Simply Left Behind

You LIKE Me! You really LIKE Me!

noreply@blogger.com (Actor212) — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 09:14:28 PST

Spiked at the top until 11/20

*AHEM*

The annual exercise in futility, otherwise known as the Weblog Awards, has opened nominations for this year's contest.

I have the distinction of being a finalist for the past two years, and a winner two years ago. I'd like to continue my unprecedented string of three straight finalist nods.

Won't you please nominate me?

Best Up And Coming Blog

Best Large Blog (What? When the fuck did THAT happen???)

Best Liberal Blog

And of course, if you want to name me in some other category...well, let's just say I can feel the love.

Thanks all!

Nobody Asked Me, But...

noreply@blogger.com (Actor212) — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 06:36:32 PST

1) I really REALLY hope he announces his divorce at a press conference again.

2) Millions of horny pre-med students cry out in agony at the loss of an excuse while dating beauticians.

3) There might actually be compelling TV on C-Span tomorrow

4) Speaking of Congress, it was not a pretty sight on Capitol Hill yesterday. Republicans embarassed themselves left and right.

5) Speaking of Republican embarassment, if you didn't see Jon Stewart's interview on-line with Lou Dobbs, you missed a helluva chat. The edited version for TV ran 8 minutes. The unedited, uncensored version ran for twenty minutes.

6) Not the kind of alarm clock you need to hear when you're in space.

7) ThumbPer will not be happy.

8) France won their way into the World Cup tournament this week on the basis of a bad call by the officials. It's not that this was a make-or-break call, France at this point was tied on points and the next goal would have decided the game, but it did end Ireland's chances of sneaking past France. People are not happy. And soccer kills!

9) In case you wondered why Jews are not as sexually hung up as Christians...

10) Finally, yes, Virginia, there really IS a war on Christmas!

Publisher's Note: Yes, I will be reprising the popular War On Christmas Carol serial, as well as the Twelve Days of Christmas Music Blogging. I may throw a few surprises in for you.

First Date

noreply@blogger.com (Actor212) — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:07:29 PST

It's kind of funny, I suppose, the reaction that the naysayers of the right wing have expressed with regards to the now-concluded trip to the Far East by President Obama:

The result was a trip more dominated by imagery -- some positive, some controversial -- than substance. A photo of Mr. Obama bowing deeply to the Japanese emperor has stoked indignation among conservatives in the U.S. Pictures of Mr. Obama staring down at his lectern as Chinese President Hu Jintao lectured him on free trade left the impression of a U.S. leader who was frustrated but powerless.

Factually, true. Obama did bow his head to the Japanese emperor...just as Richard Nixon did.

And it is true that Hu did lecture the United States on free trade...in response to wholly unnecessary and dangerous tariffs slapped on Chinese tires. Obama's misstep, or at least mistimed step, should have been noted by Hu. Protocol demanded it, and let's face facts: China has gone from the eighth largest economy to the fourth in the space of this decade alone, and is poised to overtake the United States by 2015.

Only the European Union would be a larger economic entity. The United States enjoyed much of the 20th Century dictating world economics. It's only right that the largest have the biggest voice, so to expect suddenly that we'd enjoy some outsized voice when China overtakes us (which is inevitable) is ludicrous. It would be like the US suddenly decide that England must have the larger voice after World War II.

What is most notable about the Hu lecture is...it didn't relieve the tariffs. For that alone, Obama should be credited, for standing his ground on an issue he feels is important enough to piss off a country that holds an awful lot of our paper.

To expect Obama to come home with a goody basket on what amounts to a first date to the APEC conference is pretty silly. It's like expecting your date to put out on the first date when you are no longer in college and are no longer the first string quarterback or the head cheerleader.

It's called maturity. Obama didn't come home with his clothes dishevelled and lipstick all over his face. He came home with a quiet smile and a phone number or two.

And this is all against a backdrop of a world community, particularly in China and Asia, that didn't trust the United States after electing that jackass tall-hatted faux-cowboy...twice!

His work was hard enough considering the economic crisis, global warming (which affects Asia far far more than nearly any other region of the world), and the simultaneous spike in poverty and hunger these twin crises have created. He had to start from his ten yard line (to torture the metaphor further) and with only ten players on his team.

I'll settle for the field goal. This time.

MEMORANDUM

noreply@blogger.com (Actor212) — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 07:29:57 PST

To GOP

SUBEJCT Wooing New Voters

If u r selling fear, u r doing it rong.

This week has seen some pretty spectacular fear-mongering amongst the GOP, and I suspect it will spell the eventual downfall of the party as a whole.

Item 1: Palin on Nidal Hasan: "Profile Away"

Item 2: Holder: Don't fear trial of 'coward' 9/11 plotter

Item 3: Is Obama planning a $3 trillion income tax increase?

Item 4: CNN Poll: Does the GOP want ideologically pure candidates?

Item 5: Republican to Bloomberg: What if Terrorists Take Your Daughter

Ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

And that was just today's headlines!

Fear-mongering worked in 2004 because the Bush administration, from their bully pulpit, were able to terrorize Americans with constant tales of terror alerts and rainbow-colored fearcandy. Week in and week out, month in and month out, the Bushies seemed to manufacture terrorist plots by the bushelful.

