.......................................................
Boehner's Economic Terrorism
Andrew Sullivan, 30 Jun 2011
We have a potential catastrophe of national default, an event whose consequences are unknowable but which could quite easily wreck the US and global economies, profoundly damage people's savings, raise interest rates and destroy jobs for a very long time. In most countries, the goal of the entire political class is to avoid such a thing if at all possible. Greece is currently facing down riots in order to slash its deficit. Britain is entering a period of profound austerity. All of this pain is to prevent the worst possible crisis to hit a country: default. All responsible politicians understand this is something to be avoided at all costs. Conservatives especially see any weakening of the full faith and credit of sovereign governments or the EU as very destabilizing to growth and democratic stability.
So here we are in the USA, with our own awful debt crisis, and the possibility of default and one of the two major parties is saying effectively: bring it on. Even more amazing, it is the conservative party that seeks the collapse of the global economy if they do not get their way on every single thing.
Some sane Republicans (Coburn) are absolutely right in my view that spending needs to be cut deeply, broadly and permanently to get us back on track, that Medicare is at the center of the problem and that corporate welfare is at obscenely high levels. I favor a plan along Bowles-Simpson lines that would truly transform the long-term fiscal outlook, while treading a little gingerly in the next year or so.
But I am also an adult and understand that in the American political system, this kind of package has to win support from House, Senate and president to pass. There will have to be compromise. At a time, moreover, of extreme economic pain in many parts of the country, after a period in which the successful have become relatively richer than everyone else than at any point in recent decades, the sacrifice should surely be shared. You can do this by emphasizing many more spending cuts than tax increases - something I'd favor and something that the British Tories have put into effect. But it is simply insane to believe that the deal can be only tax hikes or only spending cuts and make it through the political process.
For the GOP to use the debt ceiling to put a gun to the head of the US and global economy until they get only massive spending cuts and no revenue enhancement is therefore the clearest sign yet of their abandonment of the last shreds of a conservative disposition. A conservative does not risk the entire economic system to score an ideological victory. That is what a fanatic does. And when that fanatical faction was responsible for huge spending binges in the recent past, for two off-budget wars costing $4.4 trillion, a new Medicare benefit, and tax revenues at a 50-year low relative to GDP and tax rates below the levels of Ronald Reagan, this insistence is lunacy, when it isn't gob-smackingly hypocritical. I say this as someone who was railing against too much spending when these people were throwing money away like it was confetti. "Deficits don't matter," remember?
It seems to me there are two options the president can take. The first is what you are told to do when a criminal or terrorist holds a gun to your head. You surrender.
The point of economic blackmail is that it works. If you have a scintilla of public responsibility and you hold public office, you cannot allow default. And so you give them everything they want. You announce this while declaring you abhor the package but have to back it for the sake of the national interest in preventing catastrophe. You detail and expose the Republican priorities far more aggressively than in the past. You blame the performance of the economy entirely on them from now on out. And you run on a platform of shared sacrifice - of revenue-enhancing tax reform and tax hikes for millionaires. Then you run against the Republicans as hard as you can.
The second option is to bypass them, invoke the 14th Amendment, and order the Treasury to keep paying its debts because an extraordinarily reckless faction wants to destroy the American economy in order to save it (and pin the subsequent double-dip recession on Obama). Bruce Bartlett outlines the mechanism here (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/04/29/The-Debt-Limit-Option-President-Obama-Can-Use.aspx). He has some other ideas for coping here (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/06/30/What-Debt-Limit-Plan-B-is-the-14th-Amendment.aspx).
What you probably cannot do is negotiate with economic equivalent of terrorists. What Cantor and Boehner are doing is essentially letting the world know they have an economic WMD in their possession. And it will go off if you do not give them everything they want, with no negotiation possible. That's the nature of today's GOP. It needs to be destroyed before it can recover.
.......................................................
Thursday, June 30, 2011
FEC rejects boost to "SUPERPACs" (but allows one formed by Stephen Colbert!)
.....................................................
Stephen Colbert allowed to form Super-PAC
Stephen Colbert, the comedic host of "The Colbert Report," was granted permission Thursday to not only form a political action committee but the privilege of promoting it on his show.
The only restriction the Federal Election Commission laid out in its 5-1 ruling was that Colbert could not promote Colbert Super-PAC on any other shows on Comedy Central, the most likely being "The Daily Show," which precedes his 30-minute satirical program.
If any promotion of the PAC does take place outside of "The Report" on Comedy Central or programs aired on Viacom -- its parent company -- it will be considered a political campaign contribution.
Colbert's on-air persona is one of a well-dressed, overly patriotic conservative faintly reminiscent of Fox News' Bill O'Reilly, whom Colbert refers to adoringly as "Papa Bear." That persona was in full bloom after the FEC allowed Colbert to have his PAC.
“There will be others who say, Stephen Colbert, what will you do with the unrestricted Super-PAC money?” Colbert told reporters. “To which I say, 'I don’t know. Give it to me and let’s find out.'”
Later, to a cheering crowd the comic actor addressed the elephant in the room: Was this too satirical?
"Some have cynically asked if this is some kind of joke,” he said. “But I don’t think that participating in democracy is a joke. I don’t think that wanting to know what the rules are is a joke.”
On Wednesday Colbert opened his show by saying, "Change is coming, and I hope a lot of large bills too."
Thanks to the feds, change, bills, checks, money orders and all sorts of politically earmarked dollars will soon be headed Colbert's way.
.....................................................
Colbert's 'SuperPAC' Pushes the Limits of Election Law
[snipped]
Because Colbert's group will not give any money directly to candidates -- instead airing independent ads to support them -- Colbert can take donations of any size.
He forced the FEC to make this decision by planning to operate as a real political group, not a parody.
"If we'd viewed this as a funny request, that would have been a lot easier," Commissioner Ellen Weintraub, a George W. Bush nominee, told Colbert at today's hearing.
In the end, the commission voted 5-1 to approve Colbert's PAC according to guidelines under consideration at today's hearing.
Colbert had sought guidance from the FEC on how to handle air-time and help from Viacom, Comedy Central's parent company -- and this is the area in which his SuperPAC has forced precedents with implications for other media companies, like Fox News.
[snipped]
.....................................................
MORE:
Colbert laughing all the way to the PAC
FEC rejects boost to super PACs
.....................................................
Stephen Colbert allowed to form Super-PAC
Stephen Colbert, the comedic host of "The Colbert Report," was granted permission Thursday to not only form a political action committee but the privilege of promoting it on his show.
The only restriction the Federal Election Commission laid out in its 5-1 ruling was that Colbert could not promote Colbert Super-PAC on any other shows on Comedy Central, the most likely being "The Daily Show," which precedes his 30-minute satirical program.
If any promotion of the PAC does take place outside of "The Report" on Comedy Central or programs aired on Viacom -- its parent company -- it will be considered a political campaign contribution.
Colbert's on-air persona is one of a well-dressed, overly patriotic conservative faintly reminiscent of Fox News' Bill O'Reilly, whom Colbert refers to adoringly as "Papa Bear." That persona was in full bloom after the FEC allowed Colbert to have his PAC.
“There will be others who say, Stephen Colbert, what will you do with the unrestricted Super-PAC money?” Colbert told reporters. “To which I say, 'I don’t know. Give it to me and let’s find out.'”
Later, to a cheering crowd the comic actor addressed the elephant in the room: Was this too satirical?
"Some have cynically asked if this is some kind of joke,” he said. “But I don’t think that participating in democracy is a joke. I don’t think that wanting to know what the rules are is a joke.”
On Wednesday Colbert opened his show by saying, "Change is coming, and I hope a lot of large bills too."
Thanks to the feds, change, bills, checks, money orders and all sorts of politically earmarked dollars will soon be headed Colbert's way.
.....................................................
Colbert's 'SuperPAC' Pushes the Limits of Election Law
[snipped]
Because Colbert's group will not give any money directly to candidates -- instead airing independent ads to support them -- Colbert can take donations of any size.
He forced the FEC to make this decision by planning to operate as a real political group, not a parody.
"If we'd viewed this as a funny request, that would have been a lot easier," Commissioner Ellen Weintraub, a George W. Bush nominee, told Colbert at today's hearing.
In the end, the commission voted 5-1 to approve Colbert's PAC according to guidelines under consideration at today's hearing.
Colbert had sought guidance from the FEC on how to handle air-time and help from Viacom, Comedy Central's parent company -- and this is the area in which his SuperPAC has forced precedents with implications for other media companies, like Fox News.
[snipped]
.....................................................
MORE:
Colbert laughing all the way to the PAC
FEC rejects boost to super PACs
.....................................................
