind some over-made-up McMansionite in a red Hummer. Not an H2 or an H3, but the original Hummer. You know, the one that gets around 8-10 miles per gallon. In New Jersey we don't have self-serve gas, but since I know the station, they know me, and they know that when I was in my 20's I used to work at a gas station on weekends, they let me pump it myself. I pumped $22.50 worth of regular into my Honda Civic and pulled a twenty and a five from my wallet, along with two quarters. She was watching me in her side-view mirror; presumably feeling infinitely superior to me in her Big Red Hummer and her makeup and her Botox and her skinniness. I waved the twenty and the five at her and smiled, then gave the bills to the kid working the pumps, who looked like he was going to bust a gut trying not to laugh. I gave the money to the kid, who handed me three singles, which I promptly waved at Miss Botoxia of 2002, smiling again. I got into the car, backed up, and passed her on the other side of the pumps, waving again for good measure as the price ticked upwards towards the $100 mark.

All by itself, that made it a good day. These days, I take what amusement I can get.

Labels: oil

Joe Klein finally joins the reality-based community, at least for the moment:

A few months ago, I wrote that John McCain was an honorable man and he would run an honorable campaign. I was wrong. I used to think, as David Ignatius does, that McCain's true voice was humble and moderate, but now I'm beginning to think his Senate colleagues may be right about his temperament. From what I can gather, Mississippi Senator Thad Cochran, a Republican, reflected the views of many of his colleagues earlier this year when he said:

"The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine...He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."

The erratic nature of McCain's campaign seems to be confirming that judgment.

John McCain has NEVER been an honorable man. John McCain has received a free pass because of his horrific experience as a prisoner of war. That experience has gained him a free pass for his treatment of the wife who waited for him, his use of a young heiress' money to jumpstart a political career, his treatment of said young wife when she was no longer 25 years old, his consistent record of favors-for-cash dating at least as far back as the Keating S&L scandal. There is nothing about John McCain that is honorable, and it's high time that Joe Klein and the others who looked the other way while a similar mythology was built around George W. Bush to pull the blinders from their eyes.

The stakes are too high this year.

Labels: hack journalism, John McCain

It seems to me that if you didn't hear it from the candidate's mouth yourself, it isn't a direct quote.

You have to get up early in the morning to get anything past Rachel Maddow:



Thanks to John Aravosis for tracking this down, because it appears that MSNBC is censoring this part of the discussion from last night's Race to the White House.

Just more proof that Rachel Maddow is the smartest, toughest political analyst around, and deserves her own show. Now. And more proof that despite the presence of Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, the network is still in the tank for McCain. It's time to make MSNBC answer the question of why this five minutes was censored.

Labels: Barack Obama, Rachel Maddow

Ben Wattenberg's appearance on The Daily Show scared me. I was afraid he'd get away with saying any old poisonous thing. Jon Stewart softens his style when confronted with an older person or a genteel woman. His interview of Nancy Pelosi earlier this week contains a few Jon, did you hear what she just said? moments, for example. But back to Ben Wattenberg - or more specifically, back to me, on the edge of my seat last night: Jon lets a few very dangerous assertions get past him before he's had enough.



Let me declare, now and forever, that after 9/11 I supported the bombing of NO ONE, the declaration of war on NO ONE, no shredding of the Constitution, no denial of anyone's human rights, no lunkhead rush to vengeance, no. At no time have I ever supported the insensible and grammatically insupportable War on Terror. No. And I know plenty of people who did not lose their minds and wet their beds, plenty of people who opposed rash action and depraved indifference to genocide and torture - you probably number among those people. The media's narrative says EVERYONE supported and supports this pointless, endless, and cowardly fool's errand. It simply isn't so, and insisting doesn't make it so.

Now - with that much straight - now, we can start talking seriously.

Crossposted at Poor Impulse Control.

Ah, gym class; the trauma of the clumsy, the overweight, the spawn of intellectual Jews who spent their time reading, not playing tennis. Gym class is where children learn an important life lesson: Can't win, don't try. Unfortunately, it's the WRONG life lesson.

My earliest memory of gym class trauma dates back to third grade recess. I was the weird kid that other kids teased all the time, and the game of dodge ball, when I was in the circle having the ball thrown at me, felt like a personal attack by a gang. But the worst insult came when one of the third grade teachers who was conducting the "class" that day, screamed at me and called me a "weakling" because I couldn't throw the ball worth a damn.

It went on from there; with the infamous President's Council of Physical Fitness tests that elementary school kids were required to pass. I couldn't do pull-ups. I hated jumping jacks. And as for rope-climbing, well, the lack of arm strength that caused Mabel Young to call me a weakling in the third grade was not about to allow me to climb a rope to the high ceiling of an elementary school gym. But of course that was no excuse, and so there I was, like Private Pyle in Full Metal Jacket, hovering three feet off the ground, being laughed at by other kids and screamed at by the teacher, unable to go further.

This is how children learn not to be active.

Later on, I did find things that I enjoyed. Because I had discovered baseball on Father's Day 1964, the day Jim Bunning no-hit the Mets, my father and I often went out to Shea Stadium to watch ball games, and one year I went out for girls' softball. I was no good at it, and I played right field where no one would hit anything to me, but at least I went out for something. I also enjoyed ice skating, or at least I did, until I went to a skating party when I was around eight years old and I was shlepped around the rink by the birthday girl's older sisters, who would say things to each other like "Maybe if she wasn't so fat she could skate by herself."