And like Rudy Giuliani's prosecution of white collar criminals in the 70s and 80s, it was mostly smoke bombs and mirrors. No real convictions to speak of, certainly none in proportion to the almost-constant stream of "We are at war with East Anglia" stentorian pronouncements of imminent death, disease, and devastation.

Hm.

Are you afraid? It seems Republicans sure are. I wonder why?

Admittedly, when one has been in control for a long time and loses not only control of the executive branch but also control of the legislative branch, it's going to cause a certain amount of uncertainty.

Uncertainty creates a vacuum of authority. New voices struggle to be heard or to even grab power while old voices, now discredited and humbled, have to be muted.

And vacuums create more uncertainty. And uncertainty creates fear.

You're driving a car. You have a map. You pull over and look at the map and confirm your route.

You get back on the highway. Your map tells you "Turn right" only when you look to the right, there's this big gaping hole where the exit used to be.

What to do?

If you had GPS, of course, you'd be fine. It would adjust your route as you drove ahead to the next exit, re-routing you around your problem.

Ah, but now with a map, you've got to rely on instinct and improvisation. Suppose that next exit is ten miles down the road and then the map cuts off at the county line?

This is where the Republicans are right now: off the map. And terrified.

The odd thing, instead of being humbled and learning the lessons of 2006 and 2008, the front-runners in the party are acting as if nothing happened, that it was all according to plan.

But the true story, the backstory, is watching the Palins and Limbaughs and other crackpots try to justify their previous escapades by fomenting fear, by playing off the ignorance of the base, by manipulating information.

I foresee the crash of the Republican party as the most likely outcome here. I think within the next five years, the Republican party will have finally filled enough people with enough fear that they will either commit mass suicide like the Heaven's Gate crew, or more likely, the boy who cried "Wolf" will finally be shown to have piped up once too often with the lies and scare tactics.

After all, this is a country we're trying to all of us run here, not a class election.

What I can't foresee is what comes next? Do moderate Republicans abandon the party for the Democrats or do they force the conservative Neaderthals out, forcing them to come to grips with their hate-mongering in some backwater party like the Libertarians or Reform party?

Either way, Duverger's Law comes into play: third parties don't stand a chance in a country where winner-take-all elections are the norm.

So goodbye to the Republican party as we know it.

Old Wisdoms, New Dumbness

noreply@blogger.com (Actor212) — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 06:33:23 PST

There's an old saw that a lie has rocketed around the world before the truth gets its boots on.

That's not what I want to talk about, however. I want to talk about why it's important to stay on top of facts and the truth, in your own life.

We all live with biases and perceptive alignments that colour our view of the world, that shade the truth. They can't be helped.

They can be overcome. They can be acknowledged and admitted and then accounted for and moved past.

We use information to do this. We gather facts and data and compile a narrative for ourselves that instructs and informs us. We don't rely on other people to inform us. We don't rely on other people's opinions solely. We seek the truth ourselves.

Except it doesn't always work that way. In fact, it usually doesn't.

This lesson, one I was re-taught painfully this summer, is one that we all have to go through. Sometimes, people want to believe what they want to believe because it fits a narrative they've been instructed to believe, that somehow this person is evil or that person is good, merely because some authority has pronounced it so. They want their information precooked and predigested for them.

This is not necessarily a bad thing, mind you. There's only so many hours in a day, only so much information a brain can process. If we have an authority that we've learned or have reason to believe is solid, then why not avail ourselves of the easier route?

Often, we find out to our own cost later that authority was wrong. One reason I take great pains in these blogposts to present data and facts supporting my own opinions is so my thought processes are transparent. You can see whatever pitiful authority I have comes from a set of facts beyond my own.

When the authority is proven wrong, even once, we are faced with a dilemma: how to unlearn that which we have learned.

Remember the hierarchy: it takes little effort to take someone's word on something. It takes a little more effort to corral the facts for yourself and process them into your own information.

It takes a LOT more work to unlearn that which we have learned. And there's the nub. This is why a lie rocketing around the world is such a dangerous thing.

Take....Sarah Palin. Despite the distinctly gooberish way she ran her Vice Presidential campaign last year, she still insists on changing the narrative.

After all, when you're the Veep nominee, you are beholden to the campaign of the top of the ticket, like it or not. To critique them afterwards for not letting you be you is nonsensical and ludicrous. You didn't run all those primaries: he did. He was chosen, you were picked.

Shut up, in other words. And yet after all that, and this hideous book tour she's engaged in where she tries desperately to disavow any responsibility for the full-metal fuck ups she performed routinely on the trail, there are still a strong minority of people who believe her story above all others, simply because she is the Palin.

Take the photo on this week's Newsweek cover story.

Now, she claims this photo was taken for a Runner's World photo spread and that it's unfair for Newsweek to use it for this story.

Admittedly, she hasn't announced that she is running for President, but it's clear that she's running. She's no longer governor of Alaska but a private citizen. She deserves no more consideration than any other private citizen with a book they are humping.

And she does have nice legs, to boot.

Somehow, however, she wants to juggle authority with respect and responsibility such that she gets both. But hey, if you're dumb enough to do a spread for a running magazine, you might want to consider the implications of that frivolity if you plan on running for office.

