Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Is McCain returning to the senator he was before 2008?
.....................................................
McCain’s Hobbits Remark: The Maverick Returns
Posted by Jen Sheers on Wednesday, August 3, 2011
I couldn’t believe it when last week John McCain called out the GOP on their intransigence in dealing with the debt ceiling by using a Lord of The Rings Analogy. Is this the same McCain that saddled us with a monstrosity of his own creation in the form of Sarah I-Can-See-Russia-From-My-House Palin as his VP running mate in 2008?
Oh, McCain, you’re such a maverick! What could possibly have gone into you to say such a thing? At a time when the GOP is being run by a bunch of lunatics with the one-track mindset of recovering the White House in 2012 (at any cost) you, of all people, have the courage to face them. “Tea Party Hobbits”? What a mavericky thing to say! Could it be that you’re returning to the senator you once were before the 2008 elections? Whatever the reason, you’ve given me the only reason to laugh about this whole debt ceiling debacle. And for that, senator, I thank you.
.....................................................
McCain’s Hobbits Remark: The Maverick Returns
Posted by Jen Sheers on Wednesday, August 3, 2011
I couldn’t believe it when last week John McCain called out the GOP on their intransigence in dealing with the debt ceiling by using a Lord of The Rings Analogy. Is this the same McCain that saddled us with a monstrosity of his own creation in the form of Sarah I-Can-See-Russia-From-My-House Palin as his VP running mate in 2008?
In a Senate floor speech, McCain said it is “foolish” and “deceiving” for Republican colleagues to claim a balanced-budget amendment has a chance of passing by next week…. “That is not fair to the American people, to hold out and say we won’t agree to raising the debt limit until we pass a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution,” McCain said… “The idea seems to be that if the House GOP refuses to raise the debt ceiling, a default crisis or gradual government shutdown will ensue, and the public will turn en masse against … Barack Obama,” he said, quoting the [Wall Street Journal]. “The Republican House that failed to raise the debt ceiling would somehow escape all blame. Then Democrats would have no choice but to pass a balanced-budget amendment and reform entitlements, and the Tea Party Hobbits could return to Middle Earth having defeated Mordor.” [The Hill]
Oh, McCain, you’re such a maverick! What could possibly have gone into you to say such a thing? At a time when the GOP is being run by a bunch of lunatics with the one-track mindset of recovering the White House in 2012 (at any cost) you, of all people, have the courage to face them. “Tea Party Hobbits”? What a mavericky thing to say! Could it be that you’re returning to the senator you once were before the 2008 elections? Whatever the reason, you’ve given me the only reason to laugh about this whole debt ceiling debacle. And for that, senator, I thank you.
.....................................................
Wanna freak out someone?
................................
Listen to the bananas
Lightly trace notes on banana skins with toothpicks, and the next day the notes will show up like magic.
................................
Listen to the bananas
Lightly trace notes on banana skins with toothpicks, and the next day the notes will show up like magic.
................................
More stupid moderation on the Zero
...........................
Wooly_Bugger
Why was Suffragette's post removed? (I think that was the poster who ws obliterated by the moderator) She said nothing wrong or abusive at all! She simply paraphrased another post that put the onus on women to use a buddy system to be safe to make it such that men should have a buddy system to make sure the other doesn't rape or murder someone. Seemed like really reasonable turnabout to me. Why should women have to travel in pairs to make sure they're not victims? They're the victims, get it? The problem is the perpetrators, not the victims. Jeebus peoples!
in reply to Wooly_Bugger
5 Likes
whet_stone
A lot of us don't understand the moderation. The lines are as blurry as spectacles rubbed with Vaseline. Why was sufferagette's or Eyowyn's posts removed. Nil. I don't get it.
in reply to Wooly_Bugger
UPDATE:
Chris98501
On another thread, people are joking about abusing disabled people. The moderators are ignoring that.
in reply to whet_stone
Chris98501
The censorship on the Olympian's comment boards is really insane. It was probably censored because some guy was offended by the implication that most rapists are men.
in reply to Wooly_Bugger
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/08/02/1746973/police-seek-help-locating-missing.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1Tvn2ZpPV
...........................
Wooly_Bugger
Why was Suffragette's post removed? (I think that was the poster who ws obliterated by the moderator) She said nothing wrong or abusive at all! She simply paraphrased another post that put the onus on women to use a buddy system to be safe to make it such that men should have a buddy system to make sure the other doesn't rape or murder someone. Seemed like really reasonable turnabout to me. Why should women have to travel in pairs to make sure they're not victims? They're the victims, get it? The problem is the perpetrators, not the victims. Jeebus peoples!
in reply to Wooly_Bugger
5 Likes
whet_stone
A lot of us don't understand the moderation. The lines are as blurry as spectacles rubbed with Vaseline. Why was sufferagette's or Eyowyn's posts removed. Nil. I don't get it.
in reply to Wooly_Bugger
UPDATE:
Chris98501
On another thread, people are joking about abusing disabled people. The moderators are ignoring that.
in reply to whet_stone
Chris98501
The censorship on the Olympian's comment boards is really insane. It was probably censored because some guy was offended by the implication that most rapists are men.
in reply to Wooly_Bugger
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/08/02/1746973/police-seek-help-locating-missing.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1Tvn2ZpPV
...........................
