Oooops. Looks like Rolling Stone magazine forgot to renew their website domain, and someone grabbed it.
ObamaCare
For about a year now, teabaggers and GOp operatives have been lamenting “ObamaCare”. Either out of ignorance or dishonesty, the right’s use of the phrase “ObamaCare” is, quite simply, wrong.
Obama has never put forward a health care plan. He’s left it to Congress. And that turned out to be a waste of time, as the GOP repeatedly called for the health care reform to be watered down, and then refused to vote for it.
Well, now Obama has a health care plan. Now, we actually have “ObamaCare”.
Aside from the specifics of the plan (which are laid out over several pages on the White House website), one of the noteworthy things is that it appears that Obama is taking a different tack with the GOP. He’s clearly putting the ball in their court.
For example, the White House website specifically notes the many “Republican ideas” in Obama’s health care plan. This puts Republicans on the defensive. No longer can they reject health care reform on the notion (which was never true, by the way) that their “ideas” were ignored. In black and white, their ideas are now incorporated. This puts the ball squarely in the Republican’s court. They can no longer whine about being shut out of the process.
Now, of COURSE, the GOP is still going to vote “no” on health care reform. The problem (for them) is, they no longer have the we-weren’t-listened-to excuse. Now, their obstructionist agenda will be exposed for what it is — an obstructionist agenda.
In other HCR-related news, the big news comes from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who is embracing the reconcilation process to get some lesiglation passed. He announced that congressional Democrats would likely opt for the reconcillation process, allowing the Senate to make final changes to its healthcare bill with only a simple majority of senators, instead of the 60 it takes to normally end a filibuster. One wonders why it took him so long to do this, but we’ll let that pass.
UPDATE: On further reflection, I think Ezra Klein is right about this:
The talk right now is about what “Democrats” will do on health-care reform. But the truth of the matter is that we know how 95 percent of Democrats will vote. We know what the congressional leadership and the White House want. But the fate of this project lies with a relatively small number of ambivalent Democrats in the House of Representatives. No one knows exactly who those votes are (though they’re mainly among these folks, and then the Stupak 14) , nor what they want. Say what you will about Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman and Blanche Lincoln, but they made their demands loudly and clearly.
A lot of the confusion right now, however, comes because the concerns of House members are not as well understood. The media is focusing on the theater between Barack Obama and the Republican leadership, but the outcome will be decided between Democrats, not Democrats and Republicans. So far as the White House is concerned, they’re the real audience for Thursday’s summit, and no one knows exactly what they’re hoping to see.
Chick Flicks
Basically, the chick flick template is this:
First part of the movie: he hates her; she hates him
Second part of the movie: both principal charactors realize they their mutual loathing for each other is just a cover for the fact that they really deep down love each other; at some point the male character (typically, Hugh Grant) apologizes profusely for behaving so boorishly in the first part of the film
You can spice it up and add interesting sub-charactors (a kid, the girl's best friends, etc.), or set in a different time period or exotic locale — hell, make one of the charactors a vampire – but you've pretty much got the formula for most chick flicks.
This, ladies, is the reason guys don't like chick flicks — they're rather predictable.
And ladies, if you want your guy to watch a chick flick with you, there are certain things you can do find a chick flick tolerable to guys:
- Make sure there are action sequences. Titanic did this so well that most guys even forgot it was, at its core, a chick flick.
- Find one with badass lines. Ex: "My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."
- Make sure the female lead is the kind of person that guys fantasize about, and not at all like, you know, you. Ex: Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman (or, to a lesser extent, Meg Ryan in When Harry Met Sally, but only in that scene)
- Make sure the male lead has a job that guys fantasize about, and not at all like their jobs in real life. See Jerry McGuire and Top Gun.
- Find one with John Cusack. From Say Anything to High Fidelity to (yes, even) Sixteen Candles, there's something about Cusack which de-chickifies the chick flick.
- Make sure Hugh Grant is not in it.
- Make it The Notebook, which worked (for some unexplained reason).
And if none of that works, give up on your honey and find this guy:
Nick Waters, a 29-year-old man from Pauls Valley, Oklahoma, has become something of a celebrity after he pledged to watch “30 chick flicks in 30 days,” an ambitious goal to be completed by today, February 14th–Valentine’s Day. He did it and says that he is a better man because of it.