The irony of all this is that if I look back now at photographs of myself from those years, I wasn't all that fat? I always had a belly, and I was by no means skinny, but I wouldn't look at the kid I was and say "That's a fat kid."

But I learned. I learned that sports were not for me, athletics were not for me, fitness was not for me. I was terrified of heights, and they forced me to do uneven parallel bar exercises. I was afraid of being hit by a ball and they put me in the center of a dodge ball ring. It really wasn't until I got to college and could pick and choose my physical education classes -- things like racquetball and tennis and archery -- that I began to think of these things in terms of having fun instead of being competitive. But old lessons die hard, and I've carried this aversion into adulthood. It wasn't until walking and cycling and yoga became regarded as legitimate avenues to fitness that I started to enjoy moving and stretching on its own merits.

So it was with much applause that I greeted this story in today's New York Times that New York City schools are introducing double-dutch, the complex jump-rope game played by inner city kids, into the physical fitness curriculum:

Stephanie was practicing double dutch, an urban street staple that dates back centuries and, come next spring, will become the newest of 35 varsity sports played in New York City schools. As part of an effort to increase the number of students — particularly girls — participating in competitive athletics, the city will create coed double-dutch teams at 10 high schools, many in predominantly black neighborhoods like Bushwick, Bedford-Stuyvesant and Harlem where the ropes have long swung on asphalt playgrounds.

Double dutch follows cricket, which was added last year and is now played by more than 400 students at 14 schools, including the elite Stuyvesant High School.

School officials said they were also considering cycling, badminton and netball for varsity sports.

Nearly 33,000 students, about 10 percent of the high school population, play on varsity or junior varsity teams, compared with more than a third in many suburban districts.

“As an urban district, we need to be creative in an urban kind of way, and double dutch does that for us,” said Eric Goldstein, who oversees the Public Schools Athletic League, the governing body for the city’s interscholastic sports. “If you see people doing it, it looks hard and it is hard.”

Kyra D. Gaunt, who wrote “The Games Black Girls Play: Learning the Ropes from Double-Dutch to Hip-Hop” (N.Y.U. Press, 2006), said that recognizing double dutch as a sport not only taps into something that many children are passionate about, but also gives a nod to the influence of black culture. “They’re helping to regenerate a tradition in the black community and legitimize it in the eyes of a lot of parents,” she said.

Dr. Gaunt, an associate professor of anthropology and black music studies at Baruch College, said that she avoided double dutch as a child because she was so bad at it but that she relearned it while writing her book. She said the appeal of double dutch was that anyone could do it, and that once mastered, it lent itself to individual expression through fancy footwork and dance routines.

Imagine that: a sport that anyone can learn to do, a sport that fits into the life kids lead every day, a sport that does not discriminate against the overweight (as the photo accompanying the story clearly demonstrates); a sport that doesn't necessarily require strength or speed, but that has room for kids who only have speed, or who are quick with their feet; a sport where kids with differing strengths and talents can all participate.

It sure beats rope-climbing, squat-thrusts and jumping jacks.

Labels: education, fitness

There's more than one way to push people out of the workforce and out of the mainstream. One of the most cost-effective ways is to move people from full-time to part-time work. These people don't inflate and enlarge the unemployment figures because they are at least marginally employed, and they tend not to cost employers too much money, because in many companies, part-time employees are ineligible for health insurance.

But as reported in the New York Times today, part-time employees aren't reliable consumers, and part-time work is often the first step down the slide into poverty:

The number of Americans who have seen their full-time jobs chopped to part time because of weak business has swelled to more than 3.7 million — the largest figure since the government began tracking such data more than half a century ago.

The loss of pay has become a primary source of pain for millions of American families, reinforcing the downturn gripping the economy. Paychecks are shrinking just as home prices plunge and gas prices soar, furthering the austerity across the nation.

“I either stop eating, or stop using anything I can,” said Marvin L. Zinn, a clerk at a Walgreens drugstore in St. Joseph, Mich., who has seen his take-home pay drop to about $550 every two weeks from about $650, as his weekly hours have dropped to 37.5 from 44 in recent months.

Mr. Zinn has run up nearly $2,000 in credit card debt to buy food. He has put off dental work. He no longer attends church, he said, “because I can’t afford to drive.”

On the surface, the job market is weak but hardly desperate. Layoffs remain less frequent than in many economic downturns, and the unemployment rate is a relatively modest 5.5 percent. But that figure masks the strains of those who are losing hours or working part time because they cannot find full-time work — a stealth force that is eroding American spending power.

All told, people the government classifies as working part time involuntarily — predominantly those who have lost hours or cannot find full-time work — swelled to 5.3 million last month, a jump of greater than 1 million over the last year.

Workers who see their pay cut in half and their benefits terminated are more likely to accumulate debt just to make ends meet. They're more likely to put off medical and dental checkups and procedures. They're more likely to enter foreclosure. And this benefits overall American society -- how? Yes, reduced payroll costs can help companies get through the quarter without causing Jim Cramer to jump up and down and screech about them on his television show. But is this the best solution for reduced profits? Or are companies just killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

Yesterday I went for a dental cleaning and to have a crown started on a tooth my dentist has been monitoring for two years. I go for cleanings four times a year, and my dental coverage has helped out with two of them. By the time they were my age, both my parents were well into bridgework and other dental problems. My dental heredity is so bad that my baby teeth sprouted with cavities already in them. But I still have all of my own teeth. The back teeth are all crowned, but they're all mine. Preventive dental medicine and the gradual crowning of all of the teeth that contained more amalgam than tooth has kept me from being toothless in addition to being middle-aged and laid off. Last year I had a colonoscopy, which offers some protection against colon cancer by literally nipping potentially problematic polyps in the bud.