Sunday, July 31, 2011
"People have a hard time seeing extremism in their own religion"
.......................................
'Christian terrorist'? Norway case strikes debate
By Jesse Washington, AP National Writer
When the "enemy" is different, an outsider, it's easier to draw quick conclusions, to develop stereotypes. It's simply human nature: There is "us," and there is "them." But what happens when the enemy looks like us — from the same tradition and belief system?
That is the conundrum in the case of Norway and Anders Behring Brevik, who is being called a "Christian extremist" or "Christian terrorist."
As westerners wrestle with such characterizations of the Oslo mass murder suspect, the question arises: Nearly a decade after 9/11 created a widespread suspicion of Muslims based on the actions of a fanatical few, is this what it's like to walk a mile in the shoes of stereotype?
"Absolutely," said Mark Kelly Tyler, pastor of Mother Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Philadelphia. "It clearly puts us in a position where we can't simply say that extreme and violent behavior associated with a religious belief is somehow restricted to Muslim extremists."
"It speaks to cultural assumptions, how we are able to understand something when it (comes from) us," Tyler said. "When one of us does something terrible, we know that's not how we all think, yet we can't see that with other people."
Psychologists say stereotypes come from a deeply human impulse to categorize other people, usually into groups of "us" and "them."
"Our brains are wired that way," said Cheryl Dickter, a psychology professor at the College of William & Mary who studies stereotypes and prejudice.
When Dickter examined brain waves, she found that people process information and pictures about their "us" group differently compared with information about "them" groups. People remembered information better when it reinforced their stereotypes of other groups, she said, and when information didn't fit their stereotype, it was often explained or simply forgotten.
"That's how stereotypes get maintained in the face of all this (contradictory) information," Dickter said.
So during the first reports that someone had detonated a car bomb and then opened fire at a youth camp in Norway, many assumptions clicked into place.
"In all likelihood the attack was launched by part of the jihadist hydra," Thomas Joscelyn, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, wrote within hours on the Weekly Standard website.
The massacre was actually committed, police say, by a blond Norwegian whose photo would not seem out of place in an American college directory. As Breivik's 1,500-page manifesto emerged, calling for violence to rid Europe of non-Christians and those he deemed traitors to Christian Europe, some seized on the religious aspect of his delusions.
Mark Juergensmeyer, editor of the book "Global Religions: An Introduction" and a sociology professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, wrote an essay likening Breivik to Timothy McVeigh, the American who killed 168 people in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. It was the deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil until 9/11.
McVeigh and Breivik were both "good-looking young Caucasians, self-enlisted soldiers in an imagined cosmic war to save Christendom ... and both were Christian terrorists," Juergensmeyer wrote.
In a column for Salon.com, Alex Pareene said Breivik is not an American-style evangelical, but he listed other connections to Christianity. "All of this says 'Christian terrorist,'" Pareene wrote.
Such claims drew strong resistance. "Breivik is not a Christian. That's impossible. No one believing in Jesus commits mass murder," Bill O'Reilly said on his Fox News show.
That makes sense to Joyce Dubensky, CEO of the Tanenbaum Center for Interreligious Understanding. She said it also makes sense that "millions of Muslims say Osama bin Laden is not a Muslim, that no one who believes in the prophet Muhammad commits mass murder."
"We need to hear Bill O'Reilly, but we also need to hear and understand the voices of the overwhelming Muslim majority around the world who condemn those who are terrorists in the name of their faith," she said.
People have a hard time seeing extremism in their own religion.
For Christians who think of their faith as preaching peace, how to explain the faith-sanctioned killing of the Crusades? For Muslims, what about the thousands of jihadists now following violent interpretations of Islam?
Or consider the Ku Klux Klan's burning crosses. If those were the actions of a misguided minority, shouldn't the same be said of the 19 men who hijacked airliners on 9/11?
Art Markman, a psychology professor at the University of Texas at Austin, said research shows that when people are asked to describe someone else's behavior, they focus on personal characteristics — who that person is. But when asked to describe their own behavior, people focus on their individual situation.
"If you're a Christian and you see this Norway murderer, you say, I have these teachings and I haven't murdered anyone, so the teachings can't be the problem," Markman said. "But if you're talking about the 'other,' it's different. And if you don't know what the actual Muslim teachings are, it seems like a plausible explanation."
Some Christians say they do know the Muslim teachings, and that they are the problem. "There is a lot of text to justify the link between Islam and terrorism," said Michael Youssef, founder of the Evangelical-Anglican Church of the Apostles in Atlanta. "In the Quaranic text, and in the tradition that was written by the followers."
Many Islamic scholars say violent interpretations are wrong, and Youssef acknowledges that. However, "If your role model is Jesus, then nonviolence will be the way you change things. If your role model is somebody who waged war and killed people, then you say, 'I can do that,'" said Youssef, who was born in Egypt to Christian parents.
But Arsalan Iftikhar, an international human rights lawyer and author of the upcoming book "Islamic Pacifism: Global Muslims in the Post-Osama Era," said the Norway attacks "proved that terrorism can be committed by a person of any race, nationality or religion."
Iftikhar, who is Muslim, said one effect of the tragedy would be "to restart a debate on the term terrorism, and who and when the term should be applied."