Joey would want to referee
Republican presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann campaigned in South Carolina today in an effort to outpace the media and the wave of headlines that crashed down upon her in the past three days over several gaffes and misstatements she made, a couple of which came as a result of attempting to dodge or explain other gaffes and misstatements.
And although she may not have given the press any more ammunition to use against her, she did give them an image to use as a headline grabber: A mud wrestling fight between the Minnesota Congresswoman and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.
Bachmann acknowledged that the two had a "good" relationship and that the press seemed to be "sidelined" (although how "sidelined" might be debatable in that the press was having a field day with her gaffe-creating prowess).
"They want to see two girls come together and have a mud wrestling fight," she said.
Blogger's note - I thought 50-somethings wanted to be known as "women". Don't lose that redneck appeal, Congresswoman.....
And although she may not have given the press any more ammunition to use against her, she did give them an image to use as a headline grabber: A mud wrestling fight between the Minnesota Congresswoman and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.
Bachmann was in Charleston, S.C., informally addressing a question from one of the roughly 200 in attendance, according to Politico , which had asked what her relationship with Palin was after noting that the press had been attempting to "pit" the two against each other.
"They want to see two girls come together and have a mud wrestling fight," she said.
Blogger's note - I thought 50-somethings wanted to be known as "women". Don't lose that redneck appeal, Congresswoman.....
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Bonum Cursum
The priest was preparing a man for his long day's journey into night.
Whispering firmly, the priest said, "Denounce the devil! Let him know how little you think of his evil!"
The dying man said nothing so the priest repeated his order. Still the dying man said nothing.
The priest asked, "Why do you refuse to denounce the devil and his evil?"
The dying man said, "Until I know where I'm heading, I don't think I ought to aggravate anybody."
Whispering firmly, the priest said, "Denounce the devil! Let him know how little you think of his evil!"
The dying man said nothing so the priest repeated his order. Still the dying man said nothing.
The priest asked, "Why do you refuse to denounce the devil and his evil?"
The dying man said, "Until I know where I'm heading, I don't think I ought to aggravate anybody."
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Bachmann goofs again!
....................................................
Bachmann gets the 'kiss-off' from Petty
Among the many traditions for presidential candidates: Kissing babies and getting kiss-offs from rock musicians.
Just one day after the official start of her campaign for the White House, Rep. Michele Bachmann already faced the latter. Rock Hall of Famer Tom Petty sent the Minnesota congresswoman a cease-and-desist order after she used his 1977 classic "American Girl" as background music at her campaign kickoff Monday in Waterloo, Iowa.
This is not a first for Petty, who is relatively apolitical. He sent George W. Bush's team an order in 2000 when the future president used "I Won't Back Down" at campaign stops -- but he allowed Hillary Clinton to play "American Girl" at campaign rallies in 2008.
Music publishing laws allow recording artists to deny use of a song if the appropriate license was not obtained or if it's used with video footage. Jackson Browne sued Sen. John McCain for using "Running on Empty" in a 2008 commercial.
The first high-profile case was in 1984, when Bruce Springsteen denounced Ronald Reagan's use of "Born in the USA." As with that song -- aimed at America's mistreatment of Vietnam vets -- "American Girl" might not make good campaign material. The "girl" in the song is hung up on a man, and she appears to be contemplating suicide. It ends with these lyrics:
And for one desperate moment, there he crept back into her memory. God it's painful when something that's so close is still so far out of reach.
Petty might be doing Bachmann a favor, in other words.
....................................................
....................................................
Michele Bachmann plays Tom Petty's 'American Girl' again after a speech
Maybe Tom Petty’s cease-and-desist letter hasn’t arrived yet.
The singer was reportedly nonplussed that Michele Bachmann played his “American Girl” classic when she officially kicked off her presidential campaign in Iowa Monday.
Yet the song blasted over the loudspeakers again immediately following Bachmann's Tuesday night speech in South Carolina.
After playing for exactly 29 seconds, it abruptly stopped.
There was just enough time for the lyrics: “Yeah, she was an American girl – raised on promises.”
Then “Walking on Sunshine” came on in its place.
We’ll have to check if Katrina and The Waves have anything to say about this.
....................................................
Bachmann gets the 'kiss-off' from Petty
Among the many traditions for presidential candidates: Kissing babies and getting kiss-offs from rock musicians.
Just one day after the official start of her campaign for the White House, Rep. Michele Bachmann already faced the latter. Rock Hall of Famer Tom Petty sent the Minnesota congresswoman a cease-and-desist order after she used his 1977 classic "American Girl" as background music at her campaign kickoff Monday in Waterloo, Iowa.
This is not a first for Petty, who is relatively apolitical. He sent George W. Bush's team an order in 2000 when the future president used "I Won't Back Down" at campaign stops -- but he allowed Hillary Clinton to play "American Girl" at campaign rallies in 2008.
Music publishing laws allow recording artists to deny use of a song if the appropriate license was not obtained or if it's used with video footage. Jackson Browne sued Sen. John McCain for using "Running on Empty" in a 2008 commercial.
The first high-profile case was in 1984, when Bruce Springsteen denounced Ronald Reagan's use of "Born in the USA." As with that song -- aimed at America's mistreatment of Vietnam vets -- "American Girl" might not make good campaign material. The "girl" in the song is hung up on a man, and she appears to be contemplating suicide. It ends with these lyrics:
And for one desperate moment, there he crept back into her memory. God it's painful when something that's so close is still so far out of reach.
Petty might be doing Bachmann a favor, in other words.
....................................................
....................................................
Michele Bachmann plays Tom Petty's 'American Girl' again after a speech
Maybe Tom Petty’s cease-and-desist letter hasn’t arrived yet.
The singer was reportedly nonplussed that Michele Bachmann played his “American Girl” classic when she officially kicked off her presidential campaign in Iowa Monday.
Yet the song blasted over the loudspeakers again immediately following Bachmann's Tuesday night speech in South Carolina.
After playing for exactly 29 seconds, it abruptly stopped.
There was just enough time for the lyrics: “Yeah, she was an American girl – raised on promises.”
Then “Walking on Sunshine” came on in its place.
We’ll have to check if Katrina and The Waves have anything to say about this.
....................................................
CBS News poll: we say corporate interests rule the U.S. government
........................................
Do corporate interests rule Washington?
In a new CBS News poll, we asked Americans who benefits most from federal government policies, and 66 percent said the rich.
When we asked who members of congress are most interested in serving, 80 percent said special interest groups.
CBS News correspondent Nancy Cordes reports that there is at least some truth to most people's fears about that.
Before leaving town for ten days last week, the House of Representatives found time to pass an amendment designed to help a single drug company, and it enjoyed broad bipartisan support.
The amendment ensures that the "medicines company" of Parsippany, New Jersey, keeps control of the patent for its blood thinning drug "Angiomax," fending off competition from generic drugs at a potential profit of up to a billion dollars.
"This is a special fix for one company," complained Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Tx.
Special fixes are par for the course in Congress, which gave breaks to Nascar track owners and rum distillers in the most recent tax bill.
The CBS News poll shows that's exactly what Americans have come to expect. A full three-quarters of respondents said large corporations have too much influence in American politics.
The findings didn't trouble Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who responded to the poll, saying: "I think that's pretty healthy. If you're looking for times when Americans were in love with Congress they're few and far between."
Ryan Alexander runs Taxpayers for Common Sense, a government watchdog group. She says she sees some signs of progress, like the Senate's recent vote to eliminate $6 billion worth of tax subsidies for ethanol producers.
"These are some of the most profitable companies in the history of the world. And they fought tooth and nail to keep that tax credit. It's going to be very difficult to get it through the House," Alexander says.
As for that New Jersey drug company, the CEO, Clive Meanwell, says the special amendment simply fixes a confusing patent deadline process that has hurt other drugmakers too.
"I'm very pleased that Congress has decided to keep moving this forward because that will benefit others, not just us, other companies, other innovators and of course other patients," Meanwell says.
However, opponents of the amendment say it shows just how easy it is for Congress to find ways around the moratorium it imposed on those pork barrel spending projects, otherwise known as earmarks.
........................................
CBS News poll: United States of Influence: Complete poll results
........................................
Do corporate interests rule Washington?
In a new CBS News poll, we asked Americans who benefits most from federal government policies, and 66 percent said the rich.
When we asked who members of congress are most interested in serving, 80 percent said special interest groups.
CBS News correspondent Nancy Cordes reports that there is at least some truth to most people's fears about that.
Before leaving town for ten days last week, the House of Representatives found time to pass an amendment designed to help a single drug company, and it enjoyed broad bipartisan support.
The amendment ensures that the "medicines company" of Parsippany, New Jersey, keeps control of the patent for its blood thinning drug "Angiomax," fending off competition from generic drugs at a potential profit of up to a billion dollars.