So, how did this blogger with a mission come up with something like this, and why? He didn’t do it for the attention: he claims that he did it to become a better husband. His introductory statement on his website says: “First, you should know that I’m that ‘guy’ exploring these films. Second, my name is Nick. I’m a husband, and have been for seven years. Third, no one put me up to this. And fourth, I’m not some professional film critic. I live in a small town in southern Oklahoma. I work in communications.”
At first I was skeptical: how much can a guy really learn from so-called “chick flicks,” movies where the women are often emotionally unstable wrecks, the guys are stereotypical at best, and true love happens in an hour and a half? But, to Nick Waters’ credit, a few of the movies he chose went deeper than “Bridget Jones’s Diary” and “Legally Blonde” (which are two of my favorites, by the way). He says that one of his favorites was “Atonement,” and some of the movies he listed I have never even heard of. And I was impressed that “Sex and the City” was Day 12 on his list.
Nick Waters says, “I have relearned so many things during this as it pertains to trust, communication, love and what it means to work for a marriage versus just being in a marriage. Life is an adventure and if you can pursue that adventure with someone you love, it makes it even more memorable.”
And you can read the full list of his chosen movies on his website: http://30chickflicks.com/
Elton John’s Theology
"I think Jesus was a compassionate, super-intelligent gay man who understood human problems"
Hey, I'm a rather liberal open-minded guy, but even I don't buy that Jesus was gay.
What Exactly Is Terrorism Then?
The guy flies an airplane into a federal building. In the online note he left behind, he wrote:
I know I’m hardly the first one to decide I have had all I can stand. … I can only hope that the numbers quickly get too big to be white washed and ignored that the American zombies wake up and revolt; it will take nothing less. I would only hope that by striking a nerve that stimulates the inevitable double standard, knee-jerk government reaction that results in more stupid draconian restrictions people wake up and begin to see the pompous political thugs and their mindless minions for what they are. Sadly, though I spent my entire life trying to believe it wasn’t so, but violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer.
And the Homeland Security officials release a statement saying:
“We believe there’s no nexus with criminal or terrorist activity”
Excuse me, but it was terrorism. Maybe not international terrorism, but terrorism nonetheless, even by the FBI's twin definition of terrorism:
Domestic terrorism refers to activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any state; appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. [18 U.S.C. § 2331(5)]
International terrorism involves violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any state, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any state. These acts appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping and occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.
RIP Kathryn Grayson
The star of popular MGM musicals of the 1940s and '50s ("Anchors Aweigh," "Show Boat" and "Kiss Me Kate") used to make my ears bleed — especially when she sang with duets with Howard Kiel – but she was an icon in movie musicals. So she deserves her due credit.
She died at age 88. (She was born, by the way, in Winston-Salem).
Thoughts On The Austin Texas Plane Guy
After reading his suicide note, conveniently posted online here (until it gets removed) it seems to me that this guy, while somewhat literate, simply isn't very smart.
The suicide note (which I've copied and pasted below the fold in case it goes away from the original site) is one long screed — mostly anti-government, and in particular, anti-IRS (which would explain why he flew his plane into Austin's IRS building offices).
But this part jumped out at me:
To survive, I was forced to cannibalize my savings and retirement, the last of which was a small IRA. This came in a year with mammoth expenses and not a single dollar of income. I filed no return that year thinking that because I didn’t have any income there was no need. The sleazy government decided that they disagreed. But they didn’t notify me in time for me to launch a legal objection so when I attempted to get a protest filed with the court I was told I was no longer entitled to due process because the time to file ran out. Bend over for another $10,000 helping of justice.
For a guy who claims to have read and studied the tax code, it's rather surprising to think that he didn't need to file a tax return, even if he had no income. It sounds to me like he is blaming the government for all his problems.
In the very next paragraph, he talks about having unreported income, and being audited. Well, which is it? Not a single dollar of income, or all kinds of unreported income?
It certainly looks to me like he was trying throughout his career to do an end run around the IRS. I suspect that he was one of those nutty tax deniers, who think the federal income tax is unconstitutional. He got caught. And whose fault is that? According to him, "Big Brother" (the government).
Regardless of who is to blame, it's no excuse to kill yourself by flying a plane into a government office.