"Sadly, the last ten years, the term has been co-opted in public discourse and only applies to Muslims," he said. "Now here we have a right-wing Christian extremist who has committed an act of terror, and many people don't know how to react."
..........................................
'Christian terrorist'? Norway case strikes debate
By Jesse Washington, AP National Writer
When the "enemy" is different, an outsider, it's easier to draw quick conclusions, to develop stereotypes. It's simply human nature: There is "us," and there is "them." But what happens when the enemy looks like us — from the same tradition and belief system?
That is the conundrum in the case of Norway and Anders Behring Brevik, who is being called a "Christian extremist" or "Christian terrorist."
As westerners wrestle with such characterizations of the Oslo mass murder suspect, the question arises: Nearly a decade after 9/11 created a widespread suspicion of Muslims based on the actions of a fanatical few, is this what it's like to walk a mile in the shoes of stereotype?
"Absolutely," said Mark Kelly Tyler, pastor of Mother Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Philadelphia. "It clearly puts us in a position where we can't simply say that extreme and violent behavior associated with a religious belief is somehow restricted to Muslim extremists."
"It speaks to cultural assumptions, how we are able to understand something when it (comes from) us," Tyler said. "When one of us does something terrible, we know that's not how we all think, yet we can't see that with other people."
Psychologists say stereotypes come from a deeply human impulse to categorize other people, usually into groups of "us" and "them."
"Our brains are wired that way," said Cheryl Dickter, a psychology professor at the College of William & Mary who studies stereotypes and prejudice.
When Dickter examined brain waves, she found that people process information and pictures about their "us" group differently compared with information about "them" groups. People remembered information better when it reinforced their stereotypes of other groups, she said, and when information didn't fit their stereotype, it was often explained or simply forgotten.
"That's how stereotypes get maintained in the face of all this (contradictory) information," Dickter said.
So during the first reports that someone had detonated a car bomb and then opened fire at a youth camp in Norway, many assumptions clicked into place.
"In all likelihood the attack was launched by part of the jihadist hydra," Thomas Joscelyn, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, wrote within hours on the Weekly Standard website.
The massacre was actually committed, police say, by a blond Norwegian whose photo would not seem out of place in an American college directory. As Breivik's 1,500-page manifesto emerged, calling for violence to rid Europe of non-Christians and those he deemed traitors to Christian Europe, some seized on the religious aspect of his delusions.
Mark Juergensmeyer, editor of the book "Global Religions: An Introduction" and a sociology professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, wrote an essay likening Breivik to Timothy McVeigh, the American who killed 168 people in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. It was the deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil until 9/11.
McVeigh and Breivik were both "good-looking young Caucasians, self-enlisted soldiers in an imagined cosmic war to save Christendom ... and both were Christian terrorists," Juergensmeyer wrote.
In a column for Salon.com, Alex Pareene said Breivik is not an American-style evangelical, but he listed other connections to Christianity. "All of this says 'Christian terrorist,'" Pareene wrote.
Such claims drew strong resistance. "Breivik is not a Christian. That's impossible. No one believing in Jesus commits mass murder," Bill O'Reilly said on his Fox News show.
That makes sense to Joyce Dubensky, CEO of the Tanenbaum Center for Interreligious Understanding. She said it also makes sense that "millions of Muslims say Osama bin Laden is not a Muslim, that no one who believes in the prophet Muhammad commits mass murder."
"We need to hear Bill O'Reilly, but we also need to hear and understand the voices of the overwhelming Muslim majority around the world who condemn those who are terrorists in the name of their faith," she said.
People have a hard time seeing extremism in their own religion.
For Christians who think of their faith as preaching peace, how to explain the faith-sanctioned killing of the Crusades? For Muslims, what about the thousands of jihadists now following violent interpretations of Islam?
Or consider the Ku Klux Klan's burning crosses. If those were the actions of a misguided minority, shouldn't the same be said of the 19 men who hijacked airliners on 9/11?
Art Markman, a psychology professor at the University of Texas at Austin, said research shows that when people are asked to describe someone else's behavior, they focus on personal characteristics — who that person is. But when asked to describe their own behavior, people focus on their individual situation.
"If you're a Christian and you see this Norway murderer, you say, I have these teachings and I haven't murdered anyone, so the teachings can't be the problem," Markman said. "But if you're talking about the 'other,' it's different. And if you don't know what the actual Muslim teachings are, it seems like a plausible explanation."
Some Christians say they do know the Muslim teachings, and that they are the problem. "There is a lot of text to justify the link between Islam and terrorism," said Michael Youssef, founder of the Evangelical-Anglican Church of the Apostles in Atlanta. "In the Quaranic text, and in the tradition that was written by the followers."
Many Islamic scholars say violent interpretations are wrong, and Youssef acknowledges that. However, "If your role model is Jesus, then nonviolence will be the way you change things. If your role model is somebody who waged war and killed people, then you say, 'I can do that,'" said Youssef, who was born in Egypt to Christian parents.
But Arsalan Iftikhar, an international human rights lawyer and author of the upcoming book "Islamic Pacifism: Global Muslims in the Post-Osama Era," said the Norway attacks "proved that terrorism can be committed by a person of any race, nationality or religion."
