Another Diggin-Your-Hole-Deeper Day for the GOP

Well, wow. The last couple days have been..... just...... wow. I mean, seriously. Yesterday, we had New Gingrich twittering from Auschwitz, aka, really lowering the bar. Now we get this gold mine from Rush Limbaugh:


Tom Tancredo, self proclaimed foe of diversity and multiculturalism, was asked whether or not President Obama hates white people today, to which he replied, "I don't know." Which is not to say that Tancredo believes President Obama hates white people, he just does not believe that President Obama does not hate white people. Totally different, if you are an ignoramus.

But let us, for some ridiculous reason, actually look into this claim. Does Obama hate white people? Hmmph. Let's see. His Vice President is white. His Chief of Staff is white. His Secretary of Defense is white. His Secretary of State is white. His Secretary of the Treasury is white. I think you see where this is going. A lot of people in his administration are white, plenty of them male too.

I think he really does hate white people. Let's keep digging.

Ohhhhh wait. His mother is white. His grandparents, on his mother's side, are white. Doesn't that make him white?

It is a blatant statement about yourself when you think someone who is half black, half white, probably hates white people. You might want to think before speaking from now on.

Just Shut the F*ck Up

I swear to, well, who or whatever, that if I hear one more conservative say that the 2008 election is proof that we do not need affirmative action, I am going to tear my hair out. Of course, with the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court, the conservatives are all giddy about this chance to yell at minorities about how horrible life is for white males. "White men need not apply" they scream. So let's have at it.

Yes, the Sotomayor pick is affirmative action. President Obama picked a female, and a hispanic one at that, and those traits surely played a role in his choice. I am going to state, right now, that that is a good thing. It is good that our President intentionally chose a hispanic female. As to the "White men need not apply" meme; it is not that white men need not apply, it is that, for the last couple centuries, the sign read "All but white men need not apply."

Now on to the claim that the 2008 elections demonstrated that our country no longer needs affirmative action. First off, the vast majority of the people making this claim never supported affirmative action to begin with. They do not think we no longer need it, they never wanted it at all. Let us forget that for a moment, and discuss the validity of this claim. First thing conservatives say is, "President Obama proves that anyone can make it in America." They forget one thing. That is, that President Obama says himself that he “undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action” And he did. The only reason he could afford to go to such fantastic universities is because of a strong student loan program and partial scholarships. And while these loans and scholarships did not make him who he is, to claim he did not "benefit" from them is ubsurd. And it is a non sequitur to argue that because President Obama achieved much, affirmative action is no longer needed. Just because A is true, it does not necessarily mean B is true. The only thing President Obama's story should tell us, is that affirmative action can actually do exactly what it is intended to do: help minorities take steps towards more success.

Now on to Sotomayor and the predictable conservative outcry that she was chosen only because she is a minority. This claim, is complete crap. It is the regurgitation of the unsubstantiated conservative meme that all affirmative action choices are made solely because of race or gender. I will try to state this as plainly and directly as possible: Affirmative action is not about promoting unqualified minorities, rather, it is about intentionally seeking out qualified minorities, in an effort to correct past mistakes.

Sotomayor is absolutely a qualified candidate. In fact, she is possibly the most credentialed SC nominee in my lifetime. She was chosen beacuse she is qualified. Her race did play a role in this choice, but her credentials were the priority.

Michelle Malkin Does Not Want Muslims In Jail

Michelle Malkin, in today's column, chastises President Obama for daring to hold Muslim terrorists in US prisons. This comes after the arrests of four homegrown terrorists. A plot that was foiled by a traditional FBI investigation, not by torture or warrentless wiretapping. A plot that was foiled over a year, not on a ticking-time-bomb. She argues that holding these men in US prisons allows the "virus" of terrorism, no wait, Muslim terrorism, to spread like wildfire.

Before I get into the meat of this argument, I would just like to give Malkin a grammar tip. When you have multiple adjectives describing a single noun, as in, "murder-minded black Muslim jailhouse converts..." commas are required in between adjectives. I know, it is so hard to use proper grammar with all that oozy hatred spewing out of your mouth.

I have long argued that the chickenhead warhawks of our nation seem utterly obsessed with Muslims. Where was Malkin when this happened:

Federal Agents arrested a former National Guardsman for allegedly planning to blow up a synagogue and a National Guard armory in Tennessee.