He closes this way:
As government agencies go, the FAA is often justifiably referred to as a tombstone agency, though they are hardly alone. The recent presidential puppet GW Bush and his cronies in their eight years certainly reinforced for all of us that this criticism rings equally true for all of the government. Nothing changes unless there is a body count (unless it is in the interest of the wealthy sows at the government trough). In a government full of hypocrites from top to bottom, life is as cheap as their lies and their self-serving laws.
I know I’m hardly the first one to decide I have had all I can stand. It has always been a myth that people have stopped dying for their freedom in this country, and it isn’t limited to the blacks, and poor immigrants. I know there have been countless before me and there are sure to be as many after. But I also know that by not adding my body to the count, I insure nothing will change. I choose to not keep looking over my shoulder at “big brother” while he strips my carcass, I choose not to ignore what is going on all around me, I choose not to pretend that business as usual won’t continue; I have just had enough.
I can only hope that the numbers quickly get too big to be white washed and ignored that the American zombies wake up and revolt; it will take nothing less. I would only hope that by striking a nerve that stimulates the inevitable double standard, knee-jerk government reaction that results in more stupid draconian restrictions people wake up and begin to see the pompous political thugs and their mindless minions for what they are. Sadly, though I spent my entire life trying to believe it wasn’t so, but violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer. The cruel joke is that the really big chunks of shit at the top have known this all along and have been laughing, at and using this awareness against, fools like me all along.
I saw it written once that the definition of insanity is repeating the same process over and over and expecting the outcome to suddenly be different. I am finally ready to stop this insanity. Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let’s try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well.
Goodbye, Joseph Andrew Stack, you douchebag.
UPDATE: A lot of people are trying to peg this guy's political leanings, but I think Tim at Balloon Juice accurately conveys my thoughts:
On a certain level, anti-tax extremism more or less automatically qualifies someone as a right-winger. Still, I don’t see this morning’s airplane attack on IRS buildings in Austin as explicitly political. The pilot’s suicide note mostly makes him sound like a tightly-wound guy who snapped after a long string of very bad luck.
I agree. This guy is a little hard to peg. He is angry about taxes, about the broken health care system, about the "vile, corrupt Catholic church," the rich ("when the wealthy fuck up, the poor get to die for the mistakes"), and the political system that supports them. His screed is both a little teabaggy and a litte communist, at the same time. He just seemed angry at everyone, without having affinity for any political leanings at all, as best summed up by this quote:
"There has never been a politician cast a vote on any matter with the likes of me or my interests in mind. Nor, for that matter, are they the least bit interested in me or anything I have to say."
Conservative Blogger Finds Proof That Obama Is A Socialist
The conservative blogosphere is having a collective climax today because a blogger from sayanything.com snapped a photo of some old reference books about socialism in the White House Library.
Decension In The Ranks
Long-time readers of this blog know that I occasionally write about squirrels, and their inherent evilness and diabolic plot to rid the Earth of all mankind.
Fortunately, there is good news to report. Like the Republican party and Tea Party movement, there are signs that the furry rats are not getting along:
Irony-Impaired
The conservative CPAC is underway. And although I expected that many of the conservative speakers would be making jokes about Obama's use of a teleprompter (they can't help themselves), I didn't expect this:
Sam Stein of Huff Post tweets that there have now been six teleprompter jokes at the conservative CPAC conference, all read off of teleprompters.
It's not certain if they all read their jokes off the teleprompter, but as the photo shows, the teleprompter is clearly there. It doesn't look out of place; it's a staple of all political podiums for the past 40 years.
UPDATE: Perhaps the irony of today’s situation wasn’t lost on all conservatives. On Twitter, the National Review’s Kathryn Jean Lopez said that she’s had enough of these teleprompter jokes, writing, “I’ve heard at least three teleprompter jokes already. In front of a teleprompter. Godspeed to the man who uses the teleprompter. … My patience may be exhausted for teleprompter jokes. Especially because some has got to be using it.”
Republicans And Conservatives Gather To Sign A Silly Piece Of Paper And Congratulate Themselves
It's like the "Contract with America" from the 1990's, but without anything of substance.
Yup, the GOP likes to sign little manifestos committing themselves to the conservative values that (they believe) the Founding Fathers had (never mind the fact that the true conservatives in the Coloniel era sided with the British).