Still, there's the inevitable bleating from the sheeple of the right that this deinigrates women, that this cover is simultaneously biased AND sexist.

It must be the American flag that makes it the product of some CommiehippiepinkoleftistIslamofundamentalistmale conspiracy against Sarah. Youbetcha!

Nevermind that the yahoos that she's selling herself to are the most sexist pigs on the planet. But there's the lie for you: Sarah Palin is a victim of the great mainstream (conservative, we should point out) media bias, and treated like a sex object to boot.

The truth is, she's gone out of her way to call attention to herself as a woman, not as a politician, and so she's the one who has denigrated and deprecated and depreciated the power of women. Lipstick on a pitbull indeed!

We can hope that most Americans are smart enough to remember her antics. Sadly, the attention span of the vast majority of Americans is so short, I doubt it.

We'll have her to kick around for a long time.

Bring It On!

noreply@blogger.com (Actor212) — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 05:58:37 PST

What to make of the cowards like Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin?

The decision to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, admitted mastermind of the September 11, 2001, attacks, and four other suspects to a New York courtroom, rather than a military tribunal, was described in stark contrasts Sunday by officials on opposing sides of the political spectrum.

Democrats hailed Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to try the men in a civilian court as a demonstration of America's might and moral certainty, while Republicans called it a bad idea based on politics rather than pragmatism.

"We have a judicial system that's the envy of the world," Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, said on the CBS program "Face the Nation." "I don't think we should run and hide and cower. Let's use our system."

But Republican Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, speaking on the CNN program "State of the Union," questioned why foreigners who allegedly are terrorists at war with the United States should be given full judicial rights of U.S. citizens.

First, because we can and should. We've done it before and we should do it again.

As a New Yorker, I say "Bring it on!"

We've hosted trials as big, and with even more dangerous men, and survived. We held the trials of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers, including Ramzi Yussef, and while the ultimate outcome was the 9/11 tragedy, if we had a Federal government and President who was giving a rat's ass about the safety of US citizens, that would not have happened.

Indeed, 9/11 was the day before the scheduled sentencing of that trial.

We've held the numerous trials of one John Gotti, Mafia mastermind and godfather who had done everything in his power to make the US attorney's office (one Rudolph Giuliani in particular) screw up convictions. This was a man who knew his way around New York City and even knew how to get to a jury.

He was still eventually convicted.

I do not think for one minute there is any danger in a fair trial in a civilian court where Mohammed can avail himself of the best available representation. If we could try the "20th Hijacker," Zacarias Moussaoui, in an open court, then the American people should demand that Mohammed be given a fair trial.

Period. Anything less would be an acknowledgement of the weakness of the American jurisprudence system, and an acknowledgement that the Bush administration fumbled opportunity after opportunity to expose Al Qaeda for what it is: a criminal organization intent not on some zealous defense of Islam, but profit and power in a vacuum that is the secular Muslim world.

Instead, led by Dick Cheney and his ilk, Al Qaeda was quite literally and honestly turned into a scapegoat to further the, well, criminal organization known as the Bush Administration who grabbed for profit and power in the vacuum that was the Western World after 9/11.

Bring the trial to New York City. Televise it. Stream it live on-line to the 'Net. let the world see how a trial in America works. They got a taste of it in the trial of Saddam Hussein, and I'd argue that pageant may have done more to quell misgivings in the Baghdad street about what Americans were up to than any candy our soldiers handed out to children.

Justice? Bring it on.

Nobody Asked Me But....

noreply@blogger.com (Actor212) — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 08:14:33 PST

1) I sense a sort of "perfect storm" in agriculture headed our way.

2) Pushed, jumped, or thrown under the bus? Gitmo was a centerpiece of Obama's campaign pledges, and he needs to get this done today. You'd think one of them there wide open flat spaces in the middle of the country would jump at the chance to receive the federal funds that would generously flow from this.

3) It looks like we are going to have to come up with a better definition of what constitutes an intelligent species, or be prepared to stop using the denigration "when pigs fly"...

4) Gee...only took them, what? 35 years? to live up to their principles. We should assume this means they're getting serious about abortion reform. No! Really! They really really mean it this time!

5) Imagine that: a news organization that honest-to-god just wants to report the news without spin!

6) PROTIP from a former backpacker: If ur in the woods, eatin' 'shrooms you find, ur doin it rong!

7) Of course, this guy can say this, his bank is doing nicely. Now let him endorse my position, and then I'll believe he's sincere.

8) Headline The Catholic Church Really Didn't Want To See: Irish priest kidnapped in Philippines released by MILF I'll throw out the first joke: Well, at least she was an adult!

9) He must have been one very well-hung teenager.

10) Finally, a fashion trend that will take the sting of my teen years Nehru jackets away...

Salary Celery

noreply@blogger.com (Actor212) — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 07:51:52 PST

This really kind of burns my butt:

Nov. 12 (Bloomberg) -- Kenneth Feinberg, the Obama administration's special master for executive compensation, said he is "very concerned" about the possibility his pay cuts may drive talent away from companies bailed out by U.S. taxpayers.

"Maybe I've struck the right balance," Feinberg said, referring to criticism that he has been too harsh and too easy on executives. "Hopefully some of this will percolate into the private sector, we'll have to see," he said today at a Washington conference held by Bloomberg Ventures, a unit of Bloomberg LP, parent of Bloomberg News.