"This is a special fix for one company," complained Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Tx.
Special fixes are par for the course in Congress, which gave breaks to Nascar track owners and rum distillers in the most recent tax bill.
The CBS News poll shows that's exactly what Americans have come to expect. A full three-quarters of respondents said large corporations have too much influence in American politics.
The findings didn't trouble Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who responded to the poll, saying: "I think that's pretty healthy. If you're looking for times when Americans were in love with Congress they're few and far between."
Ryan Alexander runs Taxpayers for Common Sense, a government watchdog group. She says she sees some signs of progress, like the Senate's recent vote to eliminate $6 billion worth of tax subsidies for ethanol producers.
"These are some of the most profitable companies in the history of the world. And they fought tooth and nail to keep that tax credit. It's going to be very difficult to get it through the House," Alexander says.
As for that New Jersey drug company, the CEO, Clive Meanwell, says the special amendment simply fixes a confusing patent deadline process that has hurt other drugmakers too.
"I'm very pleased that Congress has decided to keep moving this forward because that will benefit others, not just us, other companies, other innovators and of course other patients," Meanwell says.
However, opponents of the amendment say it shows just how easy it is for Congress to find ways around the moratorium it imposed on those pork barrel spending projects, otherwise known as earmarks.
........................................
CBS News poll: United States of Influence: Complete poll results
........................................
Russian woman dies at her own funeral after being mistaken for dead
A Russian woman died from a heart attack brought on by the shock of waking up at her own funeral.
Fagilyu Mukhametzyanov, 49, was mistakenly declared deceased by doctors, the Daily Mail reported Friday.
But she later woke up - in a coffin surrounded by sobbing relatives. She started screaming after realizing she was about to be buried alive.
Mukhametzyanov, a resident of Kazan, was rushed back to the hospital where she was declared dead -- this time for real.
Her husband, Fagili Mukhametzyanov, was distraught.
"Her eyes fluttered and we immediately rushed her back to the hospital but she only lived for another 12 minutes," he said.
He told The Sun that he would sue the hospital.
"I am very angry and want answers. She wasn't dead when they said she was and they could have saved her."
A spokesman at the hospital, also in Kazan, said officials were investigating.Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2011/06/24/2011-06-24_russian_woman_fagilyu_mukhametzyanov_dies_at_her_own_funeral_after_being_mistake.html#ixzz1QcptJRQs
Fagilyu Mukhametzyanov, 49, was mistakenly declared deceased by doctors, the Daily Mail reported Friday.
But she later woke up - in a coffin surrounded by sobbing relatives. She started screaming after realizing she was about to be buried alive.
Mukhametzyanov, a resident of Kazan, was rushed back to the hospital where she was declared dead -- this time for real.
Her husband, Fagili Mukhametzyanov, was distraught.
"Her eyes fluttered and we immediately rushed her back to the hospital but she only lived for another 12 minutes," he said.
He told The Sun that he would sue the hospital.
"I am very angry and want answers. She wasn't dead when they said she was and they could have saved her."
A spokesman at the hospital, also in Kazan, said officials were investigating.Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2011/06/24/2011-06-24_russian_woman_fagilyu_mukhametzyanov_dies_at_her_own_funeral_after_being_mistake.html#ixzz1QcptJRQs
We're missed!
...............................
MoNo
Where is Cedar, Intertubes, Spinnacker and the rest of those square headed progressive liberals? Running for cover and hiding.
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/06/28/1703748/obama-is-getting-heat-from-all.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1QbmDNhLw
...............................
MoNo
Where is Cedar, Intertubes, Spinnacker and the rest of those square headed progressive liberals? Running for cover and hiding.
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/06/28/1703748/obama-is-getting-heat-from-all.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1QbmDNhLw
...............................
Keep talking, Bachmann....
WASHINGTON — Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann is acknowledging "misspeaking" occasionally, including wrongly claiming that actor John Wayne was from her Waterloo, Iowa hometown, but says she's "a substantive, serious person" who would be a good president.
Bachman, who announced her candidacy on Monday, flubbed her hometown history in a weekend interview in which she declared "John Wayne was from Waterloo" and "that's the kind of spirit that I have, too."
The actor was born nearly 150 miles away. It was the serial killer John Wayne Gacy Jr. who lived, for a time, in Waterloo.
The GOP congresswoman told CNN on Tuesday her comments "were just misspeaking" and that her main intent was to show she identified with Wayne's patriotism.
"I wish I could be perfect," Bachmann said. "I'm a substantive, serious person" who has "good sense on how to turn the economy around" as president.
Maybe she just needs a better teleprompter
Monday, June 27, 2011
Reposting is fair use
......................................
Not the usual sort of item we post here on ThurstonBlog, but it should be of interest to our members and readers.
......................................
Righthaven Loss: Judge Rules Reposting Entire Article Is Fair Use
By David Kravets June 20, 2011
A federal judge ruled Monday that publishing an entire article without the rights holder’s authorization was a fair use of the work, in yet another blow to newspaper copyright troll Righthaven.
It’s not often that republishing an entire work without permission is deemed fair use. Fair use is an infringement defense when the defendant reproduced a copyrighted work for purposes such as criticism, commentary, teaching and research. The defense is analyzed on a case-by-case basis.
Monday’s ruling dismissed a lawsuit brought by Righthaven, a Las Vegas-based copyright litigation factory jointly owned with newspaper publisher Stephens Media. The venture’s litigation tactics and ethics are being questioned by several judges and attorneys, a factor that also weighed in on U.S. District Judge Philip Pro’s decision Monday.
Righthaven has sued more than 200 websites, bloggers and commenters for copyright infringement. More than 100 have settled out of court.
The lawsuit decided Monday targeted Wayne Hoehn, a Vietnam veteran who posted all 19 paragraphs of November editorial from the Las Vegas Review-Journal, which is owned by Stephens Media. Hoehn posted the article, and its headline, “Public Employee Pensions: We Can’t Afford Them” on medjacksports.com to prompt discussion about the financial affairs of the nation’s states. Hoehn was a user of the site, not an employee.
Righthaven sought up to $150,000, the maximum in damages allowed under the Copyright Act. Righthaven argued that the November posting reduced the number of eyeballs that would have visited the Review-Journal site to read the editorial.
“Righthaven did not present any evidence that the market for the work was harmed by Hoehn’s noncommercial use for the 40 days it appeared on the website. Accordingly, there is no genuine issue of material fact that Hoehn’s use of the work was fair and summary judgment is appropriate,” Judge Pro ruled.
Marc Randazza, one of Hoehn’s attorneys, said he would petition the judge for legal fees and costs.
The judge also said he took into consideration that only five of the editorial’s paragraphs were “purely creative opinions” of the author.
“While the work does have some creative or editorial elements, these elements are not enough to consider the work a purely ‘creative work’ in the realm of fictional stories, song lyrics, or Barbie dolls,” he wrote. “Accordingly, the work is not within ‘the core of intended copyright protection.’”
Judge Pro, in his fair-use analysis, also found that the posting was for noncommercial purposes, and was part of an “online discussion.”
That said, Pro did not need to decide the fair-use question.
That’s because he also found that Righthaven did not have legal standing to bring the lawsuit, a hot-button topic in the Righthaven litigation.
Pro’s decision came a week after a different Las Vegas federal judge threatened to sanction Righthaven, calling its litigation efforts “disingenuous, if not outright deceitful” when it came to standing. Standing is a legal concept that has enabled Righthaven to bring lawsuits on behalf of the copyrights owned by Stephens Media.
That blistering decision by U.S. District Judge Roger Hunt, the chief judge in Nevada, places into doubt Righthaven’s year-old business model, which is also under a Colorado federal judge’s microscope.
Hunt gave Righthaven two weeks to explain why he should not sanction it for trying to “manufacture standing.” Judge Hunt suggested Righthaven never had standing in any of its cases because Righthaven and Stephens Media had agreed to share the proceeds of any damages awards or settlements, yet Stephens Media kept ownership of the copyright.
Righthaven must own the copyright to sue on its behalf, Hunt ruled in a decision echoed by Judge Pro on Monday.
What’s more, in each of the 200-plus cases Righthaven brought on behalf of Las Vegas Review-Journal articles, Righthaven never disclosed, as required, that Stephens Media had a “pecuniary interest” in the outcome, Hunt wrote.
Many bloggers who settled are mulling their legal options.
......................................
EDIT:
The legal citation: Righthaven LLC v. Hoehn
......................................
Not the usual sort of item we post here on ThurstonBlog, but it should be of interest to our members and readers.
......................................
Righthaven Loss: Judge Rules Reposting Entire Article Is Fair Use
By David Kravets June 20, 2011
A federal judge ruled Monday that publishing an entire article without the rights holder’s authorization was a fair use of the work, in yet another blow to newspaper copyright troll Righthaven.