Today's monumental screed is called "The Mount Vernon Statement", and it contains the typical pablum of conservatives wrapped up in nonsensical (and somewhat inaccurate) evocations of 1776. Yup, a bunch of 'em are signing the thing at the homestead of George Washington (slaveowner until he died, but whatever), wrapping themselves in the American flag, and heading off to some posh D.C. nightspot for gin and tonics.
The MVS has no details, and makes no attempt to resolve the conflicting interests of social conservatives, economic conservatives, hawks, and libertarians. It's just a blanket statement that somehow these groups all have the exact same interests (do thay?), and all of them agree with a very generalized vision of the Constitution, specifically, a call for "constitutional conservatism", which it defines in broad meaningless statements:
* It applies the principle of limited government based on the rule of law to every proposal.
* It honors the central place of individual liberty in American politics and life.
* It encourages free enterprise, the individual entrepreneur, and economic reforms grounded in market solutions.
* It supports America’s national interest in advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that end.
* It informs conservatism’s firm defense of family, neighborhood, community, and faith.
All nice, but what would "constituional conservatism" say about a small tax increase as part of a larger plan to pay down the national debt? Does that violate the principles of limited government and market solutions, or is it actually a step towards the greater conservative good of solvency and fiscal responsibility? If conservatives are to "prudently consider what we can and should do" to end tyranny, where does waterboarding fit in to that matrix? (Libertarians and many conservatives oppose it; many conservatives support it — does this document resolve that issue? No.)
There's a lot more to be said about "The Mount Vernon Statement" but Daniel Larison of American Conservatve Magazine (yup, a conservative) seems to have hit upon a major point of conservative hypocrisy:
I cannot object to the statement that the “federal government today ignores the limits of the Constitution, which is increasingly dismissed as obsolete and irrelevant.” This is true. However, I have no idea why the organizers of this gathering think that anyone will believe their professions of constitutionalism after enabling or acquiescing in some of the most grotesque violations of constitutional republican government in the last forty years. If constitutional conservatism means anything, it has to mean that the executive branch does not have wide, sweeping, inherent powers derived from the President’s (temporary) military role. It has to mean that all these conservatives will start arguing that the President cannot wage wars on his own authority, and they will have to argue this no matter who occupies the Oval Office. It has to mean unwavering conservative hostility to the mistreatment of detainees, and it has to mean that conservatives cannot accept the detention of suspects without charge, access to counsel or recourse to some form of judicial oversight. Obviously, constitutional conservatives could in no way tolerate or overlook policies of indefinite detention or the abuse of detainees. They would have to drive out the authoritarians among them, and rediscover a long-lost, healthy suspicion of concentrated power, especially power concentrated in the hands of the executive.
Until we see these basic demonstrations of fidelity to constitutional principle from the would-be constitutional conservatives of this Mount Vernon meeting, we should assume that this is little more than a new ruse designed to rile up activists and donors during a Democratic administration in order to breathe new life into a moribund and bankrupt movement.
The Golden Issue: Campaign Finance
If the Democrats were smart, they will take this issue and own it. The issue: the recent Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, where the Supremes ruled 5-4 that corporations have the same rights as individuals when it comes to political speech and can therefore use their profits to support or oppose individual candidates. The decision appears to open the door to unlimited spending by corporations, trade groups and unions in the weeks leading up to an election, which has been explicitly banned for decades.
Obama has spoken out against it. But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) among other Republican lawmakers have praised the ruling as a victory for free speech. They have stated that they intend to oppose any legislation designed to gut the impact of the court's decision.
Why is this issue a good one for Democrats? Because a huge number of people — of all political stripes — oppose the Supreme Court decision:
Our latest ABC News/Washington Post poll finds that 80 percent of Americans likewise oppose the ruling, including 65 percent who “strongly” oppose it, an unusually high intensity of sentiment.
Seventy-two percent, moreover, support the idea of a legislative workaround to try to reinstate the limits the court lifted.
The bipartisan nature of these views is striking in these largely partisan times. The court’s ruling is opposed, respectively, by 76, 81 and 85 percent of Republicans, independents and Democrats; and by 73, 85 and 86 percent of conservatives, moderates and liberals. Majorities in all these groups, ranging from 58 to 73 percent, not only oppose the ruling but feel strongly about it.