I'm relatively fortunate in that when my insurance lapses at the end of September, and I haven't been lucky enough to find another job by then, Mr. Brilliant can enroll us both on his employer's plan. Of course, this could have the effect of making him more expensive and therefore more expendable, but it's a risk we have to take. Othes aren't so lucky. Others like one of our own, Susie Madrak:

Here’s the deal, kids: I’m out of work now and I need three different surgeries. (I’m just the tiniest bit suspicious that this had something to do with the timing of my layoff.)

I’m having one surgery (an eye operation - I’m seeing double) in two weeks, but I need to schedule the other two and I just can’t fit them all into the next month, which is when my insurance runs out.

I figure three months’ COBRA coverage will do the trick. That’s $447.91 per month, for a grand total of $1343.73.

I plan to pick up some of that slack with blatant advertising (expect to see a lot more ads and text links - please click on them, it helps) but I also need to ask you for donations.

Is this what we've come to? That people have to beg for donations? We see it everywhere. Here in northern NJ, a foundation has been set up to help local families dealing with family members who are injured or ill. Coin collection cans and pancake breakfasts abound. Here in Blogtopia (™ Skippy), those needing help ask for it, and the community responds. This is the Republican dream society, in which individuals are reliant on the kindness of strangers, and the ability of strangers to help out. But is this the country we want to live in; one in which employees with health insurance are in danger of being fired because they are too expensive, in which private health insurance is prohibitively expensive, and where people in need of surgery are reliant on the five dollar donations of other people in similarly threatened straits?

Cutting staff is an easy way to make the balance sheet look better to the financial analysts in the short run. But after you get through the quarter, then what? Who buys your products? Who pays the taxes to perpetuate the Iraq War in perpetuity? And what happens to the sick people who have been let go?

Labels: employment

John McCain is a staunch opponent of normalizing relations with Cuba:

“So it’s dangerous. It’s dangerous to American national security if you sit down and give respect and prestige to leaders of countries that are bent on your destruction or the destruction of other countries. I won’t do it my friends,” McCain said to a town hall-style meeting in Little Havana, the heart of Florida’s Cuban-American community and stronghold of the anti-Castro movement.

Obama’s plan to soften the decades-old U.S. embargo against the Cuban regime would “send the worst possible signal to Cuba’s dictators,” McCain said.

[snip]

McCain cited Obama’s response to a 2003 questionnaire about his policy toward Cuba, in which the Illinois senator wrote: “I believe that normalization of relations with Cuba would help the oppressed and poverty-stricken Cuban people while setting the stage for a more democratic government once Castro inevitably leaves the scene.”

Obama has said he would like to ease stringent U.S. travel restrictions toward Cuba, granting Cuban-Americans unrestricted rights to visit family and send remittances to the island.

During the Feb. 21 Democratic presidential debate at the University of Texas in Austin, Obama said, “It is important for the United States not just to talk to its friends but also to talk to its enemies. In fact, that’s where diplomacy makes the biggest difference.”

He added that he would meet with Raul Castro “without preconditions,” but acknowledged that there must be “preparation.” The U.S. must ensure that Cuba has “an agenda” in place that addresses “human rights, releasing of political prisoners” and “opening up the press,” he said.

McCain said Tuesday that his administration will oppose softening the economic embargo unless the Cuban government meets certain conditions.

But now it seems that his wife Cindy's money, which has bankrolled his entire career in Washington (other than the favors he's done businesses in return for campaign contributions), may have a little conflict with his "straight talk" on Cuba because of the coming takeover of Anheuser-Busch by the Belgian company InDev -- because Belgium has no such trade restrictions with Cuba:

The pending merger of American beer giant Anheuser-Busch and a Belgian company that brews and sells beer in Cuba is thrusting John McCain into the middle of thorny Cuba-U.S. relations.

McCain's wife, Cindy, owns the third largest Anheuser-Busch distributor in the country — which means she would stand to profit by partnering with a company that is in business with the Cuban government.

McCain is a staunch advocate of the embargo, which bars most American companies from doing business in Cuba. Among the yet-to-be-resolved issues in the $52 billion deal is whether Belgian giant InBev — expected to operate under the name Anheuser-Busch-InBev — will continue to market its Cuban line of beer, and what that may mean for U.S. distributors.

Two of McCain's top Florida supporters, Miami Reps. Lincoln and Mario Diaz-Balart, assailed the InBev-Anheuser Busch deal earlier this month, saying they are "deeply concerned'' that Anheuser-Busch is about to be purchased by a company "with ties to the Cuban dictatorship, a state sponsor of terrorism.''

A spokesman for the Diaz-Balarts said Tuesday night the two congressmen stand by their statement.

Complicating matters for McCain: A Cuban exile family with a long tradition of brewing beer in pre-Castro Cuba claims that InBev has illegally been using the trademark beer name Cristal, which the family created in Cuba before its company was seized by Fidel Castro's government in 1960.

"There are legal figleafs that can be applied here, but the crux of the situation is that property rights are being trampled on,'' said Nicolas Gutierrez, an attorney for Key Biscayne's Blanco Herrera family.