It’s not often that republishing an entire work without permission is deemed fair use. Fair use is an infringement defense when the defendant reproduced a copyrighted work for purposes such as criticism, commentary, teaching and research. The defense is analyzed on a case-by-case basis.
Monday’s ruling dismissed a lawsuit brought by Righthaven, a Las Vegas-based copyright litigation factory jointly owned with newspaper publisher Stephens Media. The venture’s litigation tactics and ethics are being questioned by several judges and attorneys, a factor that also weighed in on U.S. District Judge Philip Pro’s decision Monday.
Righthaven has sued more than 200 websites, bloggers and commenters for copyright infringement. More than 100 have settled out of court.
The lawsuit decided Monday targeted Wayne Hoehn, a Vietnam veteran who posted all 19 paragraphs of November editorial from the Las Vegas Review-Journal, which is owned by Stephens Media. Hoehn posted the article, and its headline, “Public Employee Pensions: We Can’t Afford Them” on medjacksports.com to prompt discussion about the financial affairs of the nation’s states. Hoehn was a user of the site, not an employee.
Righthaven sought up to $150,000, the maximum in damages allowed under the Copyright Act. Righthaven argued that the November posting reduced the number of eyeballs that would have visited the Review-Journal site to read the editorial.
“Righthaven did not present any evidence that the market for the work was harmed by Hoehn’s noncommercial use for the 40 days it appeared on the website. Accordingly, there is no genuine issue of material fact that Hoehn’s use of the work was fair and summary judgment is appropriate,” Judge Pro ruled.
Marc Randazza, one of Hoehn’s attorneys, said he would petition the judge for legal fees and costs.
The judge also said he took into consideration that only five of the editorial’s paragraphs were “purely creative opinions” of the author.
“While the work does have some creative or editorial elements, these elements are not enough to consider the work a purely ‘creative work’ in the realm of fictional stories, song lyrics, or Barbie dolls,” he wrote. “Accordingly, the work is not within ‘the core of intended copyright protection.’”
Judge Pro, in his fair-use analysis, also found that the posting was for noncommercial purposes, and was part of an “online discussion.”
That said, Pro did not need to decide the fair-use question.
That’s because he also found that Righthaven did not have legal standing to bring the lawsuit, a hot-button topic in the Righthaven litigation.
Pro’s decision came a week after a different Las Vegas federal judge threatened to sanction Righthaven, calling its litigation efforts “disingenuous, if not outright deceitful” when it came to standing. Standing is a legal concept that has enabled Righthaven to bring lawsuits on behalf of the copyrights owned by Stephens Media.
That blistering decision by U.S. District Judge Roger Hunt, the chief judge in Nevada, places into doubt Righthaven’s year-old business model, which is also under a Colorado federal judge’s microscope.
Hunt gave Righthaven two weeks to explain why he should not sanction it for trying to “manufacture standing.” Judge Hunt suggested Righthaven never had standing in any of its cases because Righthaven and Stephens Media had agreed to share the proceeds of any damages awards or settlements, yet Stephens Media kept ownership of the copyright.
Righthaven must own the copyright to sue on its behalf, Hunt ruled in a decision echoed by Judge Pro on Monday.
What’s more, in each of the 200-plus cases Righthaven brought on behalf of Las Vegas Review-Journal articles, Righthaven never disclosed, as required, that Stephens Media had a “pecuniary interest” in the outcome, Hunt wrote.
Many bloggers who settled are mulling their legal options.
......................................
EDIT:
The legal citation: Righthaven LLC v. Hoehn
......................................
Yeah......uh huh......sure...
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) recently announced her opposition to the federal Transportation Security Administration's full-body scanners due to worries that "naked pictures" of herself could somehow end up on the internet for the world to see after being screened.
According to MinnPost, Bachamann told patrons at an Iowa coffee shop that she planned on opting out of such security procedures in order to avoid the possibility that such exposing images could end up online.
This is another in a list of looney talk from the wild eyed Minnesotan. This writer was under the impression that the scan was like an xray thus would not produce a "picture" of a person sans clothing.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Vanity-- is thy name McKenna?
...........................................
Rob McKenna says goodbye to his glasses
Rob McKenna says goodbye to his glasses
Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna "got Lasik" and no longer needs to wear prescription glasses.
Anybody else think it's odd that he does this just as he begins a campaign for governor? After all, I doubt most voters care whether or not he wears glasses.... what will impress us is what's inside his head, not what he wears on his face! Otherwise it's nothing more than vanity, and we have enough of that.
...........................................
Old_Reliable/Joey proving once again how un-xtian he is!
..........................................
Joey is spewing his usual hatred all over the Zero today-- just more proof that decries his supposed xtian beliefs!
..........................................
********************************
http://www.theolympian.com/2011/06/25/1700436/look-around-to-see-what-the-depraved.html
********************************
Old_Reliable
The only hatred here is from the angry left.
You'd think they'd be happy today, with the new law in NY legalizing sodomy marriage.
********************************
Old_Reliable
Anger, name calling, insults.
The way of the "progressive"
in reply to cedar
********************************
Old_Reliable
The left continues to be very angry and hateful. They don't even need their projection for it to be evident.
in reply to glenn
5 Likes
********************************
Old_Reliable
Calling me old and weak minded when it comes from the ilk of cedar, I take as a compliment. The hatred of the left shall not overcome me and my firm Christian beliefs.
in reply to cedar
********************************
Old_Reliable
Take your anger and go play at the other place.
in reply to cedar
********************************
Old_Reliable
The left is full of anger today.
The left is full of anger every day.
2 Likes
********************************
http://www.theolympian.com/2011/06/25/1700426/think-of-the-bible-as-letters.html#disqus_thread
********************************
Old_Reliable
Watch today, where the hatred comes from.
1 Like
********************************
Spinnakr posted a great rebuttal:
********************************
spinnakr
Spending your days looking for hatred ... how sad for you.
In reply to Old_Reliable
********************************
********************************
http://www.theolympian.com/2011/06/25/1700419/new-york-legislature-legalizes.html
********************************
Old_Reliable
Leave it up, so all can see the depravity of those who choose the path of sin.
in reply to its_obvious
2 Likes
********************************
Old_Reliable
Only man's laws have changed. God's law, the law upon which all will be ultimately judged, remains the same. He warns us. Those who choose to ignore will have no defense in the final eternal judgement. Not my opinions, but His.
But, of course, feel free to hate and insult me, for i am blessed every time I am hated, insulted, or attacked, here or "other" places, for defending His word.
5 Likes
********************************
spinnakr
But are you also blessed when you're pitied?
in reply to Old_Reliable
********************************
Old_Reliable
Your self pity is only for you.
in reply to spinnakr
1 Like
********************************
spinnakr
Me? No self-pity here. I'm having the time of my life!
But I do feel bad for you. What will you do when you get to the Pearly Gates and find them locked?
in reply to Old_Reliable
2 Likes
********************************
Joey is spewing his usual hatred all over the Zero today-- just more proof that decries his supposed xtian beliefs!
..........................................
********************************
http://www.theolympian.com/2011/06/25/1700436/look-around-to-see-what-the-depraved.html
********************************
Old_Reliable
The only hatred here is from the angry left.
You'd think they'd be happy today, with the new law in NY legalizing sodomy marriage.
********************************
Old_Reliable
Anger, name calling, insults.
The way of the "progressive"
in reply to cedar
********************************
Old_Reliable
The left continues to be very angry and hateful. They don't even need their projection for it to be evident.
in reply to glenn
5 Likes
********************************
Old_Reliable
Calling me old and weak minded when it comes from the ilk of cedar, I take as a compliment. The hatred of the left shall not overcome me and my firm Christian beliefs.
in reply to cedar
********************************
Old_Reliable
Take your anger and go play at the other place.
in reply to cedar
********************************
Old_Reliable
The left is full of anger today.
The left is full of anger every day.
2 Likes
********************************
http://www.theolympian.com/2011/06/25/1700426/think-of-the-bible-as-letters.html#disqus_thread
********************************
Old_Reliable
Watch today, where the hatred comes from.
1 Like
********************************
Spinnakr posted a great rebuttal:
********************************
spinnakr
Spending your days looking for hatred ... how sad for you.
In reply to Old_Reliable
********************************
********************************
http://www.theolympian.com/2011/06/25/1700419/new-york-legislature-legalizes.html
********************************
Old_Reliable
Leave it up, so all can see the depravity of those who choose the path of sin.
in reply to its_obvious
2 Likes
********************************
Old_Reliable
Only man's laws have changed. God's law, the law upon which all will be ultimately judged, remains the same. He warns us. Those who choose to ignore will have no defense in the final eternal judgement. Not my opinions, but His.