Even among people who agree at least somewhat with the Tea Party movement, which advocates less government regulation, 73 percent oppose the high court’s rejection of this particular law. Among the subset who agree strongly with the Tea Party’s positions on the issues – 14 percent of all adults – fewer but still most, 56 percent, oppose the high court in this case.
So here you have an issue where Democratic lawmakers are clearly on the side of the vast majority of Americans (including Tea Partiers!), and Republican lawmakers are staunchly opposed. This is a great opportunity for Democrats to expose themselves as the real populists, and to expose Republicans as beholden to their corporate overlords.
By the way, for those who are wondering why I disagree with the court's ruling, I'll state it briefly. I'm for free speech. I believe in it, and the Constitution guarantees it. But the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was not written for corporations and unions. Pfizer, Inc is not an entity endowed by God with certain inalienable rights — I am, you are, but not Pfizer, or Exxon, or Bank of America, etc.
The Supreme Court lost sight of who the Bill of Rights was meant to protect. Can the CEO of Pfizer contribute his own money to a candidate's campaign? Certainly, as an American citizen protected by the First Amendment, he has that right. But can he (and the rest of the Pfizer board) take corporate money (which, technically, belongs to the shareholders) and "speak" in such a manner? No, in my view. That's actually engaging in "compelled speech", the antithesis of free speech.
Most people instinctively recognize this. And that's why Democrats need to put this issue front and center.
UPDATE: Then again, this line of attack against the GOP is getting a lot of traction:
Quotes I Love
Family Research Council's Tony Perkins said on Fox News this morning:
"I think over the years the conservative movement has become too aligned with the Republican Party."
Why do I love it?
Nothing like inter-party wrangling to help the Democrats stave off total disaster in 2010.
Which prompts me to ask a question: with the Teabaggers putting their own candidates up for election, are they in the Tea Party Party or just the Tea Party?
The Kennedy Smear Job
That JFK was unfaithful to his wife is no historical secret.
And it is a free country. If someone wants to make a miniseries about Kennedy's extramarital tendencies, that's fine.
But there is such a thing as historical fact and historical fiction. The planned miniseries on "The Kennedys" falls into the latter category and does not belong on the History Channel. (It's slated to come out at a time when the country will be recognizing the 50th year of Kennedy's death).
Watch the video below, and sign the petition.
The Stimulus Has Been Working
Republicans, including the Scott Brown of Massachusetts, are claiming right and left that Obama's stimulus just didn't work. (Brown is making the incredible claim that it didn't create "a single job").
David Leonhardt of the New York Times puts this meme to rest (not that it won't change the GOP message) in a thorough and compelling way:
Just look at the outside evaluations of the stimulus. Perhaps the best-known economic research firms are IHS Global Insight, Macroeconomic Advisers and Moody’s Economy.com. They all estimate that the bill has added 1.6 million to 1.8 million jobs so far and that its ultimate impact will be roughly 2.5 million jobs. The Congressional Budget Office, an independent agency, considers these estimates to be conservative.
Yes, unemployment is still high. But that doesn't mean the stimulus failed. It just means we avoided another Great Depression, which is what it was designed to do.
Republican hacks like to sputter the same tired line, i.e., "but but but the unemployment rate continued to go up after the stimulus package was put in place". Well, of course it did. It wasn't like unemployment was going to turn on a dime, especially since ALL the stimulus money wasn't spend right away (in fact, most of it still hasn't been spent). But more importantly, the point of the stimulus wasn't designed to turn the unemployment rate around, but merely to keep it from going to astronomical rates (15% and 20%). To actually turn it around, the stimulus would have to have been twice as big, and nobody (save Paul Krugman and a few others) had the political stomach for that.
You don't take aspirin and immediately feel better and start tapdancing on the ceiling. Republicans are grasping at straws when they try to argue that the stimulus was a faillure, when clearly — VERY clearly — it stemmed the flow of joblessness and drove the economy back from the brink.
The other Republican talking point is that there were flaws and mismanagement and misreporting with the stimulus package. All true, and not entirely unexpected when it comes from a massive government program (NASA, I believe, has had its setbacks too, as well as every war every faught).
But these, however, were isolated incidents (often exaggerated) which don't negate the overall economic picture (as indiciated by the graphs at he left, all from nonpartisan economic sources). In any event, just because the stimulus did not work as well as the Obama Administration predicted, doesn't mean it failed to work at all.