According to financial disclosure statements, Cindy McCain also owns stock in Anheuser-Busch and would stand to make as much as $2 million in profit if she sells the shares after the merger.

If either of the Obamas, or the Clintons, or any other Democratic "power couple" had even this remote a tie with a company that does business with Cuba, the Republicans would be all over the TeeVee screaming their heads off about how Democrats support a state sponsor of terrorism. Instead, this response is typical:

"Making a connection between InBev, John McCain and Cuba policy is a ridiculous stretch of the imagination,'' said Ana Navarro of Miami, who has known McCain for years and serves as a co-chair of his National Hispanic Advisory Council. "First, because John McCain has nothing to do with the operation of his wife's business and secondly, her business has nothing to do with Anheuser-Busch's sale. Does Publix (a grocery store chain) control the decisions of Frito-Lay?''

The idea that John McCain has nothing to do with the operation of his wife's business and so that makes it all OK is ridiculous. He lives in homes paid for by his wife's business. He uses his wife's private plane for his campaign. His entire lifestyle is, and his entry into Beltway Insiderdom was paid for with Hensley money. Their assets may be separate, but to deny that John McCain benefits heavily from Cindy Hensley McCain's assets is preposterous on the face of it.

Of course Democrats will be silent on this, because this is a field on which they still refuse to play, but also because many Democrats DO favor normalizing relations with Cuba. But the issue here isn't Cuba; it's yet another example of the hypocrisy of John McCain, and another example of how the rules are different when the money has an (R) stamped on it.

Labels: Cuba, hypocrisy, John McCain

This is one of the most pathetic things I've ever seen. I almost feel sorry for the poor old bastard, the operative word being "almost."

Because it was a stupid (not to mention a losing) risk to acknowledge Obama's growing popularity and to try to portray it as a weakness rather than a strength. Sour grapes make for lousy Koolaid.

Is Obama ready to lead? Until inauguration day, we'll never know any more than whether McCain is fit to lead.

But Obama doesn't think Iraq borders with Pakistan, a nation in central Asia. Obama doesn't think that Iran is funding al Qaeda. Obama doesn't think that he can cut two trillion dollars a year out of a three trillion dollar annual budget while cutting taxes even more and counting on some massive, magical windfall to balance the books. Obama knows Czechoslovakia is no longer on the map. Obama knows the real troop level and doesn't underestimate them by 25,000 pairs of boots. Obama never called for sending hot bottled water to dehydrated babies.

And I think it's safe to say that Obama knows the election is in November instead of January. Is either man fit to lead?

You be the judge...

With John McCain having been given a free pass by the media on everything from his anger management issue, his flip-flops (not honest changing of the mind in the face of new information, but blatant pandering), his seeming loss of control of his intellectual faculties, it's even more astounding that the press is starting to say "Enough" when he stoops so low as the impugn the loyalty to the country of his opponent.

Michael D. Shear and Dan Balz, in the Washington Post:

For four days, Sen. John McCain and his allies have accused Sen. Barack Obama of snubbing wounded soldiers by canceling a visit to a military hospital because he could not take reporters with him, despite no evidence that the charge is true.

The attacks are part of a newly aggressive McCain operation whose aim is to portray the Democratic presidential candidate as a craven politician more interested in his image than in ailing soldiers, a senior McCain adviser said. They come despite repeated pledges by the Republican that he will never question his rival's patriotism.

[snip]

Despite serious and repeated queries about the charge over several days, McCain and his allies continued yesterday to question Obama's patriotism by focusing attention on the canceled hospital visit.

McCain's campaign released a statement from retired Sgt. Maj. Craig Layton, who worked as a commander at the hospital, who said: "If Senator Obama isn't comfortable meeting wounded American troops without his entourage, perhaps he does not have the experience necessary to serve as commander in chief."

McCain's advisers said they do not intend to back down from the charge, believing it an effective way to create a "narrative" about what they say is Obama's indifference toward the military.

"Narrative." Even if it isn't true, even if it's utter horsepuckey, they believe that outright "lies" constitute a legitimate "narrative."

I propose we create a "narrative" in which John McCain has a habit of buggering little boys in the choirloft in the Baptist church he makes a point of saying he attends.

So what if it isn't true. It's a "narrative."

UPDATE: The St. Petersburg Times joins the long-overdue pile-on:

The Straight Talk Express has taken a nasty turn into the gutter. Sen. John McCain has resorted to lies and distortions in what sounds like an increasingly desperate attempt to slow down Sen. Barack Obama by raising questions about his patriotism. Instead of taking the Democrat down a few notches, these baseless attacks are raising more questions about the Republican's campaign and his ability to control his temper.

The most offensive line comes from McCain himself. The Arizona senator has repeated that Obama "would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.'' That is one of the more outrageous statements by a major political party candidate seeking the presidency. The looming choices about the long-festering war in Iraq are not between winning and losing but about how quickly or slowly the United States can reduce its military forces without jeopardizing recent security gains. Even McCain acknowledges that, and insulting Obama in such a reckless way is not presidential.

Of course in John McCain's world, having been a POW means that he is by definition, presidential. It's about time someone called him out on his campaign's increasingly desperate tactics.

Labels: hypocrisy, John McCain

Don’t listen to John McCain.

That is all.

You think I’m making this up? Sadly, even I am not that ingenious. For months, I and I’m sure many of us have long suspected that not only are campaigns and their candidates not always on the same page but that their campaigns work not on behalf of whatever ill-informed boob they precariously balance on a stump but on behalf of their party.