Iftikhar, who is Muslim, said one effect of the tragedy would be "to restart a debate on the term terrorism, and who and when the term should be applied."
"Sadly, the last ten years, the term has been co-opted in public discourse and only applies to Muslims," he said. "Now here we have a right-wing Christian extremist who has committed an act of terror, and many people don't know how to react."
..........................................
Read between the lines
SEATTLE – Attorney General Rob McKenna today announced that Washington filed a new lawsuit against the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The suit is a major development in the state’s longstanding fight to ensure timely cleanup of 56 million gallons of nuclear waste stored in Hanford’s leaky underground tanks, and continuation of the process to license Yucca Mountain as a deep geologic disposal site.
The new suit, which is a petition for a writ of mandamus filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Court, alleges that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is “unreasonably withholding agency action.”
“It’s the federal government’s responsibility to clean up Hanford,” McKenna said. “This lawsuit seeks to compel the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to immediately resume consideration of the application to build and operate a repository at Yucca Mountain.”
Saturday, July 30, 2011
State workers get pay cut-- what about legislators' pay cuts?
..............................................
And what have we been saying about Republicans being on the side of the wealthier class? Looks like we have some proof here!
..............................................
Lawmakers cut state worker pay; few took cuts themselves
BRAD SHANNON
Lawmakers cut most state workers’ by 3 percent this year, but few have taken pay cuts of their own despite crafting legal language encouraging themselves and statewide elected officials to do so.
Four House members – out of 147 Senate and House lawmakers – have elected to cut their pay. [snipped] [And which party do the four represent? One Republican, three Democrats.]
A few state officials are donating money to charity or scholarships instead of waiving pay. As of Friday, Gov. Chris Gregoire, state Treasurer Jim McIntire and state schools superintendent Randy Dorn, all Democrats, were the only statewide elected officers to have signed up for pay waivers using a new form available through the state Citizens’ Commission on Salaries for Elected Officials’ website, www.salaries.wa.gov.
[snipped]
..............................................
And what have we been saying about Republicans being on the side of the wealthier class? Looks like we have some proof here!
..............................................
Lawmakers cut state worker pay; few took cuts themselves
BRAD SHANNON
Lawmakers cut most state workers’ by 3 percent this year, but few have taken pay cuts of their own despite crafting legal language encouraging themselves and statewide elected officials to do so.
Four House members – out of 147 Senate and House lawmakers – have elected to cut their pay. [snipped] [And which party do the four represent? One Republican, three Democrats.]
A few state officials are donating money to charity or scholarships instead of waiving pay. As of Friday, Gov. Chris Gregoire, state Treasurer Jim McIntire and state schools superintendent Randy Dorn, all Democrats, were the only statewide elected officers to have signed up for pay waivers using a new form available through the state Citizens’ Commission on Salaries for Elected Officials’ website, www.salaries.wa.gov.
[snipped]
..............................................
Friday, July 29, 2011
Local righties don't want to allow anybody on the other side to have their say
..............................
Some people can't stand somebody else giving it right back to them!
..............................
The_Monk
in reply to The_Monk
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/07/29/1741874/herrera-beutler-cast-the-wrong.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1TYvoc1gv
UPDATE:
Anonymii
Did it make you feel good to have my comment removed?
in reply to The_Monk
Goover
Especially since the comment contained nothing even remotely offensive?
in reply to Anonymii
Anonymii
Exactly, Goover. I substituted the word "conservative" for his word, "progressive", leaving the rest of it alone. They're proud of being conservatives so why did its use in my comment mean the comment needed to be deleted? I (and apparently nobody else) didn't ask that his comment be deleted just because it includes the word "progressive".
in reply to Goover
.................................
Some people can't stand somebody else giving it right back to them!
..............................
The_Monk
in reply to The_Monk
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/07/29/1741874/herrera-beutler-cast-the-wrong.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1TYvoc1gv
UPDATE:
Anonymii
Did it make you feel good to have my comment removed?
in reply to The_Monk
Goover
Especially since the comment contained nothing even remotely offensive?
in reply to Anonymii
Anonymii
Exactly, Goover. I substituted the word "conservative" for his word, "progressive", leaving the rest of it alone. They're proud of being conservatives so why did its use in my comment mean the comment needed to be deleted? I (and apparently nobody else) didn't ask that his comment be deleted just because it includes the word "progressive".
in reply to Goover
.................................
Is Boehner now a lame duck?
........................................
Boehner discovers the obvious
Our view: After House's failure Thursday to pass its debt limit plan, speaker must realize a bipartisan deal is the only path forward
10:42 a.m. EDT, July 29, 2011
Today House Speaker John Boehner is scrounging around to find the few votes he needs to pass a deficit reduction and debt limit increase plan, an increasingly difficult proposition as his party's conservative wing is growing bold in its revolt against his leadership. But the task is really not so difficult. In fact, there are 193 votes ripe for the taking. They're called "Democrats."
Mr. Boehner has resisted crafting a plan that will attract any of them out of the realization that it would irreparably fracture his caucus and threaten his leadership. But after his failure to round up the 217 Republican votes he would need to pass his plan, the speaker surely must realize that it's already too late to avoid that. President Obama, speaking at the White House this morning, pointed out the obvious lesson that Mr. Boehner should have taken away from Thursday's events: "Any solution to avoid default must be bipartisan."