The only difference between this terrorism and the type that Malkin thinks has no place in our jails, is that this terrorist was white and Christian. Malkin misses, however, one major issue.

FBI Special Agent R. Joe Clark said, “Mr. Braden represents the most difficult kind of terrorist - the lone wolf.”

But that kind of terrorism is okay to have in our jails. That kind of terrorist is not a threat to hummanity in our prisons. Only the, black, Muslim, jailhouse converts (see how easy it was to use those commas), not the white, Christian, neo-Nazi, National Guard converts, are dangerous.

Oh, and as to Malkin's criticism about President Obama not talking more about this, where was she all those numerous times the Republicans refused to talk about an ongoing investigation? Is it at all possible that President Obama is waiting for all to be said and done before needlessly commenting on what appears to be a successful investigation?

Bush's First 100 Days: "A Surplus Unending", Another Stupid (Yet Moral) War, Hypocrisy, Hypocrisy, Hypocrisy

Let us take a glance to the past and examine President George W. Bush's first 100 days in office:

Item #1: PBS

MARK SHIELDS: The president's mantra is: we have a surplus unending. If we can afford a $1.6 trillion tax cut, then my goodness we can afford $50 billion more for AIDS research; we can afford a billion more for children's literacy. That's the fight he is going to fight. It isn't just - he's going to find out it isn't just Democrats versus Republicans; it's Republicans and Democrats and all bets are off because there is a surplus and there is no deficit.

And then there's this:

PAUL GIGOT: The surplus has been a disaster for believers in small government, there's no question about that. It makes it very hard to make-- you have to make the case against spending on a philosophical basis and there are not a lot of politicians who are really prepared to do that. They say, well, we can't spend because of the deficit; that was the great --

That really puts into perspective the recent chest-thumping cries about spending coming from our Republican friends. Apparently, it is only politically worth it to decry spending after you have managed to destroy a surplus.

Funny quote about Vietnam:

PAUL GIGOT: The right -- on the other hand -- said, "It wasn't executed well but it was a morally right effort on our behalf."

Funny how they end up saying that every time we say, "This is a stupid war, I'm against it." (I realized I should explain why this quote is in here. It came up in the discussion about Sen Kerrey)

On Bush's bipartisan cred, we present Item #2: CNN

"You could call him 'Wedge' for the way he has been driving Democrats and Republicans apart on an issue as important as the budget," Tom Daschle

And here's a quote from Bush that really makes you think about the latter part in relation to Republican's killing pandemic flue funding:

"Politics in Washington has been divided between those who wanted Big Government without regard to cost and those who wanted Small Government without regard to need."

And on to Karl Rove, with Item #3: CNN. First, his guess, after Bush's first 100 days, on how the world will judge President Bush:

ROVE: Over the long haul they are going to see this administration as one is that committed to using new technology and new innovative approaches to clean the air, clean the water and clean the land.

Remember that "clean the air, clean the water and clean the land" means to take absolutely no steps, whatsoever, to actually do that. Let the market take care of it!

On President Cheney, oops, VP Cheney's back room energy deals in comparison to the Clinton's health care efforts:

ROVE: Well, there's no comparison, Wolf. Mrs. Clinton's task force involved hundreds of experts who met for months and months and months and months and months to produce a series of proposals for President Clinton. This is a small group of Cabinet-level officials, who are meeting to discuss a recommendation that they're going to propose to the president for a comprehensive energy policy.

Shock!!!! How dare the Clintons involve "experts who met for months..." Good thing Bush's energy policies were made by a small cabal of politicians and oil executives and not "experts." Only Rove can use the term "experts" as an insult without his head exploding.

Then there's this, on President Bush's travels across the country:

ROVE: The American people like to see their president out among the people explaining their agenda, visiting with them, hearing what's going on around the country, and it's a useful exercise.

Contrast that with his remarks on President Obama's travels:

ROVE: He's been around the country, getting on the television, doing events to draw attention to himself -- there is a danger of being overexposed, particularly if it sounds like he is saying the same thing.

Ooooooo, Item #4: FOX: this is a pretty hilarious quote from Matt Lewis:

First of all, think of the hypocrisy here. If George W. Bush had, in the middle of a crisis like this, gone on Jay Leno, or Letterman, or any show, liberals, and probably everybody would have been outraged.

Yes, President Bush's mid-crisis management was impeccable:


That's Bush and McCain during the Katrina disaster.