Feinberg has ordered pay cuts averaging 50 percent for the top 25 executives at Citigroup Inc., Bank of America Corp., American International Group Inc. and four other companies that took U.S. bailout money. He will rule on pay structures covering the next 75 highest-paid employees at those firms by year-end.

OK, look...all I have to say is...WHAT THE FUCK?!?!?!?!?!??!

Mr. Feinberg, please rethink your concerns.

These are the idiots who ran Citigroup, Bank of America, AIG and the others INTO THE GROUND!!!! Why should we give a rat's ass about whether they abandon ship now that it's been righted and set back on course?

If anything, anything, we should be shoving them out the door and HOPE they end up at a healthy bank, like Goldman Sachs, so that the playing field will level out and the American people can get their bailout money back faster!

We've already lost $2 billion in the CIT bailout/bankruptcy...which handed Goldman $1 billion of our money!

Maybe I'm wrong, but when a firm doesn't require our money to be bailed out, and still gets a sizable chunk of it, then there's something wrong. But I digress...

What's the concern if traders leave those firms where they DON'T get bonuses in favor of those that do give them?

Answer: None. Supply and demand will more than take care of the problem. A glut of available traders will automatically lower the average salary and bonus for all, and will in fact, help strengthen those companies who are running with bloated payrolls and insane bonus packages.

Problem solved, in other words. And we can get back to the business of running a country, not companies.

A Thousand Points Of Blight

noreply@blogger.com (Actor212) — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 03:51:30 PST

Much has been made by conservatives about the private sector and solutions to the problems that confront this nation and this world. Indeed, one might sum these positions as "Thousand Points of Light," a phrase coined by Peggy Noonan, renowned drunk and speechwriter for President George Bush the Elder, way back in the late '80s.

Now, this is not a horrible thing to say: it's our community and people ought to take an active interest in helping their fellow man. Every religion and spiritual believe system talks about giving or sharing and indeed, we're taught way back in kindergarten to share.

When it works, that is. When it does not.....mehhhhhh....

It's hard to overstate the crisis facing charitable giving today. So let me just say it as plainly as I can: Much of current philanthropic giving, by foundations and individuals, neither meets the needs of our charitable organizations nor addresses some of our most urgent public needs.

Foundation practices today are too bureaucratic, inflexible and cautious, and too focused on short-term objectives. Too often, the process and procedures of grant making are more tailored to the needs of foundations and their trustees than to the requirements of nonprofits.

At the same time, our depressed economy is exacerbating this crisis—and making it all the more crucial that we address it. A severe reduction in available public and private funds has put many important nonprofit groups, especially at the local level, in grave danger. Cutbacks in their budgets and programs are depriving their clients of essential health and social services.

A number of nonprofit associations and foundations have called on the government to provide more funds and loans to struggling nonprofit organizations. Such aid would no doubt help, but the primary responsibility for maintaining the strength of the nonprofit community should rest with philanthropic institutions and individual donors.

I can sum the cause up in a short phrase: people don't give to what they need to give to, they give to what they want to give to.

Now, again, the free market is invoked here by those on the right: "Well, if cleaning up a river is desirable, then people will clean up the river."

If only charitable giving worked that way, but it doesn't. It does not exist in a vacuum, isolated from the social structure of people's lives. It is intertwined, and in some cultures deeply intertwined, with other social values.

Prestige, for one. If I want to be "seen" in society, I don't give to the river-cleaning charity unless someone higher up the social food chain is in charge and throws a big party. No, I give to the local ballet, or museum so I can be seated in the orchestra or be invited to the gala opening of the Vermeer exhibit.

Personal impact, for another. If I or a family member contracts a disease, I'm probably going to give some of my charitable attention to the foundation fighting that disease.

Indeed, at some levels of society, millions of dollars are given to hospitals to open a (Your Name Here) Prostate Oncology Wing, because (Your Name Here) contracted prostate cancer. Which is hardly charitable giving. In truth, it's making a reservation at the finest table in the restaurant with the chef's (surgeon's) personal attention lavished on you, at the expense of other people who can't afford his services now.

Or to churches. Now, no one is denying the importance of religion in American culture, let's be clear about this. Like it or not, religion is an integral part of our society, and people give the lion's share of their charity to churches.

That's the facts, Jack. Roughly half of individual contributions go to religions. We hope those religions are actively pursuing programs that assist society, but let's face facts: feeding the poor, a noble effort, is not cleaning up a river and very few churches involve themselves in environmental programs.

Despite God's decree that this is the planet we men have been given dominion over. God might be a bit angry at us for our lack of attention.

But note something in the quote I pulled from the article I've linked to. Let me highlight it here: A number of nonprofit associations and foundations have called on the government to provide more funds and loans to struggling nonprofit organizations.

What goes around, comes around on the merry-go-round. If conservatives are so all-fired about personal responsibility, then why is this phenomenon happening? Why are charities begging Obama for money? What happened to those tax cuts that Bush gave back to the rich over the past decade?

You don't think those folks spent it or put it in their mattresses or some hedge fund, do you?