Given the fact that 53 Democratic Senators and two independents had already sent him a letter saying they would not pass his two-step debt limit increase plan, and that President Obama had already promised to veto it, Mr. Boehner already knew that jamming his bill through the House with no Democratic support was unlikely to work. Despite his boasts that the Senate would cave in and take his bill as the August 2 deadline neared, the chances always were that the final deal would not be on his terms.
[snipped]
UPDATE:
House approves revised Boehner debt-ceiling plan
After a belabored and bruising struggle to appease conservatives, the House of Representatives has passed Speaker John A. Boehner's bill to raise the debt limit and reduce the deficit.
[snipped]
"Never in our history has there been an intentional disaster perpetrated by the very people who were elected to be the caretakers of this country. That is exactly what will happen if we refuse to take action to prevent default and pay our nation’s bills now," said Rep. Kathy Hochul (D-N.Y.), the newly-elected congresswoman from a heavily-Republican district who was chosen by party leadership to deliver the closing argument.
[snipped]
Boehner's struggle to win over his GOP colleagues came at a cost. The struggle appeared to weaken the speaker just as the weeks-long debt limit standoff is coming to a head before the Aug. 2 deadline. Many lawmakers acknowledged that the most recent revision to the bill only made the proposal less palatable to the Senate and, in the end, undermined the party's attempts to cut federal spending.
[snipped]
........................................
Boehner discovers the obvious
Our view: After House's failure Thursday to pass its debt limit plan, speaker must realize a bipartisan deal is the only path forward
10:42 a.m. EDT, July 29, 2011
Today House Speaker John Boehner is scrounging around to find the few votes he needs to pass a deficit reduction and debt limit increase plan, an increasingly difficult proposition as his party's conservative wing is growing bold in its revolt against his leadership. But the task is really not so difficult. In fact, there are 193 votes ripe for the taking. They're called "Democrats."
Mr. Boehner has resisted crafting a plan that will attract any of them out of the realization that it would irreparably fracture his caucus and threaten his leadership. But after his failure to round up the 217 Republican votes he would need to pass his plan, the speaker surely must realize that it's already too late to avoid that. President Obama, speaking at the White House this morning, pointed out the obvious lesson that Mr. Boehner should have taken away from Thursday's events: "Any solution to avoid default must be bipartisan."
Given the fact that 53 Democratic Senators and two independents had already sent him a letter saying they would not pass his two-step debt limit increase plan, and that President Obama had already promised to veto it, Mr. Boehner already knew that jamming his bill through the House with no Democratic support was unlikely to work. Despite his boasts that the Senate would cave in and take his bill as the August 2 deadline neared, the chances always were that the final deal would not be on his terms.
[snipped]
UPDATE:
House approves revised Boehner debt-ceiling plan
After a belabored and bruising struggle to appease conservatives, the House of Representatives has passed Speaker John A. Boehner's bill to raise the debt limit and reduce the deficit.
[snipped]
"Never in our history has there been an intentional disaster perpetrated by the very people who were elected to be the caretakers of this country. That is exactly what will happen if we refuse to take action to prevent default and pay our nation’s bills now," said Rep. Kathy Hochul (D-N.Y.), the newly-elected congresswoman from a heavily-Republican district who was chosen by party leadership to deliver the closing argument.
[snipped]
Boehner's struggle to win over his GOP colleagues came at a cost. The struggle appeared to weaken the speaker just as the weeks-long debt limit standoff is coming to a head before the Aug. 2 deadline. Many lawmakers acknowledged that the most recent revision to the bill only made the proposal less palatable to the Senate and, in the end, undermined the party's attempts to cut federal spending.
[snipped]
........................................
Boehner, a moderate? Ha!
....................................
If John Boehner is a moderate, we have a problem
The nation needs jobs, not ideological war
Dan Rodricks, 11:58 AM EDT, July 27, 2011
I heard someone use the term "moderate Republican" the other day, and I looked around for Mac Mathias. Of course, the great Maryland senator departed this life in January 2010, at the age of 87. He had retired in 1987, having served in Congress for 25 years. Once upon a time, Senator Mathias was aligned with something called the "influential liberal wing of the Republican Party," a phrase you could never conjure today without first doing some herb — and, even then, it would have to be really good stuff.
Once upon a time, there were Republicans in the middle and the middle-left. Rockefeller Republicans, they were called — fiscal conservatives, skeptical of big government social programs, but supporters of sensible government investment in education, health care and the environment for the good of the nation.
Wayne Gilchrest, an Eastern Shore Republican and Vietnam veteran, was among the last of that crowd, and he survived long past his expiration date. It was the far more conservative Andy Harris who finally unseated Mr. Gilchrest in the 2008 primary.
Mr. Harris, of course, is in Washington now, part of the tea party-beholden freshman class that has created the mess over the nation's debt ceiling. Their agenda is extreme — repeal the health insurance expansion that Congress enacted only last year, cut as much federal discretionary spending as possible, encourage the continued concentration of wealth by the richest Americans by sparing them new taxes, and force cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. These aren't sober grownups acting prudently to get the American house in order; these are extremists trying to gut the house and reduce its reason for existence.