Time and again, we’ve seen John McCain speaking out on various issues that are contrary to his campaign’s (Read: The GOP’s) official line. Last Sunday, McCain told George Stephanopoulos on national TV that he hasn’t ruled out raising the payroll tax in reference to fixing Social Security.

Two days later on Fox “News”, McCain spokeman Tucker Bounds told Megyn Kelly that “(T)here is no imaginable circumstance where John McCain would raise payroll taxes. It’s absolutely out of the question.” This isn’t a mere anomaly, either. As Think Progress points out, this is the third time just this week that McCain’s campaign has said that McCain wasn’t speaking for the campaign.

Translation: “Don’t listen to John McCain. Just vote for him. Well, actually, you’re not voting for him. You’re voting for the campaign (Again, read: The GOP.).”

This marks the first time, in my memory, that an election campaign has come out and admitted that its candidate is irrelevant. I’ve heard and seen candidates say (as with the Phil Gramm “whiners comment”) that people within their campaign weren’t speaking for them.

Never before now have I ever heard a campaign staffer say that a candidate wasn’t speaking for the campaign.

So, for whose campaign was McCain speaking? Obama’s?

Ordinarily, I’d go hog wild on this and be making all sorts of "empty vessel" and "male love doll" references but I can barely stop laughing long enough to correctly type these words so just go to Think Progress and read it for yourself.

There's your meme, Democrats. It worked when applied to Howard Dean in 2004, why not apply it to a guy who has real, actual, documented anger management issues?

Apparently even "some" in the GOP are worried about John McCain embracing his dark side, and apparently, Karl Rove:

In recent days Senator John McCain has charged that Senator Barack Obama “would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign,” tarred him as “Dr. No” on energy policy and run advertisements calling him responsible for high gas prices.

The old happy warrior side of Mr. McCain has been eclipsed a bit lately by a much more aggressive, and more negative, Mr. McCain who hammers Mr. Obama repeatedly on policy differences, experience and trustworthiness.

By doing so, Mr. McCain is clearly trying to sow doubts about his younger opponent, and bring him down a peg or two. But some Republicans worry that by going negative so early, and initiating so many of the attacks himself rather than leaving them to others, Mr. McCain risks coming across as angry or partisan in a way that could turn off some independents who have been attracted by his calls for respectful campaigning.

The drumbeat of attacks could also undermine his argument that he will champion a new brand of politics.

Of course, that is all dependent on the media doing its job and pointing out that John McCain is now playing the same dirty, ad hominem attack politics that George W. Bush did. Will Americans fall for it again?

Labels: anger management, John McCain

Labels: icepick meet forehead, John McCain

Or what I prefer to call “Penises on Roller Skates.”

Yesterday, when faced with the inconvenient truth that the asshole who shot up a Unitarian church in Tennessee last weekend, killing two and wounding many others, was one of their own, a psychopathic bigot and homophobe who was in possession of books by Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity, the proud denizens of Middle America and Freeperdom did what any group of righteous conservatives would do: Distance themselves from him and turn it into a referendum on the evils of immoral liberalism.

Remember the running of the bulls in Pamplona earlier this month? Remember the mad dash, the chaos, the blood and gore? OK, now substitute the bulls for rabid ferrets and lemmings and you’ll get the picture.

What follows are actual comments to the Freeper post that broke the sad news that Adkisson was one of their own. This is right about the time when it’s OK to breath a sigh of relief and thank Providence that you weren’t born in the corn belt and were sane enough to become liberals:

He's NO conservative... just a deluded lunatic sociopath. I don't recall the MSM targeting people with any other philosophy for outright character assassination!

Oh, perish the thought. He’s not a conservative. He’s just someone who hates African Americans, gays and lesbians and sees red at the thought of any organization dedicated to Altruism. And “character assassination” is bad enough but using a shotgun with 76 shells is sort of overkill, wouldn’t you say?

The libs and the MSM have salivated for years over the prospect of angry, white, christian, conservative terrorism against their pet immorality and perverted views of religion.

They will attempt to play this up as such as much as possible a such when the truth is, this was simply a diluded. depressed individual who snapped and became a murderer.
It has nothing to do with conservatism or traditional values, despite the upcoming best efforts of the MSM to the contrary.

The problem is, you psychopaths give us plenty of opportunities to play up “angry, white, christian, conservative terrorism”, such as the assclown who tried to blow up a building rather than lose it in divorce court… with himself still in it after leaving behind another hateful, rambling manifesto.

Are liberals now a protected class or is it because these Unitarians are “gay-friendly” that this is a hate crime?

It ain’t open season on liberals, yet? Yee-haw, ya’ll! Getcher buttfucking and flag-burnin’ in while you can, boys!

Although it makes sense that he hated liberals since that is what he attacked, I do not necessarily believe that story. I noticed the police chief did not quote the note just gave his interpretation of it.

I would love to see exactly what he said.

I love a man with an open mind and can always be brave enough to take the insane side of an argument.

Could be a liberal disguised as a conservative in order to give conservatives a bad rap.

Loonies!

Don’t stop… believing! Yes, people, our shockingly brilliant strategy of murdering our own and disguising our Manchurian Candidate as a red, white and blue shirt-wearing conservative perhaps has a few bugs in it. Next time we bomb an abortion clinic or something, we’ll need a better conspiracy. And, in response to the comment above:

One can only hope!