Sweeping The Clowns Away

noreply@blogger.com (Actor212) — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 06:43:10 PST

Kermit the Frog. Bert & Ernie. Big Bird. Grover. Elmo.

I mention those names, and what image appears in your head? Soft, fuzzy puppets, the Muppets, who teach pre-schoolers and elementary schoolchildren, some of whom cannot afford books and can't get to the (now shut) libraries of the inner cities and rural counties, how to read, and how to do basic math.

Oh. And give them tools and teach them good Judeo-Christian messages of peace and harmony, of getting along in your community. Of how you don't need to fear differences, because underneath it all, we're all just people.

For forty years, these messages have been brought to you courtesy the Children's Television Workshop.

You think, "How can anyone find fault with the basic messages inherent in any church service?"

You'd need to think again. Meet Adam Baldwin:

Our tax dollars by the $tens of millions$ have been redistributed to the CPB/PBS for decades to ‘help’ its social change agents reach into our homes and preach the gospel of multiculturalism.

It is both ironic and hypocritical that the folks producing and airing such socially conscious segments for “Sesame Street” would certainly be among the very first to intolerantly decry the holy leftist “separation of church and state!” political canard.

In fairness to Alec Baldwin and that family, this is not a family member, but is desperate to hang onto the coattails of his in-name-only family.

Baldwin goes onto to point out that the Star Spangled Banner is never sung on Sesame Street, nor is God Bless America. Nevermind that the message it teaches, without referencing any church, is precisely identical to the secular messages he received while wearing his "big boy panties" in Sunday school at Our Lady of Whateverthehell.

Nope. Sesame Street, because it is publicly funded, MUST be part of the Islamofascistcommiepinkohippiefaglesbowymnist movement.

Well, Bert & Ernie DO live together, after all.

I guess Ol' Adam missed this while wearing his (faux) uniform, filming Independence Day:

And indeed, I pointed this out to him in comments and challenged HIS patriotism, since Sesame Street has been to military bases around the world.

But I digress...

Not every patriotic effort has to be borne in with flags waving and guns blazing, or morons in red, white, and blue clothing shouting "USA! USA!" at a sporting event or concert.

Sometimes, a patriotic effort is a matter of teaching a fellow countryman a fact he did not know before. How to count. How to read. How to look at the family down the street wearing yarmulkes and understanding that it's no different than the cross your daddy or older brother wears.

I admit, when Sesame Street started devoting a portion of its show to teaching in Spanish, I got a little uneasy.

Until I thought about it: how do you reach a kid who's parents may not even speak English, yet have thrust him into an English language school system?

And notice, this isn't about illegal immigration. Foreign language students have been in school systems for the past century and more. And we're fortunate here in America that much of the world, much of the wealthier parts at any rate, teach English in their school systems too.

But it's the poor that need our help, it's the poor that need to be given the tools to compete in society, to fully engage in the American dream of getting a job and paying taxes and buying a home and building a life.

It's sad to think that Baldwin, himself just one or two generations away from being a "filthy Irisher" doesn't understand this. A chicago native, a truck driver, and a representaitve of the target audience of Sesame Street, an inner city working class kid, he apparently has forgotten the lessons of the street: pick on someone your own size.

It even appears that in his cups, Baldwin has forgotten the lessons of his own movie debut My Bodyguard. Sometimes, kids in scary situations need a hand from a friend, no matter how tough they think they are.

Even if that friend is a fuzzy little puppet.

A Strategic Bully

noreply@blogger.com (Actor212) — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 09:20:39 PST

I'm very angry about the current state of healthcare reform.

Yes, the House passed, barely, a bill that includes a public option, but at the price of for all intents and purposes banning abortions for the weakest women among us.

As Jesus put it, "As you treat the weakest among you, that is how you are treating me."

And now, here's Joe Lieberman (I-Dickheadton) wailing that even this watered-down version of helping people stay healthy is too hard to deal with, will cost too much.

He's not alone in his handwringing.

The gloves have to come off, and here's what I propose: this legislation is so important to America, that President Obama, through his channels, ought to send the following message to Sen. Lieberman:

You're right. We can't afford meaningless gestures and foolish money spent. Therefore, I am authorizing that a new bill be proposed in Congress, the "Lieberman De-Fund Israel's Defense" bill. We can't afford it any longer.

Wanna bet that not only he, but all the other fence-sitting corporatists suddenly come to God?

After all, it was with Obama's help that Lieberman even has a seat at the table. Joe ought to be reminded of that, now. He's abused that courtesy countless numbers of times this past year.

If Obama would merely show the stones that he showed back in 2006, when nearly everyone wanted to see this abortive embarassment to the Democratic party ousted in a blizzard of contempt, we can have healthcare reform.

He's taken a million bucks in insurance contributions. It's about time he screwed them, then called it a night. His presence in the Senate is amongst the most odious in history, and that includes some God-awful Senators, like Joe McCarthy. He can make this one last gesture and indeed go out a hero to Americans.

He'd get the ego boost he's been craving ever since the Democrats took control back in 2006, in other words.

It would also serve as notice that the White House will play hardball on a bill it deems to be the centerpiece of the Obama legacy. It will drive the Lincolns and Nelsons right into the camp and may even drag a couple of weak Republican candidates...you listening, Olympia?...right into the arms of Obama.