And that's Bush being told, literally, "America is under attack." You will recall he then spent the next several minutes attempting to appear calm, rather then leaving immediately to handle the crisis.

Oh, and the next time someone chastises President Obama for not having more bipartisan success, ask them about President Bush's first budget, which only one Democrat would support.

Don't Torture, But Tell Them We Do

I guess I have to add my two cents to the torture topic, with the release of Bush admin memos. Talking point number 1 from the GOP is that the release of this information makes us less safe. They say, that telling our enemies about our tactics hurts us. That terrorist now know that if they are captured by the US they will not actually be hurt, therefore reducing our ability to trick them into thinking we will hurt them.

This is the single stupidest argument I have ever heard. Do we want terrorists thinking they will be tortured if caught? Did Japan not use that fear to train their soldiers to fight us until death because capture would be worse than death? I want the world to know, to be completely confident, that the US will not torture them. Have we not seen Al-Qaeda using torture, Abu Ghraib, and Guantanamo as a tool for recruitment? If we are going to say, as President Bush did (blatantly lying to the American people) that we absolutely do not torture, do we not want the world to know that?

It is simply idiotic, not wrong, idiotic to argue that America should not torture, but should make sure the world thinks we do so they are scared of us. Idiotic. Idiotic. Idiotic.

In the Wall Street Journal, Michael Hayden and Michael Mukasey make this idiotic argument, as elegantly as they tried to frame it:

Public disclosure of the OLC opinions, and thus of the techniques themselves, assures that terrorists are now aware of the absolute limit of what the U.S. government could do to extract information from them, and can supplement their training accordingly and thus diminish the effectiveness of these techniques as they have the ones in the Army Field Manual.

Prove it. Actually give us proof of these claims, or shut the fuck up. We as an electorate, can only make accurate decisions about our Representatives if we are informed, so spare me the we have to lie (a lie of omission is still a lie) to you to protect you.

I guess we will call this the "Bluff technique" to anti-terrorism. Do not actually torture but tell the world we do torture. This is what we call speak hard but walk with a soft stick. Simply stupid.

The Google Constituency and New Incentives

There is a uniqueness of the "Youtube Era" and that is the creation of the "Youtube Election." Although, in truth they should be called the "Google Era" and the "Google Constituency." I guess I should briefly explain why I call it the "Google Constituency" and not, specifically not, the "Youtube Election." The reason is, that Youtube, while a substantial part, was merely one of many tools used to increase our communication and connectedness. Google, while only one tool as well, is a symbol of our ability to find information. As a search engine, one that works magnificently, it represents our ability to find what one said yesterday to check it against today. And while Youtube made those moments of hypocrisy and pandering real and vivid, there were many other forms of communication that played a role as well. Blogs acted as a running log of expectations, surprises, fears, hopes, and lies. Ads embedded at a website acted as a volunteer, registering voters, expressing a candidates message, and recruiting more volunteers. All this, and much more, combined with our ability to find this relevant information to create an impressive force of citizen power.

The "Google Constituency" brings with it, consequences that, in large part, protect and progress the integrity and sanctity of our electoral process.

The increase in communication and ease with which the individual can find information has had a specific effect on politicians (many of them) and the idea of political messaging. Whereas, in decades past, politicians had a clear incentive to say one thing to one group of people and something completely different to another, in the election of '08, anything you said could be easily uploaded and blogged. It became somewhat of a risk to pander.

And there was another, more unexpected, consequence. That consequence is the exact opposite of the "say one thing to one group and another to another" strategy. That is the political gain of saying the wrong thing to the wrong group of people intentionally, out of principal. President Barack Obama (then Senator Obama) spoke of carbon caps and energy efficiency in Detroit, and the importance of fatherhood at a mostly African American church. Both of these speeches could be seen as condecending, or could be taken that way by the members of the audience. A "Google Constituency" however, makes those local events a national occurrence. Therefore, while President Obama was speaking to a small group, the entire country was listening. While he may not have been in front of the choir, at least not for the specific issue he spoke of, the choir was still listening. And those that disagree with you tend to respect pandering less than saying something they disagree with, assuming they find out it was just pandering.

These events, these instances of saying the wrong thing to the wrong group of people intentionally, became a talking point for surrogates and volunteers to describe President Obama's courage and commitment to the issues he preached, preached even if the choir wasn't listening. This concept is entirely new to politics. The "Google Constituency" has allowed us to question all of the traditional thinkings on political strategies. Standard operating procedures now longer apply.