Never give up hope that one day we’ll be as desperately insane as Freepers.

That’s a theory that could be plausible. Maybe he’s really a liberal and wanted to end his life and make conservatives look bad. That would explain why someone who hates religion would attack a liberal church.

Drat, foiled again by those brilliant basement dwellers!

This guy is no more a true constervative than Timothy McVey was. Conservatives don’t commit acts of terrorism. I won’t believe this until the killer’s actual letter is released. It could be the sheriff is a liberal himself and is saying these things to smear conservatives.

Translation: If a guy reads conservative literature, has conservative prejudices and biases and lashes out at the very people lambasted and threatened in conservative literature and hate radio and TV, then he is not a conservative. That’s because conservatives don’t commit acts of terrorism: They just strongly suggest that others carry them out for them. Those others are, of course, we bleeding heart, animal-loving liberals.

And, just as surely as conservatives are never terrorists, all southern sheriffs are liberals.

How is this a hate crime? It is an attrocity and a vengeful act, but the people he killed and aimed at weren’t homosexuals or members of a protected class. Christians in and of themselves are not protected by hate crimes legislation.

Because… because… I’m sorry, my brain vapor-locked because I made the mistake of actually reading this more than once.

Psst. Fred “God hate f**s” Phelps is a Democrat and no conservative.
Not claiming that this man is a Phelpist, just pointing out that there are Leftists (like Phelps’ cult who protest the Iraq war weekly) who hold hate in their heart that seems to be hand in hand with this man’s actions.

Additionally there are those social conservative Democrats who “cling to guns and religion” and vote against such ballot initiatives and liberal candidates “in spite of their own economic self-interest”.

Yeah, Phelps, too, is one of our own, doncha know, since we’re renowned for loathing homosexuals and wishing death on our troops.

These types of “churches” to me are using the word only for tax purposes, because they absolutely teach nothing like any of the churches I grew up around. Then again, maybe I’m a nut too. I guess I just need to get with it, and start embracing homosexuality, gay marriage, and killing little babies!!

Admitting you’re a hateful, homophobic nut is half the battle won, my child.

So, basically, the guy was a nutcase, but I’m sure the MSM will try to portray ALL conservatives in an equal manner.

Got Paranoia?

The Left has been subverting churches for decades now.
Now they don’t even teach hate the sin but love the sinner. They teach the concept of an evolving bible where we now deny that some things even are sins and celebrate them instead.

I’ve left corrupt church leadership but have not left my faith. There are good churches out there, so I hear. But it requires investigation. Investigation too into any national church leadership they are members of.

I don’t know what can be done to put churches back on a biblical path. Elders and the like. Elections. What is the limtus test to get people in the organized church who are counter to the politics of those who’ve gained control of the church?

Ask Monica Goodling and Jim O’Beirne. They had the religious litmus tests last time I checked.

The libs appease Islamic terrorists when they kill innocents. I wonder if this church will therefore appease those who share this freak’s views?

Well, could you blame them for being scared shitless of you Freepers?

Ironically the authorities in Knoxville aren't going to prosecute the four blacks that went out and abducted a couple of UT students, raped them, tortured them and then murdered them because they were white. This incident makes national news yet the previous murders went barely noticed except for a couple of articles in the MSM...I guess if one expresses hatred for homosexuals it makes national news, gets the FBI involved and if one just hates whitey its ok...no big deal.

This guy’s right, actually. What the MSM needs is more leading news stories that stay alive for one or two hundred news cycles that involve abducted, missing and murdered white women.

In reviewing the posts I see an interesting difference between “liberal” and “conservative” political killers.

Conservatives distance themselves from the murderers who cite conservative polical purposes for killing and cry out for justice regardless of stated politcal purposes(this wacko, McVey, etc).

Liberals point out how oppressed the leftist killer is, how he or she needs understanding and that society was truely responsible for driving him or her to it or allowing a gun to exist that could do such damage. Later, they declare the killer rehabilitated and give him or her a professorship at a major university.

A bit simplistic perhaps, but truer than any liberal would like to admit. Also, let no one misconstrue my sarcasm with a lack of understanding for the victims of this wack job.

Simplistic? Oh, hardly. In fact, I can reduce it further:

Conservatives: Boo! You not us!

Liberals: Me heart bleed.

Media outlets can no longer ignore our souring economy when even official government statistics are now reflecting the bad news. It's safe to say that we now have inflation, declining home prices, stagnating wages (see chart on page 36 of the link), and rising unemployment rates. As soon as the statisticians run out of seasonal adjustments to tinker with, we might even be able to declare that we are entering a recession.

The reporting of our economic woes does not sit well with the financial elites. Pity those who can only maintain their lavish lifestyles by shipping our jobs overseas, devising even more complex and exotic financial instruments, and lobbying politicians for favorable treatment, while all the time relying on an endless supply of easy money courtesy of Ben Bernanke, Chinese investment, and the Japanese carry trade.

We've wised up to the fact that there's not a lot of good news to report in the economy. Financial publications are running out of creative ways to gloss over the bad news and emphasize the positive. Luckily, through the techniques of codespeak, subliminal messages and subterfuge, they might be able to keep the American public off the scent for a little while longer. Although London-based, The Economist's recent article, "Workingman's Blues", is a perfect example of one of those condescending "so simple even a [pick your favorite target: factory worker, Midwesterner, retiree, or soccer mom] can understand it" types of posts.