When I heard the term "moderate Republican" the other day, it was used to describe the speaker of the House, John Boehner. A man who proposes cutting federal spending by $1.2 trillion in a first round and by another $1.8 trillion in a second round, while standing firm against new taxes even for the wealthiest Americans, is now considered middle-of-the-road.
So, as the right moves further right — and perhaps right off the cliff — President Obama and the Democrats still look like liberals, despite two decades of instruction by their party's leadership to move to the magic middle. It was Bill Clinton, welfare reformer and capital punishment supporter, who took the party to the political median strip. From there, he presided over a stable economy and, ultimately, federal budget surpluses.
It was his Republican successor and his accomplices in Congress who led the nation back to a string of annual deficits caused by big tax cuts and expensive wars.
Then came the Great Recession, and things got worse just as Barack Obama was taking the oath of office. Two years later, we had the tea party revolt, a full-fledged attack on the federal system at a time when Wall Street, and not the government, deserved popular anger. Claiming to be all about "creating jobs," the tea party Republicans have instead embarked on an ideological battle.
So here we are, with this new breed of Republicans and, with them, a stalemate and near full crisis at a time when the nation's economy is still fragile as a house of cards and millions have been out of work for six months or longer. The Rockefeller Republicans and the Wayne Gilchrest moderates would never have played these games with the nation's fundamental finances.
What we're seeing today is, in a sense, a new kind of culture war — over the "culture" of federalism — when what the nation really needs is sound governance and rational leadership to get us through a tough time.
No wonder Americans flooded congressional offices with phone calls and emails this week. Most of us are out here, working — or looking for work — trying to keep up with bills, trying to figure out what comes next for the economy, and for our children. In Washington, we have zealots who want to defy even a compromising president and rewrite the Constitution — Andy Harris insists on a balanced budget amendment — in the midst of a stagnant economy.
"Too much drama," Americans popularly grumble as they leave a room or a relationship. Sooner or later, that's what sensible Republicans will say about the tea party. For the sake of the country, we should hope it's sooner.
....................................
If John Boehner is a moderate, we have a problem
The nation needs jobs, not ideological war
Dan Rodricks, 11:58 AM EDT, July 27, 2011
I heard someone use the term "moderate Republican" the other day, and I looked around for Mac Mathias. Of course, the great Maryland senator departed this life in January 2010, at the age of 87. He had retired in 1987, having served in Congress for 25 years. Once upon a time, Senator Mathias was aligned with something called the "influential liberal wing of the Republican Party," a phrase you could never conjure today without first doing some herb — and, even then, it would have to be really good stuff.
Once upon a time, there were Republicans in the middle and the middle-left. Rockefeller Republicans, they were called — fiscal conservatives, skeptical of big government social programs, but supporters of sensible government investment in education, health care and the environment for the good of the nation.
Wayne Gilchrest, an Eastern Shore Republican and Vietnam veteran, was among the last of that crowd, and he survived long past his expiration date. It was the far more conservative Andy Harris who finally unseated Mr. Gilchrest in the 2008 primary.
Mr. Harris, of course, is in Washington now, part of the tea party-beholden freshman class that has created the mess over the nation's debt ceiling. Their agenda is extreme — repeal the health insurance expansion that Congress enacted only last year, cut as much federal discretionary spending as possible, encourage the continued concentration of wealth by the richest Americans by sparing them new taxes, and force cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. These aren't sober grownups acting prudently to get the American house in order; these are extremists trying to gut the house and reduce its reason for existence.
When I heard the term "moderate Republican" the other day, it was used to describe the speaker of the House, John Boehner. A man who proposes cutting federal spending by $1.2 trillion in a first round and by another $1.8 trillion in a second round, while standing firm against new taxes even for the wealthiest Americans, is now considered middle-of-the-road.
So, as the right moves further right — and perhaps right off the cliff — President Obama and the Democrats still look like liberals, despite two decades of instruction by their party's leadership to move to the magic middle. It was Bill Clinton, welfare reformer and capital punishment supporter, who took the party to the political median strip. From there, he presided over a stable economy and, ultimately, federal budget surpluses.
It was his Republican successor and his accomplices in Congress who led the nation back to a string of annual deficits caused by big tax cuts and expensive wars.
Then came the Great Recession, and things got worse just as Barack Obama was taking the oath of office. Two years later, we had the tea party revolt, a full-fledged attack on the federal system at a time when Wall Street, and not the government, deserved popular anger. Claiming to be all about "creating jobs," the tea party Republicans have instead embarked on an ideological battle.
So here we are, with this new breed of Republicans and, with them, a stalemate and near full crisis at a time when the nation's economy is still fragile as a house of cards and millions have been out of work for six months or longer. The Rockefeller Republicans and the Wayne Gilchrest moderates would never have played these games with the nation's fundamental finances.
What we're seeing today is, in a sense, a new kind of culture war — over the "culture" of federalism — when what the nation really needs is sound governance and rational leadership to get us through a tough time.
No wonder Americans flooded congressional offices with phone calls and emails this week. Most of us are out here, working — or looking for work — trying to keep up with bills, trying to figure out what comes next for the economy, and for our children. In Washington, we have zealots who want to defy even a compromising president and rewrite the Constitution — Andy Harris insists on a balanced budget amendment — in the midst of a stagnant economy.