But, of course, feel free to hate and insult me, for i am blessed every time I am hated, insulted, or attacked, here or "other" places, for defending His word.
5 Likes
********************************
spinnakr
But are you also blessed when you're pitied?
in reply to Old_Reliable
********************************
Old_Reliable
Your self pity is only for you.
in reply to spinnakr
1 Like
********************************
spinnakr
Me? No self-pity here. I'm having the time of my life!
But I do feel bad for you. What will you do when you get to the Pearly Gates and find them locked?
in reply to Old_Reliable
2 Likes
********************************
Friday, June 24, 2011
THANK YOU NY!!!!!!!
Republican senate approves gay marriage bill...
..maybe there's hope for some of the righties after all!
..maybe there's hope for some of the righties after all!
Good comeback!
.......................................
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/06/23/1697353/we-need-dick-pusts-voice-as-next.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1QEXqcZDT
UPDATE:
Look at what I just happened to see before it disappeared! A moderator must have been reading at the time..... or maybe "radec" gets automatically deleted now?
UPDATE 2:
Hmmmmph, it's back-- X2.
.......................................
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/06/23/1697353/we-need-dick-pusts-voice-as-next.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1QEXqcZDT
UPDATE:
Look at what I just happened to see before it disappeared! A moderator must have been reading at the time..... or maybe "radec" gets automatically deleted now?
UPDATE 2:
Hmmmmph, it's back-- X2.
.......................................
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Top Enlisted Marine on ‘Don’t Ask’ Repeal
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/06/21/straight-talk-from-top-enlisted-marine-on-dont-ask-repeal/
“You all joined for a reason: to serve,” he continued. “To protect our nation, right?”
“Yes, sergeant major,” Marines replied.
“How dare we, then, exclude a group of people who want to do the same thing you do right now, something that is honorable and noble?” Sgt. Maj. Barrett continued, raising his voice just a notch. “Right?”
“You all joined for a reason: to serve,” he continued. “To protect our nation, right?”
“Yes, sergeant major,” Marines replied.
“How dare we, then, exclude a group of people who want to do the same thing you do right now, something that is honorable and noble?” Sgt. Maj. Barrett continued, raising his voice just a notch. “Right?”
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Another complaint (unfounded this time!!) about The Zero's moderation
..............................................
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/06/21/1696009/olympia-council-turns-down-trillium.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1Q4w3RhMQ
..............................................
So..... where is Gina's apology? [snort]
..............................................
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/06/21/1696009/olympia-council-turns-down-trillium.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1Q4w3RhMQ
..............................................
So..... where is Gina's apology? [snort]
..............................................
And the lefty's would have been screaming from the mountain tops about how the Republicans are o.k. with criminals having guns. Notice how silent they have been on this. Sweep it under the rug, move along there's nothing to see here!
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/06/22/1695916/atf-stands-on-sidelines-while.html#ixzz1Q1wn9uyv
The ATF is not a political party. It isn't - and will not be - the first government department to "go rogue" in an attempt to accomplish its mission. Take a short look at the history of the American military and some of their debacles in Vietnam and most recently in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Oh...and by the way....who was minding the store when the DC Sniper got ahold of guns????????? Should we blame a party?
You kiss your mother with that mouth?
More descrete charm from a Winger.
animalmuther
Racist and homophobic. His mother must be so proud.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
As a matter of fact, fucknuts
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/06/19/1692135/many-find-gay-lifestyle-sad.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1PyTHHAfy
Pageviews during the past 30 days:
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
|
Tammy McGee
Dear Tammy,
There is an evil bigot on your comments section. Theeaglehaslanded has spent a week writing things that if they had been directed towards women or non-Caucasians would have been outside the realm of civilized conversation. You owe it to your integrity, your employer, and the rest of our community to cut off this unhinged homophobe.
There is an evil bigot on your comments section. Theeaglehaslanded has spent a week writing things that if they had been directed towards women or non-Caucasians would have been outside the realm of civilized conversation. You owe it to your integrity, your employer, and the rest of our community to cut off this unhinged homophobe.
Monday, June 20, 2011
SCOTUS bought off? You gotta wonder!
...........................................
UPDATES about Clarence Thomas' ethics below!
..........................................
Class Dismissed The Supreme Court decides that the women of Wal-Mart can't have their day in court.
Today the Supreme Court decided what may well be the most consequential case of the current term, Wal-Mart v. Dukes, a sweeping class action suit filed almost 10 years ago that has yet to be litigated on its merits. Filed on behalf of the more than 1.5 million women who have worked at Wal-Mart since 1998, the suit alleges that the company favored men over women in decisions about pay and promotion in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Today, the Supreme Court told them all to go home.
Writing for the court's five conservatives—and all but one of its men—Justice Antonin Scalia found that the women seeking to be certified as a single class did not have enough in common to go forward with the lawsuit en masse. Wal-Mart, the nation's largest private employer, seems to have figured out that the key to low-cost discrimination lies in discriminating on a massive scale. In Scalia's words, all these disparate women with their multiple claims about "millions of employment decisions" lacked sufficient "glue" to be permitted to move forward together.
A lot of critics are saying that this decision has created a new rule: Some companies are simply too big to sue. But that's only half the story. The other half is that in the court's eyes, sex discrimination is simply too pervasive to be a problem.
[snipped]
This isn't the first time this term that the court has narrowed the scope of class action litigation. And it isn't the first time the justices have ignored the evidence—and, worse yet, passed judgment on facts not yet in evidence—in an ongoing effort to prove that the only discrimination that can ever be remedied is the kind that comes right at you with a big blue sign and a greeter.
..........................................
UPDATES:
To the Supreme Court money is justice
[snipped]
In fact they [the justices] have voted 5-4 in favor of big corporations every single time a law suit against a corporation reaches the Supreme Court. It certainly does more than defy the law of probability that every single time someone files a suit against a corporation Justice Antonin Scalia can invent some judicial principle that makes the suit groundless. ...
[snipped]
... Scalia, Alito and most of all Clarence Thomas appear more like partisan hacks than justices for the highest court in America. All three have attended Republican fund raisers and have helped raise money for Republican and Right Wing causes according to Think Progress.
[snipped]
Probably the largest conflict of interest is yet to come however and if Clarence Thomas does not recuse himself I think it would be time to start demanding his impeachment. His wife has recieved lots of money to lobby against Obama's Affordable Health Care Act. This bill has been pushed from many directions by Conservatives so they can get it before the Supreme court for another 5-4 decision making it Unconstitutional. Thomas refusal to recuse himself already tells you the fix is in.
[snipped]
..........................................
Justice for sale or rent
Justice Clarence Thomas received a gift worth $15,000 from the American Enterprise Institute. He voted in their favor in three U.S. Supreme Court cases. Given his rigid right-wing orthodoxy, it's fair to argue that Thomas didn't need to be purchased. He still shouldn't be taking expensive gifts from people who make arguments before him.
[snipped]
..........................................
UPDATES about Clarence Thomas' ethics below!
..........................................
Class Dismissed The Supreme Court decides that the women of Wal-Mart can't have their day in court.
Today the Supreme Court decided what may well be the most consequential case of the current term, Wal-Mart v. Dukes, a sweeping class action suit filed almost 10 years ago that has yet to be litigated on its merits. Filed on behalf of the more than 1.5 million women who have worked at Wal-Mart since 1998, the suit alleges that the company favored men over women in decisions about pay and promotion in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Today, the Supreme Court told them all to go home.
Writing for the court's five conservatives—and all but one of its men—Justice Antonin Scalia found that the women seeking to be certified as a single class did not have enough in common to go forward with the lawsuit en masse. Wal-Mart, the nation's largest private employer, seems to have figured out that the key to low-cost discrimination lies in discriminating on a massive scale. In Scalia's words, all these disparate women with their multiple claims about "millions of employment decisions" lacked sufficient "glue" to be permitted to move forward together.
A lot of critics are saying that this decision has created a new rule: Some companies are simply too big to sue. But that's only half the story. The other half is that in the court's eyes, sex discrimination is simply too pervasive to be a problem.
[snipped]
This isn't the first time this term that the court has narrowed the scope of class action litigation. And it isn't the first time the justices have ignored the evidence—and, worse yet, passed judgment on facts not yet in evidence—in an ongoing effort to prove that the only discrimination that can ever be remedied is the kind that comes right at you with a big blue sign and a greeter.
..........................................
UPDATES:
To the Supreme Court money is justice
[snipped]
In fact they [the justices] have voted 5-4 in favor of big corporations every single time a law suit against a corporation reaches the Supreme Court. It certainly does more than defy the law of probability that every single time someone files a suit against a corporation Justice Antonin Scalia can invent some judicial principle that makes the suit groundless. ...