The Responsibility to be an Asshat, err, I Mean Republican

I need to take a quick minute to share with you, a bit of hilarity from the folks over at redstate. An article they have up about the Gov of the country of Texas.

First things first, a series of questions from sir asshat:

Can anyone tell me that Medicare and Social Security are not each about to hit a wall VERY hard, and leave millions of Americans wondering what in the hell happened to their retirement and health care? Can anyone tell me that the massive amounts of spending being spent will not lead to significant inflation in the coming years? Can anyone tell me that the United States government will enforce its borders? Can anyone tell me that the United States government will take the necessary steps to get adequate fossil fuels, or build nuclear power to maximize liberty and lower energy costs? Can anyone tell me that we will be able to celebrate Christmas in schools or graduate students equipped for the world if we follow the ways of Washington? Can anyone tell me our healthcare system will be better off with greater Washington involvement?

Question 1: Yes. In fact, the Social Security bankruptcy is an unsubstantiated myth. When our government evaluates Social Security, they put together three separate forecasts. An optimistic one, a pessimistic one, and one somewhere in the middle. The one saying it will be bankrupt is the middle one. At first glance, that sounds reasonable. However, historical evidence shows us that every time, the optimistic forecast has been the most accurate. Our optimistic forecast (put out by President Bush's administration, mind you) says that, not only, will we not be bankrupt, we will have more money for it than we do now. Secondly, when it comes to Medicare, please show me one mainstream Republican that is in favor of cutting Medicare, or cutting up their own Medicare card. Otherwise, shut the fuck up about it.

Question 2: First off, "spending being spent" is not exactly proper English. As you like to say to the non-whites, you're in America, learn English. And no, I cannot tell you it will not lead to inflation. What I can tell you, is that doing nothing (or in Republican, cutting taxes and reducing regulations) would have a far worse impact on our economy after the devastation of your king, err, President Bush.

Question 3: Yes. In fact, liberals support enforcing the border (especially pro labor liberals). And, I think, our support for it will increase tenfold if Texas secedes. Secondly, I ask conservatives to name one democrat since Reagan's amnesty drive that has reduced the number of boarder patrol guards. Until then, shut the fuck up.

Question 4: Yes. You know what else they'll do in the process, invest in new, cheap, cleaner, more efficient forms of energy to make us "energy independent" so we don't have to give so much money to the conservatives most hated people, Muslims (see "terrorist" in the GOP dictionary).

Question 5: That's not a real question, right? Name one, one single move that President Obama has taken to outlaw celebrating Christmas in schools? This reminds me of when I got in a fight with a McCain staffer because one of their guest speakers accused President Obama (then Senator) of wanting to outlaw the National Anthem and the Pledge of Allegiance. Seriously, you whacko, fuckhead, see a therapist.

Question 6: Yes. In fact, the best health care systems are Medicare and the Veterans Health Administration. I dare you too find anyone clamoring to get off Medicare. In fact, when ever people do switch from Medicare to a private option, they later complain about being lied to, manipulated, scammed. So yes, almost anything would be better than an industry which makes its money off denying coverage to the ill (or the people that need health care, as I like to call them).

So, in conclusion, shut up.

And about that crazy, asshat of a Governor, the federal government has the right to attach strings to funds (which is why I agreed with the feds that schools who refuse military recruiters can lose federal funding, I would be the first one to set up a table next to them telling people not to enlist while we have an immoral war going on in Iraq, but I agreed with the feds). Where was this outrage while President Bush tied our economy up and put out lit cigars on it? Where was this outrage when we found out that President Cheney, err, Bush was spying on Grannies for peace?

Where was the outrage when our legislators passed the Patriot Act, the single largest dump ever taken on the Constitution?

Republican's are not conservative. They are anti Democrat. In other words, they support everything the Republican's do, so long as it is not in line with anything the Democrats do, and if it is, they better have done it first.

I call your bluff Governor Perry. Our opinion on the subject has not changed. So, either secede and cut off all ties to this oppressive dictatorship, or shut up with the grandstanding.

President Bush on Piracy

Quick note: I know this blog has been somewhat inactive as of recently. Between my hospital trip, my trip to Albany for the special election, getting a new job, and partnering up with a film maker to produce political videos, I needed a little rest.

Piracy has been the hot topic of the last week or so. While not nearly enough attention is given to the question of how these men became pirates (a sad story of nuclear waste and illegal fishing), what has been talked about even less is this little PDF put out in December of 2008.