"Too much drama," Americans popularly grumble as they leave a room or a relationship. Sooner or later, that's what sensible Republicans will say about the tea party. For the sake of the country, we should hope it's sooner.
....................................
Thanks a pantload......
The Norwegian man who allegedly killed dozens at a kids summer camp claims he legally bought high-capacity ammunition clips by mail from the United States, prompting Capitol Hill’s leading gun-control advocate to say on Thursday that America should be ashamed such purchases aren’t against the law.
Anders Behring Breivik wrote in a 1,500-page manifesto that he bought 10 30-round ammunition clips for his .223 caliber rifle from an undisclosed, small U.S. supplier, which had acquired the clips from other suppliers. Norway forbids the sale of clips for hunting rifles that hold more than three bullets, according to Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten.
Anders Behring Breivik wrote in a 1,500-page manifesto that he bought 10 30-round ammunition clips for his .223 caliber rifle from an undisclosed, small U.S. supplier, which had acquired the clips from other suppliers. Norway forbids the sale of clips for hunting rifles that hold more than three bullets, according to Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/60154.html#ixzz1TWEhNsOd
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Wow,..I never knew that I was so powerful....
GinaMD 3 comments collapsed Collapse Expand
Do I have to go to the editor or what ? You are deleting my comments for no valid reason !
These were in response to ..sidrat38 's comment
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/07/28/1740422/it-took-too-long-but-end-comes.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1TTTrErqG
Tammy McGee , Moderator for TheOlympian.com 2 comments collapsed Collapse Expand
Do not threaten me. Your comments are exactly where you posted them. If you have an issue, call us or email us. Do not post threatening comments, or call us out on these threads, or I will remove your ability to post.
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/07/28/1740422/it-took-too-long-but-end-comes.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1TTTz3E00
Yeah! Me, (I guess...)
.....I only posted one little sarcastic comment.......
Do I have to go to the editor or what ? You are deleting my comments for no valid reason !
These were in response to ..sidrat38 's comment
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/07/28/1740422/it-took-too-long-but-end-comes.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1TTTrErqG
Tammy McGee , Moderator for TheOlympian.com 2 comments collapsed Collapse Expand
Do not threaten me. Your comments are exactly where you posted them. If you have an issue, call us or email us. Do not post threatening comments, or call us out on these threads, or I will remove your ability to post.
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/07/28/1740422/it-took-too-long-but-end-comes.html#disqus_thread#ixzz1TTTz3E00
Yeah! Me, (I guess...)
.....I only posted one little sarcastic comment.......
Fiscally irresponsible
CHICAGO • Illinois Rep. Joe Walsh, the tea party-backed Republican who squeaked into office last year by vowing to bring fiscal responsibility to Washington and who has been one of President Barack Obama's most outspoken critics during the standoff over the debt ceiling, is being sued for more than $100,000 in unpaid child support, a newspaper reported.
The freshman congressman's ex-wife, Laura Walsh, filed the claim against him in December as part of their divorce case, saying he owed $117,437 to her and their three children, the Chicago Sun-Times reported in a story published Wednesday. She contends that Walsh loaned his own campaign $35,000 and took international vacations but said he couldn't afford child support payments because he was between jobs or out of work.
"Joe personally loaned his campaign $35,000, which, given that he failed to make any child support payments to Laura because he 'had no money' is surprising," Laura Walsh's attorneys wrote in the motion. "Joe has paid himself back at least $14,200 for the loans he gave himself."
Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/illinois/article_1e1faac0-b948-11e0-809f-001a4bcf6878.html#ixzz1TRj2ZJ00
The freshman congressman's ex-wife, Laura Walsh, filed the claim against him in December as part of their divorce case, saying he owed $117,437 to her and their three children, the Chicago Sun-Times reported in a story published Wednesday. She contends that Walsh loaned his own campaign $35,000 and took international vacations but said he couldn't afford child support payments because he was between jobs or out of work.
"Joe personally loaned his campaign $35,000, which, given that he failed to make any child support payments to Laura because he 'had no money' is surprising," Laura Walsh's attorneys wrote in the motion. "Joe has paid himself back at least $14,200 for the loans he gave himself."
Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/illinois/article_1e1faac0-b948-11e0-809f-001a4bcf6878.html#ixzz1TRj2ZJ00
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
McCain accuses conservatives of “deceiving” America
.......................................
MCCAIN ERUPTS: CONSERVATIVES ARE LYING TO AMERICA
By Greg Sargent | 03:13 PM ET, 07/27/2011
So the debt limit debate has come to this: John McCain, who you may recall was the GOP’s 2008 standard bearer, is now openly accusing conservatives of actively misleading America with their completely unrealistic demands, which he labeled “deceiving” and “bizarro.”
In a seminal moment in this debate, here’s some video of McCain on the Senate floor today, unleashing an angry tirade at conservatives who are still holding out for a balanced budget amendment as part of any compromise on the debt ceiling. McCain accused them of “deceiving” America into believing such a thing can pass the Senate: McCain on the “balanced budget”
There are Republicans in both the House and Senate who are still pushing for another vote on the balanced budget amendment, even though “cut cap and balance,” which contains such an amendment, has already failed in the Senate. Tea Party GOP Senators such as Jim DeMint and Rand Paul are calling on colleagues to reject John Boehner’s proposal for a two-tiered debt ceiling increase, and are instead demanding another vote on “cut cap and balance.” Meanwhile, House conservatives such as Mike Pence are also urging another vote on a modified version of a balanced budget amendment.