They don't call it the "bully pulpit" for no reason, Mr President.

UPDATE: Paul Krugman gave me a new idea. Just roll Holy Joe the videotape of the people he's genuflecting to.

Nobody Asked Me, But...

noreply@blogger.com (Actor212) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 06:11:14 PST

1) I want to make sure I understand this: the city is closing 25 firehouses in working and middle class neighborhoods. We've cut thousands of jobs that provide assistance to the weakest and poorest among us. We're confronted with massive tax hikes just to close this year's shortfall. But HEY! Spend tens of millions of dollars to honor a billion-dollar corporation and its multimillionaire staff, who could post the money with just the bonuses earned in the World Series AND who has repeatedly stiffed us for even the pittance in taxes the city has asked them to pay? Hell, yes, we can do that!

2) Weird, man. Just fucking weird.

3) Perhaps one good thing to come out of yesterday shooting rampage at Fort Hood is that the mental health of military personnel is actually being talked about in the mainstream media.

4) Years too late, of course.

5) Keep in mind when the right wing idiots clamor about this that Obama's job losses have been at a far lower rate than Goerge W Bush's.

6) Because you know Obama still looks out for us.

7) When you lose one of your biggest financial supporters, you ought to think twice about being the Party of No. Of course, this is not all good news for healthcare reform.

8) I wonder if the French have a word for "entrepreneur"? This guy's picture should be in the dictionary next to it.

9) Yesterday was Guy Fawkes' Day. My suspicion is Michelle Bachmann thought that meant be MORE fascistic and tyrannical. And weren't they just all up in arms over the movie "V for Vendetta"?

10) Finally, apparently, the Beatles really ARE bigger than Jesus...

Throwing Bad Money After Worse

noreply@blogger.com (Actor212) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 05:43:24 PST

You'd think investors would have learned a harsh lesson. Let's talk about that after the break:

Concerns are mounting that efforts by governments and central banks to stoke a recovery will create a nasty side effect: asset bubbles in real-estate, stock and currency markets, especially in Asia.

The World Bank warned Tuesday that the sudden reappearance of billions of dollars in investment capital in East Asia is "raising concerns about asset price bubbles" in equity markets across Asia and in real estate in China, Hong Kong, Singapore and Vietnam. Also Tuesday, the International Monetary Fund cited "a risk" that surging Hong Kong asset prices are being driven by a flood of capital "divorced from fundamental forces of supply and demand."

Behind the trend are measures such as cutting interest rates and pumping money into the financial system, which have left parts of the world awash in cash and at risk of bubbles, or run-ups in asset prices beyond what economic fundamentals suggest are reasonable.

Prices are surging across a host of markets. Gold, up about 44% this year, soared to a record high Tuesday. Copper is up about 50% in the past year. In the U.S., risky assets are rising rapidly in price: The risk spreads, or interest-rate premiums, on low-rated junk bonds have narrowed to about where they were in February 2008, before Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers fell, according to Barclays Capital.

Before I start talking about the "why", let me sum up what you just read because, in truth, my eyes glazed over the first four times I read it, and I'm supposed to be interested in this stuff for a living.

In short, there's a lot of free capital out there that is not being reinvested in companies, or infrastructure, but in speculative investments. The laws of supply and demand, while imperfect, do apply here: opportunities are created when there is more money available than can reasonably be invested/spent.

Those bonuses at Goldman Sachs, that could be lent to struggling shopkeepers or small manufacturers are only the top of the iceberg of available cash that is being used creatively to whip up yet another frenzy.

Why?

Fair question, and a simple answer: addiction.

Greed is a drug. It is like alcohol or heroin, only greed destroys more lives than either of those.

When you've spent the past thirty years receiving double digit percent returns on your invested capital (yes, we've been in an overheated market for that long, despite the occasional bump and drop), you're not going to suddenly accept money market rates of 1 or 1.5% on your money.

You're going to force higher returns. You're going to look for pockets where the worldwide recession has not hit yet, and cycle your money in and out quickly.

How do I know this is what is happening? Personal experience.

Over the past three weeks, I have seen no fewer than three investment funds offer investors refunds on their invested capital. They've called for too much and were unable to complete investments they believed they could close on at an appropriate return.

They were, in other words, outbid by people willing to accept a lower-but-still-healthy return.

How does that work? Here's a thought experiment.

I'm willing to accept a 5% return so I bid to invest one dollar, expecting to get back $1.05.

I do this knowing that I'm faring better than the bank, who would give me a $1.01.

Someone else realizes they'd be willing to accept a 4% return, and so offer to invest $1.01, to get back the same $1.05.

The investment would be foolish to accept less money to pay back more in interest. After all, they get to keep an extra penny themselves.

Greed.

Basically, this is one step up from a Ponzi scheme. And it signals that we are far from out of the woods in this economy.

I'm not sure what the answer is. Part of me would like to see stronger oversight of the markets, but that might stifle true innovation. After all, green energy ain't gonna be financed at the prime rate for the foreseeable future. Neither is stem cell research.

On the other hand, the anarchist in me would like to see the entire capitalist system go cold turkey on stupidity. But that would destroy us in the process, and that kind of violent change only begets more violence.

This is not going to be pretty.