This reminds me of Clinton's Counter Terrorism Initiative. The big difference? President Bush threw his predecesor's plans out the freakin window, whereas, President Obama left his predecessor's plan in place. It may have been insufficient (like the majority of President Bush's attempts to solve a problem), but it was not ignored.

Daily Chatterings: Friday, April 3rd 2009

THE BIG CHATTERING:
Yesterday marked a big day for President Obama and First Lady Michelle. Michelle was especially powerful, though not for her clothing. Her speech to the group of students from a girls school in London was simply moving. I said during the primaries, there are times I like Michelle even better than President Obama. This was one of those times. In these moments, she represents the definition of the American dream. A dream that no matter who you are, you have the ability to achieve whatever you set your mind on. It is truly an honor to have her represent our nation. I did not include a link beacause I have two videos down page for you to watch.

SOME OTHER CHATTERINGS:
As you know, the special election to fill Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand's seat ended in an astonishingly close initial result. There are still absentee and military votes to be counted, but I think this piece by the NY Liberal Examiner sums it up perfectly (although they Sen. Gillibrand's name wrong).

Students at Radford University in Virginia had a serious scare.

This is a huge victory for President Obama. This administration is acting quick and boldly. I for one, am pleased.

YOUR DAILY VIDEO TO CHAT ABOUT:
I could not keep it to only one....




Anything I'm missing?

Daily Chatterings: Friday, March 27th

THE BIG CHATTER:
Everyone is chatting about the Republican announcement of a "budget" proposal. Just when you think they cannot dig deeper, when you think they cannot appear more out of touch, the Republican party brings us a new definition of "WTF?!?" Later on today, we will go through it page by page, which will only take one day because it is not a budget plan, which would take forever to go through. Oh yeah, they will release the budget, for realsies this time, on April fools. Thank you so, so much!

SOME OTHER CHATTERINGS:
Natasha Richardson's tragic death may have saved the life of a seven-year-old girl.

Marijuana legalization has been creeping its way into mainstream discourse. It broke out in a big way last night.

North Dakota is getting slammed right now. You have to admire the well organized, hard working efforts going on there.

Japan has green lighted its military to shoot down the missile that North Korea is preparing to test. It's going to be a good show.

YOUR DAILY VIDEO TO CHAT ABOUT:


Anything I'm missing?

Teabagger Chris Krok Helps Define Hypocrisy

cross-posted at DailyKos

This, is a direct quote from Chris Krok, admitted teabagger, while on Luo Dobbs Tonight, aired March 24th.

Fix this country, not run it into the ground and stop worrying about basketball.

This, is obviously directed at President Obama. Of course, Krok is furious that an elected official would dare take a few minutes to connect with average voters by describing his march madness bracket. I guess he did not notice this on the home page at RNC.org:


So, our President, who has undeniably been more engaged, proposed bigger plans, and achieved more than almost any President in such a short time, needs to focus on the economy more and on basketball less. However, the GOP, whose website does not present a single budget proposal, has plenty of time to worry about basketball.

I cannot wait to hear his next show, when he lambastes the RNC for spending time on such trivial subject matter! (snark)

Daily Chatterings: Wednesday, March 25th

THE BIG CHATTER:
Everyone's been talking about President Obama's news conference on his budget plan. Well, it's really the budget plan itself getting all the news. He is making it clear that health care reform, green energy, and a strong investment in education are essential towards fixing our economy. This is something progressives have been arguing for a while, and I am not sure I ever thought we would have a President making that argument for us.


SOME OTHER CHATTERINGS:
It is Democracy for America's fifth birthday today. The DFA is largely responsible for starting the 50-state strategy and utilizing small donors over the internet, both factors in President Obama's historic victory in 2008.

Not really news, but President Obama is mentioned in the first 5 stories under CNN's latest news column.

Obama: Mexico cartels 'completely out of hand'
Obama vows to 'attack this crisis on all fronts'
Ticker: Obama gives tough answer to CNN
iReport.com: Share reaction to Obama briefing
Jindal defends those who want Obama to fail

Speaking of idiots, Jindal is a complete idiot.

"Make no mistake: Anything other than an immediate and compliant, 'Why no sir, I don't want the president to fail,' is treated as some sort of act of treason, civil disobedience or political obstructionism," Jindal said at a political fundraiser attended by 1,200 people. "This is political correctness run amok."