To such conservatives, McCain offered a simple answer: You’re in fantasy-land, and you’re doing your constituents a disservice by perpetuating the falsehood that such a thing can ever happen.
“What is really amazing about this is that some members are believing that we can pass a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution in this body with its present representation — and that is foolish,” McCain said angrily. “That is worse than foolish. That is deceiving many of our constituents.” McCain went on to rip the idea as “bizarro.”
Tellingly, McCain cited today’s Wall Street Journal editoral excoriating conservative opponents of the Boehner plan as out of touch with reality for thinking they can do better. McCain’s angry tirade on the Senate floor today perfectly captures the rising frustration, anger, and panic of more responsible Republicans and GOP establishment figures as they come to terms with the true depths of the delusion that is now afflicting some on the right — and the danger it is now posing to our economy and country.
.......................................
MCCAIN ERUPTS: CONSERVATIVES ARE LYING TO AMERICA
By Greg Sargent | 03:13 PM ET, 07/27/2011
So the debt limit debate has come to this: John McCain, who you may recall was the GOP’s 2008 standard bearer, is now openly accusing conservatives of actively misleading America with their completely unrealistic demands, which he labeled “deceiving” and “bizarro.”
In a seminal moment in this debate, here’s some video of McCain on the Senate floor today, unleashing an angry tirade at conservatives who are still holding out for a balanced budget amendment as part of any compromise on the debt ceiling. McCain accused them of “deceiving” America into believing such a thing can pass the Senate: McCain on the “balanced budget”
There are Republicans in both the House and Senate who are still pushing for another vote on the balanced budget amendment, even though “cut cap and balance,” which contains such an amendment, has already failed in the Senate. Tea Party GOP Senators such as Jim DeMint and Rand Paul are calling on colleagues to reject John Boehner’s proposal for a two-tiered debt ceiling increase, and are instead demanding another vote on “cut cap and balance.” Meanwhile, House conservatives such as Mike Pence are also urging another vote on a modified version of a balanced budget amendment.
To such conservatives, McCain offered a simple answer: You’re in fantasy-land, and you’re doing your constituents a disservice by perpetuating the falsehood that such a thing can ever happen.
“What is really amazing about this is that some members are believing that we can pass a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution in this body with its present representation — and that is foolish,” McCain said angrily. “That is worse than foolish. That is deceiving many of our constituents.” McCain went on to rip the idea as “bizarro.”
Tellingly, McCain cited today’s Wall Street Journal editoral excoriating conservative opponents of the Boehner plan as out of touch with reality for thinking they can do better. McCain’s angry tirade on the Senate floor today perfectly captures the rising frustration, anger, and panic of more responsible Republicans and GOP establishment figures as they come to terms with the true depths of the delusion that is now afflicting some on the right — and the danger it is now posing to our economy and country.
.......................................
While monitoring the blog...
It seems that someone really is interested in this story, as they keep going back to it over and over....
http://thurstonblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/red-states-snort-bath-salts.html
http://thurstonblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/red-states-snort-bath-salts.html
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
More Beck hypocrisy
..........................................
CNN.com Points Out Beck's Hypocrisy On Norway Youth Camp
July 26, 2011 6:04 pm ET by Karen Famighetti
Glenn Beck's comment yesterday that the Labor Party youth camp attacked by a terrorist in Norway last Friday "sounds a little like the Hitler Youth" is perhaps a new low point, even for him. But Beck's comparing the victims of a terrorist attack that resulted in 68 deaths to the Hitler Youth isn't just egregious -- it also smacks of hypocrisy.
As CNN.com points out in an article covering Beck's comment, the 9/12 Project -- which Beck founded and heavily promoted during his run on Fox News -- runs "Patriot Camps" for young children that include "Educational exercises will focus on our Constitution, the Founding Fathers, and the values and principles that are the cornerstones of our nation." The CNN.com article also points out that:
..........................................
CNN.com Points Out Beck's Hypocrisy On Norway Youth Camp
July 26, 2011 6:04 pm ET by Karen Famighetti
Glenn Beck's comment yesterday that the Labor Party youth camp attacked by a terrorist in Norway last Friday "sounds a little like the Hitler Youth" is perhaps a new low point, even for him. But Beck's comparing the victims of a terrorist attack that resulted in 68 deaths to the Hitler Youth isn't just egregious -- it also smacks of hypocrisy.
As CNN.com points out in an article covering Beck's comment, the 9/12 Project -- which Beck founded and heavily promoted during his run on Fox News -- runs "Patriot Camps" for young children that include "Educational exercises will focus on our Constitution, the Founding Fathers, and the values and principles that are the cornerstones of our nation." The CNN.com article also points out that:
[I]n August, the Danville, Kentucky, chapter is holding a "Vacation Liberty School" that organizers pledge "will help your children understand where we came from. Understand where we went wrong. Understand where the fork in the road was, and which path we should have taken."Beck's comment was criticized by the National Jewish Democratic Council today. Once again, Beck has demonstrated that there are no limits to how low his rhetoric will sink.
..........................................
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)