Not A Bad Day At All

noreply@blogger.com (Actor212) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 06:50:46 PST

What to make of the off-year elections that people were focusing on?

Well, on balance, while not a stellar performance, one has to believe Obama actually gained a little ground yesterday.

Huh? Wha?

You heard me. Here's why:

1) Governor of Virginia - Virginia went 53-46 for Obama last year. However, of the last five elected governors (including McDonnell now) three were Republicans, all elected with a Democrat in the White House. Add to that fact that Creigh Deeds was a nearly unknown state senator and ran a campaign so egregiously bad that even the White House wrote him off weeks before the election, a landslide was all but inevitable.

2) Governor of New Jersey - Chris Christie barely held onto a lead going into the voting booth, and many polls had this as a toss-up. Over the past thirty years, there have been six elected governors: three Republicans, three Democrats. To call New Jersey a Democratic stronghold at the state-wide level is ludicrous. Now, Obama did put in some energy into campaigning for Corzine, but the billionaire lost to the multimillionaire largely because of outside assistance from the right wing of the Republican party.

This was no slam dunk election that was Corzine's to lose, in other words. The entrance of Chris Dagget probably hurt Corzine more than Christie, altho his vote total probably would not have changed the outcome.

IN NEITHER OF THESE TWO ELECTIONS WAS OBAMA A FACTOR! Voters chose based almost strictly on local and statewide issues, not the national scene and in no way should either of these elections be considered as part of a larger "Republican Rescusitation"

3) The key race for Obama's fortunes, however, was NY State's 23rd. There, in a stunning reversal of Republican fortunes, Democrat Bill Owens stunned the right wing of America by kicking the ass of Neoconservative darling, Doug Hoffman.

Hoffman held a significant four point lead in polling over the weekend, so he lost seven points in support in the blink of an eye.

Hoffman was heavily touted by Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty, Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the Fucking Republican Loons. This has to strike terror into Sarah Palin's heart, because she so closely tied her Presidential fortunes to the outcome here. It makes her look like a loser who can't even get a Congressman elected in a heavily Republican, very conservative district that is filled with military types!

Pawlenty at least had the smarts to be a little on the QT when he endorsed Hoffman! But Palin?

Ooo-la-la! She shot her chances in the foot with this boo-boo! She pissed off the Republican leadership and still lost the fucking election!

Too bad, so sad, it's ours, Mooseburger...

It's Always About The Money With Them

noreply@blogger.com (Actor212) — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:39:49 PST

Nevermind that the long term costs of global warming are staggering. Nevermind that even the short term costs of global warming are staggeringly high.

No, it's all about the pennies we might save by doing nothing:

WASHINGTON — Republicans boycotted the start of committee debate Tuesday on a bill to curb greenhouse gases, protesting that the bill's costs have not been fully examined. The action put a spotlight on the difficulties Democratic leaders face in moving climate legislation this year.

Republican Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio attended the session for 15 minutes to explain the GOP's argument for staying away. He insisted the tactic "is not a ruse" to block the bill, but concern that its widespread impact on the country has not been made clear.

But Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, the panel's chairman, argued the EPA already has provided "a full blown economic analysis" and that Majority Leader Harry Reid has promised further studies when the bill is merged with other legislation. She insisted "we're not rushing we are taking our time."

HOW MUCH HANDHOLDING DO THESE NIMRODS REQUIRE?

Reid, Pelosi, and Boxer ought to just run roughshod over the Republicans in Congress, just the way the Republicans ran roughshod over the Democrats under the Bush administration.

Eff em, if they can't take a joke. Elections have consequences, deficits don't matter (Cheney), and Go Fuck Yourself (Cheney redux).

Progress cannot come from cons, neo or otherwise. They aren't "pro", they're "con" for a reason.

Probably because the future is now, for them. Today matters more than tomorrow, except when it's a Democrat buying the drinks.

Then somehow yesterday matters more than today, but not as much as tomorrow, which matters less than today anyway.

Re-read that again. It made sense when I put on my Republican hat.

There's this weird dynamic in the Republican party that it seems one can never get a cogent answer on any issue they disagree with. It's one thing to be the loyal opposition, to oppose things on principle, to say that this is wrong because it specifically opposes a parameter that is generally believed to be good for the nation.

It's another thing to throw a five year old's tantrum and say "No! No! No!"

When I was in college, serving on the student council, I made arguably the stupidest speech of my entire life. I said, in effect, "this is wrong because I think it's wrong," with respect to a proposal offered up by the minority party.

Now, I'm a wise man, brilliant at times, but even as the words left my mouth, I realized how stupid it was for me to say that and not have a very specific objection. It made me look stupid, but worse, it made opposition to the proposal look stupid.

You can see where I'm going with this: to knee-jerk reactively say that even discussing solutions to global warming is wrong simply because they might cost us a few bucks makes any legitimate concerns about the solutions involved seem petty.

Say they'll be ineffective (be specific) and you might have my ear. Say they'll be inefficient, and you'll have my ear.

Tell me they'll cost too much, and I'll tune you out nearly as fast as I tune out climate change deniers.

Republicans have become Johnny One-Notes, and they're taking up the kazoo.

Roll The Dice

noreply@blogger.com (Actor212) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:03:20 PST

Tomorrow could conceivably be the biggest off-year election for the next decade, at least.