[snipped]
... Scalia, Alito and most of all Clarence Thomas appear more like partisan hacks than justices for the highest court in America. All three have attended Republican fund raisers and have helped raise money for Republican and Right Wing causes according to Think Progress.
[snipped]
Probably the largest conflict of interest is yet to come however and if Clarence Thomas does not recuse himself I think it would be time to start demanding his impeachment. His wife has recieved lots of money to lobby against Obama's Affordable Health Care Act. This bill has been pushed from many directions by Conservatives so they can get it before the Supreme court for another 5-4 decision making it Unconstitutional. Thomas refusal to recuse himself already tells you the fix is in.
[snipped]
..........................................
Justice for sale or rent
Justice Clarence Thomas received a gift worth $15,000 from the American Enterprise Institute. He voted in their favor in three U.S. Supreme Court cases. Given his rigid right-wing orthodoxy, it's fair to argue that Thomas didn't need to be purchased. He still shouldn't be taking expensive gifts from people who make arguments before him.
[snipped]
..........................................
Luck of the draw....
I rarely visit The Olympian website - unless something in ThurstonBlog prompts me, as was this case. I just missed our resident lurker....
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/06/19/1692135/many-find-gay-lifestyle-sad.html#ixzz1PpnDSCIb
Sorry to say I'm not Sage, radec....but.....FUCK YOU. If our content bothers you, stay the FUCK off our website several times a day, you pervert.
One of these days The Olympian will truly have the balls to eliminate you for good. I can't wait for the screaming of "freedom of speech"
It's not you I hate....it's your hypocrisy. Now how's that for a both sides of the mouth Christian statement?
Oh....and......
![]()
radec
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/06/19/1692135/many-find-gay-lifestyle-sad.html#ixzz1PpnDSCIb
Sorry to say I'm not Sage, radec....but.....FUCK YOU. If our content bothers you, stay the FUCK off our website several times a day, you pervert.
One of these days The Olympian will truly have the balls to eliminate you for good. I can't wait for the screaming of "freedom of speech"
It's not you I hate....it's your hypocrisy. Now how's that for a both sides of the mouth Christian statement?
Oh....and......
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Don't try to impose your beliefs on others
.................................
Excellent summation in response to LTE decrying the "gay lifestyle"....
The usual batch of homophobes have spewed their usual swill in the comments!
.................................
sane012672
Here's the thing you get to believe what you want and not impose your beliefs on everyone else. That goes both ways. You have a choice not to support things but you also don't have a right to impose your belief system on the rest of us. If someone is gay then I don't have the right to tell them how to live and they don't have the right to tell me how to live. When either imposes on the other's freedoms then that's a problem....trying to repress people who are gay and claiming that because they offend you can impose your morality on them and anyone associated with them is utter garbage. The problem with your view of them being "sad" is why do you even care? What affect do lifestyle choices have on you so that you care so much about it?
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/06/19/1692135/many-find-gay-lifestyle-sad.html#ixzz1PkkHrMVQ
.................................
Excellent summation in response to LTE decrying the "gay lifestyle"....
The usual batch of homophobes have spewed their usual swill in the comments!
.................................
sane012672
Here's the thing you get to believe what you want and not impose your beliefs on everyone else. That goes both ways. You have a choice not to support things but you also don't have a right to impose your belief system on the rest of us. If someone is gay then I don't have the right to tell them how to live and they don't have the right to tell me how to live. When either imposes on the other's freedoms then that's a problem....trying to repress people who are gay and claiming that because they offend you can impose your morality on them and anyone associated with them is utter garbage. The problem with your view of them being "sad" is why do you even care? What affect do lifestyle choices have on you so that you care so much about it?
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/06/19/1692135/many-find-gay-lifestyle-sad.html#ixzz1PkkHrMVQ
.................................
Moran is as Moran does.......
radec
It seems the regulars at the hate blog are stalking the Olympian comment thread on a daily basis!
How does a person "stalk" a commercial website that encourages readership??????
![]()
It seems the regulars at the hate blog are stalking the Olympian comment thread on a daily basis!
How does a person "stalk" a commercial website that encourages readership??????
GOP is becoming a minority ethnic party
.......................................
The Party of Lincoln Needs To Look In The Mirror
Earlier this year, a tape of NPR’s head fundraiser, Ron Schiller, making remarks critical of the GOP and the Tea Party surfaced. In the tape, Schiller referred to the Republican Party as “anti-intellectual” and described the Tea Party as “racist,” “Islamophobic,” and “xenophobic.” He went on to opine that “Jews” control America’s major newspapers.
Schiller’s bizarre and conspiratorial anti-Semitic remarks are disturbing and offensive. His remarks about the GOP and the Tea Party, though, warrant further analysis for a simple reason: they are perceptions widely shared in our society.
Conservatives reacted to Schiller’s comments with anger. In their eyes, it was just one more example of a liberal establishment standing ever ready to portray Republicans and conservatives as ignorant racists and bigots.
That reaction was a mistake. In truth, Schiller created an opportunity for discussion and critical self-analysis about racism within the Republican Party. This was an opportunity, not for anger, but for self-examination.
Simply put, it’s time for the Party of Lincoln to take a good look in the mirror.
Although conservatives were quick to dismiss Schiller’s remarks, there is ample evidence available that would lead reasonable people to such conclusions. One can point to examples such as Sharron Angle’s 2010 anti-immigrant campaign television ads, Renee Ellmer’s overtly Islamophobic “Ground Zero” ad, Sen. Rand Paul’s remarks about the alleged unconstitutionality of portions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the career and associations of Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce (the man who sponsored Arizona’s infamous SB 1070), and Kansas State Representative Virgil Peck’s recent suggestion that illegal immigrants should be hunted down and shot like feral swine. Indeed, just last week, a Republican State Representative in Massachusetts, Ryan Fattman, stated that unauthorized immigrant rape victims “should be afraid to come forward” and report the crimes to authorities.
And this is just the tip of the iceberg.
According to a February, 2012 survey by Public Policy Polling (“PPP”) done prior to the release of President Obama’s birth certificate, 51% of likely Republican primary voters believed President Obama was born in a foreign country. Some 21% were “not sure.” The accuracy of this polling data was illustrated by the meteoric rise of Donald Trump as a potential Presidential candidate after he publicly embraced and began promoting the birther canards. Other data suggests that a significant percentage believe the President is secretly a Muslim. Even more troubling, a separate April, 2011 PPP poll found that 46% of Mississippi Republicans believe that interracial marriage should be a crime while a substantial group, 12%, indicated that they are “not sure.”
Nor is the depth, breadth, and intensity of Tea Party rage explicable without reference to the presence of an African American, with a foreign sounding name, in the White House.
And then there are the e-mails. Nationally, Republican staffers and local party officials have made headlines forwarding racist e-mails about the President to friends and colleagues. And lest we forget, there is also the case of Audra Shay, who was elected Chair of the national Young Republicans despite the fact that she had replied “You tell em Eric! Lol,” to a friend’s Facebook comment that said: “Obama Bin Lauden [sic] is the new terrorist… Muslim is on there side [sic]… need to take this country back from all of these mad coons… and illegals.”
Most recently, the reaction within Republican circles to an offensive cartoon distributed by a local GOP officer and Tea Party activist, Marilyn Davenport, led a prominent African American leader active in the California GOP to leave the party. The cartoon at issue “depicted President Barack Obama and his parents as chimpanzees, while simultaneously implying that the president is not a legitimate American, but rather an African-born interloper.” Writing in the Sacramento Bee, Ken Barnes (the leader who left the GOP) notes that “[h]ad this been an isolated event, it could be set aside as a mere aberration. However, when placed in the context of similar offenses by the same self-identified tea party-conservative Republicans, there emerges a disturbing pattern of extreme intolerance.” That “pattern of extreme intolerance” includes the “use [of] long-held racist imagery in portrayals of Obama” such as in depictions of him “as a communist witch doctor, a man inclined to plant watermelons on the White House lawn, and… on an ‘Obama Bucks Food Stamp’ along with stereotyped pictures of fried chicken, barbecue ribs, Kool-Aid and the obligatory watermelon.” For Barnes, the chimpanzee cartoon was the final straw.
The practical electoral implications of this mindless fear and hate were brought home to me on a trip to Washington, D.C. with representatives of Esperanza, a national faith-based Hispanic organization. One pastor spoke of a young man in his congregation – a young, conservative, Christian man – who was deeply torn over his choices in the 2008 Presidential election. In the end, he voted for Obama because, as he said, “I can’t be in a Party that hates me.” I don’t blame him.