I will wait patiently for him to look at how anti-war progressives were treated during the last eight years. Apparently, when there is a Republican, war President, the slightest criticism is an affront to our troops and to our nation. However, if the President is a Democrat, it is your patriotic obligation to oppose him by all means.

No doubt you have heard about the increased violence on the Mexican border, now the President is sending more agents to the border.

Apparently Hedge Fund managers were some of the only people making money this last year, mostly betting against stocks.

As major markets and economies careened downward last year, 25 top managers reaped a total of $11.6 billion in pay by trading above the pain in the markets

I will not be surprised to find these guys closely connected to AIG, Bear Sterns, Lehmann Brothers. If I had the accounting skills, I would be checking their books to see whether or not their big winnings came from betting against companies they had connections to. And one thing I never understood, where does the money come from when you bet against a company and it fails? I understand that when you invest in a company and it does well, you get some of those earnings. But whose pocket does it come out of when you bet against a company? Whose money do you get?

Financial experts are declaring that they believe the recession is not far from rebounding. I have been saying for some weeks now, that I believe we are near the bottom. Recent upticks, and this report lead me to believe I was right.

YOUR DAILY VIDEO TO CHAT ABOUT:


Anything I'm missing?

Daily Chatterings: Saturday, March 21st 2009

THE BIG CHATTER:
Once again, three days in a row, the AIG bonuses are going to be on the tip of everyone's tongue. Especially considering this development. Looks like citizen outrage is turning into action. We'll be waiting on the edge of our seats for something to happen next week, and chatting about it all weekend long.

SOME OTHER CHATTERINGS:
Sarah Palin has been all over the news. First, she's refusing federal stimulus funds, following suit with fellow ditto-head Governors. Then she played politics with President Obama's slip up on Letterman. I have a feeling there will be a lot of talk of her fake support for special needs people.

A wrench has been thrown in President Obama's budget plans. Karl Rove is surely glad to hear it, and will go on and on about this tomorrow while neglecting to ever mention that the only reason this spending is necessary is because he and his buddies destroyed our economy.

Treasury Secretary Geithner is still in the hot seat. He's got some work to do to fish himself out of this one. But we're going to do a little bit of work to help him out later.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, under fire for his handling of the bonuses paid to AIG executives, faces a critical weekend as he fights to remain as the Obama administration's lead economic spokesman.

Something good is actually coming out of President Obama's slip on Leno:

March 31 is being billed a "national day of awareness," a call to Americans to recognize and rethink their use of the word "retard," or as the organization would prefer, the "R-word."

Obviously, this new campaign was not a result of President Obama's slip, but coincidentally launches only two weeks after it. And the President's mistake is sure to bring far more attention to this campaign then the organizers were expecting.

There was also a big update on the tragic death of Natasha Richardson. I would not say there is enough to go on yet, but this is a very serious update.

YOUR DAILY VIDEO TO CHAT ABOUT:
This actually hurts to watch.



Am I missing anything?

Sarah Palin: The Definition of Hypocrisy

cross-posted at dailykos

Sarah Palin was real quick to play politics with President Obama's slip on Leno. She ran to a camera to put her two cents in on this one.

This was a degrading remark about our world's most precious and unique people coming from the most powerful position in the world... I hope President Obama's comments do not reflect how he truly feels about the special needs community.

Of course, everyone knows that Sarah Palin has a special needs child, which automatically makes her right on anything related to special needs (snark). I was especially irritated by her "innocent" statement at the end. Now, of course that was not meant to imply that those comments do reflect President Obama's view of special needs (more snark).

But what about how she "truly feels about the special needs community."

Palin actually slashed funding for schools for special needs kids by 62%.

Typical. Shall we dig further?

How about this gem, during her first major policy address. This is when she was asked about how she planned on funding special needs programs while simultaneously cutting the budget.

Palin claimed that the amount that Congress spends on earmarks “is more than the shortfall to fully fund IDEA.” She then ridiculed some of the projects — such as “fruit fly research” — saying they have little or no value: "Where does a lot of that earmark money end up anyway? […] You’ve heard about some of these pet projects they really don’t make a whole lot of sense and sometimes these dollars go to projects that have little or nothing to do with the public good. Things like fruit fly research in Paris, France. I kid you not."

Sounds all good, right? Except that:

The discovery, made in Drosophila fruit flies may lead to advances in understanding autism spectrum disorders, as recently, human neurexins have been identified as a genetic risk factor for autism.