For those of you who are too busy to read the article, it basically says, yes, some economic indicators are heading downward, but these factors only affect people who don't really matter, like poor people, blue-collar workers and baby-boomers. The rest of us are just getting hysterical over negative media headlines and really ought to get a grip on ourselves.

For those of you with time to read the article, I offer you this simple translation guide to all of the double-talk.

Codespeak #1: "American voters are in a horrible mood this year. Democrats are sick of George Bush. Republicans are sick of the Democrats running Congress. Everyone worries about Iraq, either because they think the war should never have been fought, or because of the long, costly and thankless slog it has turned into. The latest violence in Afghanistan is depressing. The culture war grinds on: America is slouching towards Gomorrah or theocracy, depending on your viewpoint. The earth is either cooking or being overrun by eco-fanatics. And the American economy is tottering."

Translation #1: The general public is uneasy, for the good reasons listed above. Americans are getting feisty and combative. In these dangerous times, all we need is a normally innocuous event, like, oh, for the sake of argument, the economy taking a nosedive, to set this simmering dissatisfaction on fire.

Codespeak #2: "The polls tell a dismal tale. Only 29% of Americans approve of the president. Only 14% approve of Congress. And just 6% view the economy positively. Yet many Americans combine despondency about the big picture with personal contentment. More than 80% say they are satisfied with their own circumstances. Even more are satisfied with their jobs. And although nearly everyone despises Congress, most Americans like their own representatives."

Translation #2: Since more than 80% of us are satisfied with our lives, our concern for other people who may be suffering is clearly displaced. The article even goes on to describe the recent Phil Gramm debacle over our "nation of whiners", and how we are being profoundly influenced by the negativity in our nation's headlines, and the even gloomier predictions from overseas news outlets.

What exactly does "More than 80% say they are satisfied with their own circumstances. Even more are satisfied with their jobs." mean? There is a huge difference between "I love my house. I love my retirement fund. I have no reason to believe that I'll ever lose my job." and "I love my job, but I'm terrified I'll lose it next week, then lose my house because I won't be able to make my mortgage payments. My 401(k) goes up and down like a yo-yo since Wall Street insiders handle my money as if they were playing in a sandbox, and I've already had to tap into my retirement account the last time I lost my job. But yes, I have a roof over my head, I'm not starving, and I have the love and support of my family. I can't complain."

Codespeak #3: "Amity Shlaes, the author of a history of the Great Depression, thinks the comparison [to the Great Depression] is absurd. During the 1930s, she notes, 'people lost their homes even though they had borrowed only 10% of the purchase price." People losing their homes today often borrowed more than 90%. And today’s unemployment rate, though rising, is 5.5%. In the Great Depression, it peaked at 25%."

Translation #3: You know an article is in trouble when it quotes Amity Shlaes as an authority. As the author of the book, The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression, she is regularly paraded out in public to let us all know that we are not nearly as bad off as our ancestors in the 1930's. If I understand this correctly, we should all go back to our homes and re-emerge with our pitchforks only after our official unemployment rate hits 25%.

Subliminal Message #1: After devoting several inches of copy about the rise in gas prices, the decline in housing values, and the loss of employment opportunities (in an attempt to seem like the authors aren't totally oblivious to our pain), the article comes up with this seemingly harmless item. "John plans to quit construction, move to Texas and get into publishing. He is a college dropout, but reckons that “if you do some research, you can make a lot out of nothing” in America."

Subliminal Message #1 Brought into Consciousness: Hmmh. John is having problems because he does not have a college degree. We all know that a college education is the key to guaranteed success. Right? Also, John lives in Dale City, Virginia, an area that is experiencing an economic downturn. If we could all get our diplomas, pile into our rusting SUV's and move to Houston, all of our problems would be solved. Once we get to Houston, we should probably plan on continuing to live in our SUV's to make it that much easier to move to the epicenter of the next economic bubble when the opportunity arises.

Codespeak #4: "Meanwhile, others see an opportunity in Dale City’s collapse." Housing is all of sudden much more affordable.

Translation #4: Smart people avoid getting involved with any activity associated with an economic bubble. When the bubble collapses, smart people swoop in and feed off of the carrion.

Subliminal Message #2: "But some shocks are hard to adjust to. The American suburban idyll of big homes and big gardens relied on cheap petrol. With gas prices high, many suburbanites yearn for a shorter commute. But they cannot quickly or easily sell their homes and start living in denser clusters with better public transport. Nor is it clear that they want to. So they suffer, and pray for petrol prices to fall. Sometimes literally: Rocky Twyman, a community organiser from Maryland, leads group prayers at petrol stations to beg for divine intervention. "

Subliminal Message#2 Brought into Consciousness: Americans are a bunch of idiots who wouldn't recognize an easy solution if it came up and bit them in their faces.

Subliminal Message #3: "But the earnings gap between the most-skilled workers and everyone else has been widening since the early 1980s."

Subliminal Message #3 Brought into Consciousness: Go to college and major in something besides art history.

Subterfuge#1: "Figures collated by Emmanuel Saez, an economist at Berkeley, make the point starkly. In the 1990s, the incomes of the richest 1% of taxpayers went up 10% a year in real terms (see chart), while those of the other 99% grew at an average annual rate of 2.4%. Between 2002 and 2006 the richest 1% saw 11% annual real income growth: everyone else got less than 1%. Three-quarters of the gains from the Bush expansion went to 1% of taxpayers, who now receive a larger share of overall income than at any time since the 1920s.