How did the Party of Lincoln come to such a pass? I think the answer is simple. For far too long, we have refused to confront, and condemn, the vestiges of political racism that have, over the course of the past 30-40 years, found a new political home within the Republican Party. I’m speaking here, primarily, of the movement of the segregationist Dixiecrats (and kindred ideological spirits) out of the Democratic Party, and into the GOP- a movement personified, in some ways, by the late Senator Strom Thurmond. This alliance has poisoned the very soul of American conservatism by tying it to belief systems that are reprehensible, and indefensible. It has permitted a dangerous pathology to survive, and today, at a moment of great social stress, despair, and anxiety about the future, to move back towards the political mainstream. It was, and remains, a fundamental betrayal of the founding ideals of the Republican Party.
And, as a consequence, in a United States growing increasingly diverse, the GOP is devolving into an ethnic/regional party. Worse, it will be a minority ethnic party incapable of winning national elections. Remember, today Caucasians, the group from which the GOP draws the vast majority of its support, make up less than half – 49.3% – of children under 3 years of age. According to U.S. census projections, by 2019, Caucasians will make up less than half of Americans aged 18 and under.
As Harold Meyerson has observed, “[w]hat these numbers mean is simply that the Republicans have an existential problem. As America becomes increasingly multiracial, the Republicans have elected to become increasingly white.”
A more diverse, majority-minority America is inevitable – the GOP, and conservatives in general, need to adjust and adapt to this reality if they want to remain relevant over the long-term. A future GOP that serves as a bastion for angry, resentful and embittered, “white minority politics,” would be an unmitigated disaster for our nation and for the health of our democracy.
Truth and decency need referents in the world, especially during difficult times. Today, it is essential that Republicans of good will confront the racists and the xenophobic elements in our midst. As Ken Barnes has correctly observed, “[t]hese are not issues which pit moderate against conservative views, but rather consequential matters which transcend political positioning and speak to universal human values.” In doing so, we are keeping faith with the best traditions of our Party, and preserving an alternate, more welcoming and inclusive vision of political conservatism in America- one in which Conservative is not synonymous with Confederate.
.......................................
The Party of Lincoln Needs To Look In The Mirror
Earlier this year, a tape of NPR’s head fundraiser, Ron Schiller, making remarks critical of the GOP and the Tea Party surfaced. In the tape, Schiller referred to the Republican Party as “anti-intellectual” and described the Tea Party as “racist,” “Islamophobic,” and “xenophobic.” He went on to opine that “Jews” control America’s major newspapers.
Schiller’s bizarre and conspiratorial anti-Semitic remarks are disturbing and offensive. His remarks about the GOP and the Tea Party, though, warrant further analysis for a simple reason: they are perceptions widely shared in our society.
Conservatives reacted to Schiller’s comments with anger. In their eyes, it was just one more example of a liberal establishment standing ever ready to portray Republicans and conservatives as ignorant racists and bigots.
That reaction was a mistake. In truth, Schiller created an opportunity for discussion and critical self-analysis about racism within the Republican Party. This was an opportunity, not for anger, but for self-examination.
Simply put, it’s time for the Party of Lincoln to take a good look in the mirror.
Although conservatives were quick to dismiss Schiller’s remarks, there is ample evidence available that would lead reasonable people to such conclusions. One can point to examples such as Sharron Angle’s 2010 anti-immigrant campaign television ads, Renee Ellmer’s overtly Islamophobic “Ground Zero” ad, Sen. Rand Paul’s remarks about the alleged unconstitutionality of portions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the career and associations of Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce (the man who sponsored Arizona’s infamous SB 1070), and Kansas State Representative Virgil Peck’s recent suggestion that illegal immigrants should be hunted down and shot like feral swine. Indeed, just last week, a Republican State Representative in Massachusetts, Ryan Fattman, stated that unauthorized immigrant rape victims “should be afraid to come forward” and report the crimes to authorities.
And this is just the tip of the iceberg.
According to a February, 2012 survey by Public Policy Polling (“PPP”) done prior to the release of President Obama’s birth certificate, 51% of likely Republican primary voters believed President Obama was born in a foreign country. Some 21% were “not sure.” The accuracy of this polling data was illustrated by the meteoric rise of Donald Trump as a potential Presidential candidate after he publicly embraced and began promoting the birther canards. Other data suggests that a significant percentage believe the President is secretly a Muslim. Even more troubling, a separate April, 2011 PPP poll found that 46% of Mississippi Republicans believe that interracial marriage should be a crime while a substantial group, 12%, indicated that they are “not sure.”
Nor is the depth, breadth, and intensity of Tea Party rage explicable without reference to the presence of an African American, with a foreign sounding name, in the White House.
And then there are the e-mails. Nationally, Republican staffers and local party officials have made headlines forwarding racist e-mails about the President to friends and colleagues. And lest we forget, there is also the case of Audra Shay, who was elected Chair of the national Young Republicans despite the fact that she had replied “You tell em Eric! Lol,” to a friend’s Facebook comment that said: “Obama Bin Lauden [sic] is the new terrorist… Muslim is on there side [sic]… need to take this country back from all of these mad coons… and illegals.”
Most recently, the reaction within Republican circles to an offensive cartoon distributed by a local GOP officer and Tea Party activist, Marilyn Davenport, led a prominent African American leader active in the California GOP to leave the party. The cartoon at issue “depicted President Barack Obama and his parents as chimpanzees, while simultaneously implying that the president is not a legitimate American, but rather an African-born interloper.” Writing in the Sacramento Bee, Ken Barnes (the leader who left the GOP) notes that “[h]ad this been an isolated event, it could be set aside as a mere aberration. However, when placed in the context of similar offenses by the same self-identified tea party-conservative Republicans, there emerges a disturbing pattern of extreme intolerance.” That “pattern of extreme intolerance” includes the “use [of] long-held racist imagery in portrayals of Obama” such as in depictions of him “as a communist witch doctor, a man inclined to plant watermelons on the White House lawn, and… on an ‘Obama Bucks Food Stamp’ along with stereotyped pictures of fried chicken, barbecue ribs, Kool-Aid and the obligatory watermelon.” For Barnes, the chimpanzee cartoon was the final straw.
The practical electoral implications of this mindless fear and hate were brought home to me on a trip to Washington, D.C. with representatives of Esperanza, a national faith-based Hispanic organization. One pastor spoke of a young man in his congregation – a young, conservative, Christian man – who was deeply torn over his choices in the 2008 Presidential election. In the end, he voted for Obama because, as he said, “I can’t be in a Party that hates me.” I don’t blame him.
How did the Party of Lincoln come to such a pass? I think the answer is simple. For far too long, we have refused to confront, and condemn, the vestiges of political racism that have, over the course of the past 30-40 years, found a new political home within the Republican Party. I’m speaking here, primarily, of the movement of the segregationist Dixiecrats (and kindred ideological spirits) out of the Democratic Party, and into the GOP- a movement personified, in some ways, by the late Senator Strom Thurmond. This alliance has poisoned the very soul of American conservatism by tying it to belief systems that are reprehensible, and indefensible. It has permitted a dangerous pathology to survive, and today, at a moment of great social stress, despair, and anxiety about the future, to move back towards the political mainstream. It was, and remains, a fundamental betrayal of the founding ideals of the Republican Party.
And, as a consequence, in a United States growing increasingly diverse, the GOP is devolving into an ethnic/regional party. Worse, it will be a minority ethnic party incapable of winning national elections. Remember, today Caucasians, the group from which the GOP draws the vast majority of its support, make up less than half – 49.3% – of children under 3 years of age. According to U.S. census projections, by 2019, Caucasians will make up less than half of Americans aged 18 and under.
As Harold Meyerson has observed, “[w]hat these numbers mean is simply that the Republicans have an existential problem. As America becomes increasingly multiracial, the Republicans have elected to become increasingly white.”
A more diverse, majority-minority America is inevitable – the GOP, and conservatives in general, need to adjust and adapt to this reality if they want to remain relevant over the long-term. A future GOP that serves as a bastion for angry, resentful and embittered, “white minority politics,” would be an unmitigated disaster for our nation and for the health of our democracy.
Truth and decency need referents in the world, especially during difficult times. Today, it is essential that Republicans of good will confront the racists and the xenophobic elements in our midst. As Ken Barnes has correctly observed, “[t]hese are not issues which pit moderate against conservative views, but rather consequential matters which transcend political positioning and speak to universal human values.” In doing so, we are keeping faith with the best traditions of our Party, and preserving an alternate, more welcoming and inclusive vision of political conservatism in America- one in which Conservative is not synonymous with Confederate.
.......................................
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Downtown Olympia sewer cleaning
GunnarWade writes...
Who knows what lurks in the sewers of downtown Olympia?
and theeaglehaslanded responds...
Larry
Who knows what lurks in the sewers of downtown Olympia?
and theeaglehaslanded responds...