"I kid you not." That's what happens when you get all high and mighty about an issue you only have fake concern for and have neglected to research.

So spare me the passive aggressive bull sh*t.

Daily Chatterings: Friday, March 20th 2009

THE BIG CHATTER:
It would appear that, barring some unforeseen outrageousness, the big issue today will be the AIG bonuses. Now that the House passed a bill to tax the bonuses almost out of existence, watch out for the similar legislation that has been introduced in the Senate. I also expect a lot more fighting over who is to blame for letting the bonuses happen.

SOME OTHER CHATTERINGS:
March 20th marks the six year anniversary of the Iraq war. If you asked me seven years ago whether or not we would be stuck in a war in Iraq today, I would have found the question ridiculous.

The AP is reporting that:

At least 13 firms receiving billions of dollars in bailout money owe a total of more than $220 million in unpaid federal taxes, a key lawmaker said Thursday. Rep. John Lewis , D-GA., said two firms owe more than $100 million apiece.

I'm guessing that $220 million will get some chatter time from the talking heads.

There's definitely going to be a lot of talk about President Obama's appearance on the Tonight Show last night. And I kind of doubt it will be about this being the first President to go on the Tonight Show. Big slip.

UPDATE:
Special Olympics Chairman, Tim Shriver, nephew of Sen. Ted Kennedy, has been making the rounds. Apparently, President Obama called him before getting on Air Force One, before the show aired.

"He expressed his disappointment and he apologized in a way that was very moving. He expressed that he did not intend to humiliate this population."

Senator Chuck Graham joins in with this facebook status update:

wonders if Biden will make fun of Obama for pulling a "Biden" last night on Leno

For those of you that are unaware, that is this Senator Chuck Graham.

END OF UPDATE

This is a really depressing story. I often focus so strongly on our economy, that I forget the global economy is hurting.

Aokigahara Forest is known for two things in Japan: breathtaking views of Mount Fuji and suicides. Also called the Sea of Trees, this destination for the desperate is a place where the suicidal disappear, often never to be found in the dense forest.

How is this news?

Lastly, I'm guessing that Republican talking point #1 today will be that President Obama should fire Geithner. And by talking point #1, I mean I expect to see the ditto heads united and spouting the exact same phrases. These Republicans completely support the bonuses, but will be more than happy to criticize Geithner.

YOUR DAILY VIDEO TO CHAT ABOUT:
It is going to be fun to see how good President Obama is at picking his March Madness bracket.


Anything I'm missing?

Daily Chatterings: Thursday, March 19th 2009

THE BIG CHATTER:
Yesterday, everyone was focused squarely on the AIG testimony on the hill. The night ended with a powerful speech by President Obama. I imagine it will be chatted about a good amount today. As I noted in one of my posts yesterday, I was struck by the comparison of the AIG bonuses to the captain of a ship and the crew stealing life rafts from the passengers. I feel that this truly explains the Wall Street mentality over at least the last decade. I will spend today combing through C-Span footage of the hearing to find the Representative that made that comparison. Hopefully, I can post a video of his comments later today, but I will definitely have an expanded analysis of that comparison coming shortly.

UPDATE: I found the House Financial Services Subcommittee video footage. Sadly, the format sucks (exactly what I expect from a government run website, other than President Obama's of course). I'm combing through it, the printed version would be a lot easier, but that still isn't up.

SOME OTHER CHATTERINGS:
Surely, there will be chatter about the tragic death of Natasha Richardson.

There have been plenty of people blaming Senator Chris Dodd for the AIG bonuses slip in the last bailout bill.

Jon Stewart is having Bruce Springsteen on the Daily Show tonight, and we will probably see Jon drooling as much as when Tom Waits was on.

This one will be really interesting to watch;

"Rep. Charles Rangel says the House plans to take up a bill Thursday that would impose a 90 percent tax on bonuses paid to top-earning employees at AIG and other companies receiving big government bailouts."

You can read the entire bill here (it's a pdf that will download when you click the link).

UPDATE: The house passed the bill. It was a pretty overwhelming vote, 328-93, bringing a lot of Republicans into our realm of socialism. It will be interesting to see if the more reserved Senate does anything on this.

A sort of cool chattering, today is C-Span's 30th birthday! I, for one, am very thankful for everything the good folks at C-Span do.

YOUR DAILY VIDEO TO CHAT ABOUT:


Anything big I'm missing?