Technology is probably the main culprit, but Americans prefer to blame trade. The latest Pew Research Centre survey of global attitudes found that only 53% of Americans think trade is good for their country, down from 78% in 2002 and lower than in any of the other 23 countries included in the survey. "

Remedy of Subterfuge #1: Did an editor accidentally delete some verbiage between the two paragraph listed above? How did we jump from the richest 1% getting 11% annual income growth to us blaming trade because the remaining 99% of us plebeians are getting less than 1% income growth? Could The Economist have forgotten the part about how, in the search for the lowest costs possible, whole industries are being shipped overseas along with the associated blue collar and manufacturing engineering jobs? Did the authors think of how many seemingly safe information technology, engineering, legal, accounting, financing, journalistic etc. jobs are also heading overseas? And employees for the jobs that are remaining here in the U.S. are facing competition from both illegal and legal guest workers and immigrants who are imported to do the jobs Americans supposedly won't do? And many of the high-skilled jobs performed by H-1B guest-workers are exported out of the country for good after the guest-workers have been sufficiently trained? And the consequence of all of these events is to bring down our wages?

Technology is the culprit, and the free trade that allows this movement of jobs and workers is just one big red herring? Could someone please sit down with their pretty charts just one more time and again explain to us all of the benefits of globalization?

Subliminal Message #4: "The baby-boom generation (people aged 43-62) are glummer than the young or the elderly, according to Pew. Some 55% of boomers think it unlikely that their income will keep pace with the cost of living in the next year, compared with 44% of 18-42-year-olds and 43% of those aged 63 or more."

Subliminal Message #4 Brought into Consciousness: Those self-centered baby boomers deserve all of the bad luck heading their way. That's no problem, since most baby boomers are no longer in any key marketing demographic group, and businesses don't really care if they spend their money or not.

Wait a minute! Since when has being realistic about our income prospects meant that we are being gloomy? Wasn't this irrational exuberance about our economic prospects the root of all of our overspending to begin with?

I'll end right here, since the last paragraph is worth it's own post.

As we can see from "Workingman's Blues", our economy and financial system is clearly in shambles. However, trying to make reforms to make everyone's lives better is just too much work, and may cause the unintended consequence of the richest 1% having to put even more of their money in offshore tax shelters in order to maintain their current lifestyles. If we can take a few simple steps, we should be able to fool ourselves into thinking our lives are getting better for at least the next five years or so. If this can help stave off criticism of the financial markets in Britain, so much the better.

By all means, do everything you can to improve yourself. Pay off your debts. Conserve on gasoline and heating oil. Take classes and upgrade your skills. Move to parts of the country that are actually hiring people. But once you get settled in, don't forget about all of the political and financial abuses that caused this mess. Vote intelligently, send letters to the editors, boycott products, and do what you can to make a lot of noise. The people ruining our country right now know what they're doing. Help them rediscover their guilty consciences.

(Cross-posted at Carrie's Nation.)

Labels: economic death watch, globalization

Why is it that when a guy with a gun shoots a school full of Amish kids, or goes on a rampage at a college, it receives nonstop coverage for a week...but when a guy with a gun and a house full of treatises by Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and Michael the Savage Weiner, Joe Scarborough is talking about Obama "dissing the troops"?

Labels: hack journalism

Frankly, it scares the shit out of me to know that our Justice Department is filled with lawyers who don't even know when they're breaking the law.

The Justice Department released an internal memo today to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees telling us basically what we've known since spring last year. That Republican operatives (gasp) hired people based on their loyalty to conservative issues and George W. Bush.

Kyle Sampson, through his lawyer, considers to this day his highly partisan hiring practices "an honest mistake." Considering that refusing to hire people for career positions at the Department of Justice because of political considerations is breaking a basic law that you would think every lawyer would know, especially one already working at the DOJ, it kind of makes one wonder what other clowns got in and what Republican credentials they had to show.

Goodling's shyster, John Dowd, bristled at the thought that his client lied to Congress by saying,

"Far from attempting to conceal information, Ms. Goodling went to great lengths to provide the Congress with relevant facts, including important information about matters that had not yet come to the public's attention."

So explain to us why she'd never admitted this information when she testified May of last year in her 5th amendment-laden non-testimony?

Here's a short list of the people Goodling refused to give "the keys to the Kingdom" of Bushworld: A man who was suspected of being "a liberal Democrat", a man with antiterrorism experience whose wife's political affiliations were suspect and even a woman just suspected of being a lesbian, which is also a clearcut case of a civil rights infraction. Then, April of this year, Goodling was accused of engineering the ouster of a highly qualified attorney for the same reason, despite the lady's extremely high performance reviews.

This brazen and frankly fascist attempt to achieve political purity at the Department of Justice is frighteningly reminiscent of Nazi Germany's attempt to keep the Homeland purely Aryan by purging their nation of Jews and homosexuals. One wonders if Goodling and Sampson marked the files of unwelcome applicants with pink triangles.

So, Bush's goon squad essentially weakened our efforts in the war on terror, set gay and lesbian civil rights back about a half a century and blatantly broke the law and expect mercy because they apologized for it afterwards and, despite how they made their living, claimed ignorance of the law.

WH mouthpiece Tony Fratto sniffed at the DOJ memo and said, "There really is not a lot new here."

Unfortunately, he's right, since this blatant partisanship that stretches from the Department of Justice all the way to Iraq is just business as usual in the kingdom of the ideologically blind.