Larry
From a friend of mine on another blog...
Jun 18, 2011 12:07 AM
I just cannot add anything to this actual news report:
-----------------------
...the defendant was convicted of drunk driving in May 2010, and the incident occurred on the night of his 21st birthday party. Defendant was driving on the Washtington beltway.
The details of the charges:
Paragraph 10. "At the time of the collision, Defendant was going 85 miles per hour."
Paragraph 12. "At the time of the collision, Defendant was having sex with a female."
Paragraph13. "At the time of the collision, Defendant was driving admittedly drunk."
Paragraph 14. "At the time of the accident, Defendant was partially or totally in the backseat of the car."
I just cannot add anything to this actual news report:
-----------------------
...the defendant was convicted of drunk driving in May 2010, and the incident occurred on the night of his 21st birthday party. Defendant was driving on the Washtington beltway.
The details of the charges:
Paragraph 10. "At the time of the collision, Defendant was going 85 miles per hour."
Paragraph 12. "At the time of the collision, Defendant was having sex with a female."
Paragraph13. "At the time of the collision, Defendant was driving admittedly drunk."
Paragraph 14. "At the time of the accident, Defendant was partially or totally in the backseat of the car."
"Our Lefty Military:" Who woulda Thought?
Our Lefty Military
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: June 15, 2011
As we search for paths out of America’s economic crisis, many suggest business as a paradigm for cutting costs. According to my back-of-the-envelope math, top C.E.O.’s earn as much as $1 a second around the clock, partly by cutting medical benefits for employees. So they must be paragons of efficiency, right?
Actually, I’m not so sure. The business sector is dazzlingly productive, but it also periodically blows up our financial system. Yet if we seek another model, one that emphasizes universal health care and educational opportunity, one that seeks to curb income inequality, we don’t have to turn to Sweden. Rather, look to the United States military.
You see, when our armed forces are not firing missiles, they live by an astonishingly liberal ethos — and it works. The military helped lead the way in racial desegregation, and even today it does more to provide equal opportunity to working-class families — especially to blacks — than just about any social program. It has been an escalator of social mobility in American society because it invests in soldiers and gives them skills and opportunities.
The United States armed forces knit together whites, blacks, Asians and Hispanics from diverse backgrounds, invests in their education and training, provides them with excellent health care and child care. And it does all this with minimal income gaps: A senior general earns about 10 times what a private makes, while, by my calculation, C.E.O.’s at major companies earn about 300 times as much as those cleaning their offices. That’s right: the military ethos can sound pretty lefty.
“It’s the purest application of socialism there is,” Wesley Clark, the retired four-star general and former supreme allied commander of NATO forces in Europe, told me. And he was only partly joking.
“It’s a really fair system, and a lot of thought has been put into it, and people respond to it really well,” he added. The country can learn from that sense of mission, he said, from that emphasis on long-term strategic thinking.
The military is innately hierarchical, yet it nurtures a camaraderie in part because the military looks after its employees. This is a rare enclave of single-payer universal health care, and it continues with a veterans’ health care system that has much lower costs than the American system as a whole.
Perhaps the most impressive achievement of the American military isn’t its aircraft carriers, stunning as they are. Rather, it’s the military day care system for working parents.
While one of America’s greatest failings is underinvestment in early childhood education (which seems to be one of the best ways to break cycles of poverty from replicating), the military manages to provide superb child care. The cost depends on family income and starts at $44 per week.
“I absolutely think it’s a model,” said Linda K. Smith, executive director of the National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies, which advocates for better child care in America. Ms. Smith, who used to oversee the military day care system before she retired from the Defense Department, said that the military sees child care as a strategic necessity to maintain military readiness and to retain highly trained officers.
One of the things I admire most about the military is the way it invests in educating and training its people. Its universities — the military academies — are excellent, and it has R.O.T.C. programs at other campuses around the country. Many soldiers get medical training, law degrees, or Ph.D.’s while in service, sometimes at the country’s finest universities.
Then there are the Army War College, the Naval War College and the Air War College, giving top officers a mid-career intellectual and leadership boost before resuming their careers. It’s common to hear bromides about investing in human capital, but the military actually shows that it believes that.
Partly as a result, it manages to retain first-rate officers who could earn far higher salaries in the private sector. And while the ethic of business is often “Gimme,” the military inculcates an ideal of public service that runs deep. In Afghanistan, for example, soldiers sometimes dig into their own pockets to help provide supplies for local schools.
Granted, it may seem odd to seek a model of compassion in an organization whose mission involves killing people. It’s also true that the military remains often unwelcoming to gays and lesbians and is conflicted about women as well. And, of course, the opportunities for working-class Americans are mingled with danger.
But as we as a country grope for new directions in a difficult economic environment, the tendency has been to move toward a corporatist model that sees investments in people as woolly-minded sentimentalism or as unaffordable luxuries. That’s not the only model out there.
So as the United States armed forces try to pull Iraqi and Afghan societies into the 21st century, maybe they could do the same for America’s.
Hoo-ah!
copyright New York Times
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: June 15, 2011
As we search for paths out of America’s economic crisis, many suggest business as a paradigm for cutting costs. According to my back-of-the-envelope math, top C.E.O.’s earn as much as $1 a second around the clock, partly by cutting medical benefits for employees. So they must be paragons of efficiency, right?
Actually, I’m not so sure. The business sector is dazzlingly productive, but it also periodically blows up our financial system. Yet if we seek another model, one that emphasizes universal health care and educational opportunity, one that seeks to curb income inequality, we don’t have to turn to Sweden. Rather, look to the United States military.
You see, when our armed forces are not firing missiles, they live by an astonishingly liberal ethos — and it works. The military helped lead the way in racial desegregation, and even today it does more to provide equal opportunity to working-class families — especially to blacks — than just about any social program. It has been an escalator of social mobility in American society because it invests in soldiers and gives them skills and opportunities.
The United States armed forces knit together whites, blacks, Asians and Hispanics from diverse backgrounds, invests in their education and training, provides them with excellent health care and child care. And it does all this with minimal income gaps: A senior general earns about 10 times what a private makes, while, by my calculation, C.E.O.’s at major companies earn about 300 times as much as those cleaning their offices. That’s right: the military ethos can sound pretty lefty.
“It’s the purest application of socialism there is,” Wesley Clark, the retired four-star general and former supreme allied commander of NATO forces in Europe, told me. And he was only partly joking.
“It’s a really fair system, and a lot of thought has been put into it, and people respond to it really well,” he added. The country can learn from that sense of mission, he said, from that emphasis on long-term strategic thinking.
The military is innately hierarchical, yet it nurtures a camaraderie in part because the military looks after its employees. This is a rare enclave of single-payer universal health care, and it continues with a veterans’ health care system that has much lower costs than the American system as a whole.
Perhaps the most impressive achievement of the American military isn’t its aircraft carriers, stunning as they are. Rather, it’s the military day care system for working parents.
While one of America’s greatest failings is underinvestment in early childhood education (which seems to be one of the best ways to break cycles of poverty from replicating), the military manages to provide superb child care. The cost depends on family income and starts at $44 per week.
“I absolutely think it’s a model,” said Linda K. Smith, executive director of the National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies, which advocates for better child care in America. Ms. Smith, who used to oversee the military day care system before she retired from the Defense Department, said that the military sees child care as a strategic necessity to maintain military readiness and to retain highly trained officers.
One of the things I admire most about the military is the way it invests in educating and training its people. Its universities — the military academies — are excellent, and it has R.O.T.C. programs at other campuses around the country. Many soldiers get medical training, law degrees, or Ph.D.’s while in service, sometimes at the country’s finest universities.
Then there are the Army War College, the Naval War College and the Air War College, giving top officers a mid-career intellectual and leadership boost before resuming their careers. It’s common to hear bromides about investing in human capital, but the military actually shows that it believes that.
Partly as a result, it manages to retain first-rate officers who could earn far higher salaries in the private sector. And while the ethic of business is often “Gimme,” the military inculcates an ideal of public service that runs deep. In Afghanistan, for example, soldiers sometimes dig into their own pockets to help provide supplies for local schools.
Granted, it may seem odd to seek a model of compassion in an organization whose mission involves killing people. It’s also true that the military remains often unwelcoming to gays and lesbians and is conflicted about women as well. And, of course, the opportunities for working-class Americans are mingled with danger.
But as we as a country grope for new directions in a difficult economic environment, the tendency has been to move toward a corporatist model that sees investments in people as woolly-minded sentimentalism or as unaffordable luxuries. That’s not the only model out there.
So as the United States armed forces try to pull Iraqi and Afghan societies into the 21st century, maybe they could do the same for America’s.
Hoo-ah!
copyright New York Times
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)