It is in this spirit that I believe Barack Obama needs to roll the dice or go all-in:

Democrats and Republicans in three states entered their final full day of campaigning ahead of Tuesday's elections, with the White House carefully targeting its resources in a bid to head off Republican victories.

Vice President Biden plans to join Democratic candidate Bill Owens, who is running against a third-party conservative candidate in an upstate New York congressional election, at a rally Monday morning.

Owens is fighting head-to-head against Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman, after GOP candidate Dede Scozzafava dropped out over the weekend. Scozzafava, who was criticized as too moderate by members of her own party, endorsed Owens on Sunday. But it's unclear how much of an impact that endorsement will have, as many of her supporters are expected to drift toward Hoffman's candidacy.

Meanwhile, President Obama headlined two rallies for New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine Sunday, pushing to drive up turnout as Republican challenger Chris Christie did the same.

Having written off the incompetent campaign of Creigh Deeds in Virginia, Obama has put a lot of effort into Corzine's campaign in New Jersey.

The most recent non-partisan polls, like Quinnipiac College, show Corzine with a small lead, but within the margin of error. Obama has made two visits to the state in the past week, with another set for today.

While he's there, however, he might want to consider shoring up White House support in New York's 23rd District.

Yes, Joe Biden will appear there, and yes, that's a high profile appearance, but neither Governor's race will reflect as much on Obama's administration as a race to replace his Secretary of the Army, Republican John McHugh.

As I mentioned in the earlier post I linked to, McHugh's seat is a long-time moderate Republican stronghold, but there's been a twist: the Republican moderate has dropped out of the race...and thrown her support to the Democrat against a conservative insurgent candidate!

This is a situation that cries out for Obama's special attention and a last minute surprise appearance could make that endorsement of Scozzafava not only brilliant, but pave the way for her advancement in politics.

In other words, the New York State Republican party would owe Obama a favor, albeit a minor one, and one he might parlay into something useful to both himself and the nation at large.

Like, perhaps, passing a bill that allows NYS to be a testing ground for a public healthcare option. This would not be inconsistent with former Governor George Pataki's expansion of the Child Health Plus program to cover families, and would be a shot in the arm to retaining businesses in the state.

Win-win, as it were.

Imagine Joe Biden, standing there at the rally in Watertown. Thousands of curious upstaters come out, cheering, and suddenly Joe Biden announces Barack Obama.

Talk about a breaking news story! Talk about a game-changing appearance!

It could happen. It should happen. I hope it does.

UPDATE Looks like I'm in some good company about getting on the President's back.

Nobody Asked Me, But....

noreply@blogger.com (Actor212) — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:35:07 PDT

1) I'm reminded of the fact that the September 11th attackers practiced on Windows Flight Simulator.

2) It only FEELS this old...

3) The question is, will Facebook turn around and pay its members? After all, we had to suffer through this.

4) Git 'em, Hillary!

5) Some people probably have too much time on their hands.

6) Mmmm, demon candy....guhhhhhhhuhuhuhhhhhhhh....

7) A tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.

8) Dumbass of the day. Money quote: "Asked if she's ever heard of birth control, Hasselbeck replied, "Yeah, I have. It takes a while to kick in once you start one. But in the meantime, I just find him incredibly attractive. So, it's not like I'm that disciplined, so right now, my strategy is dressing in a way that will not get me pregnant."

Cuz ugly women never get pregnant...

9) FOX News: Pirate Sympathisers...

10) Finally, the annual reminder to cut off the top three inches of your sheets, and sew them onto the bottom. Yes, it's the end of Daylight Savings Time again!

Obama Does The Right Thing

noreply@blogger.com (Actor212) — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 09:33:38 PDT

Here we have a President who paid attention these past eight years:

President Obama traveled to Dover Air Force Base early Thursday morning, where he met with family members and paid his respects as the bodies of 18 Americans killed this week in Afghanistan were returned to the United States.

It was the president’s first trip to the Delaware air base, the main point of entry for the nation’s war dead to return home. The trip was a symbolic one for Mr. Obama — intended to convey the gravity of his decision as he moves closer to announcing whether he will send more troops to Afghanistan.

The overnight trip was not announced in advance. The president, wearing a dark suit and long overcoat, left the White House at 11:44 p.m. A small contingent of reporters and photographers accompanied Mr. Obama to Dover, where he arrived at 12:34 a.m. aboard Marine One. He returned to the South Lawn of the White House at 4:45 a.m.

(emphasis added, for reasons shortly to be clear)
A simple, dignified, and low-key acknowledgement of one of the most terrible days to befall US combat troops since Vietnam.

You'd think the entire nation, as one, would stand beside Obama for this one moment and acknowledge he did the right thing.

Um, well, you'd be wrong.

Nevermind "support the troops". Nevermind the quiet dignity afforded a group of courageous men and women who lay their lives on the line in defense of this great nation. Nevermind that, in symbolism, we see the toll these wars are taking upon us all.

(Side note: I wonder how bad this economic downturn would have been had we not spent ourselves silly fighting, as Vizzini put it, "involved in a land war in Asia"? Just a thought to chew on.)

It's not enough. There's some dark mystery, a hidden meaning, a shade lingering, over each and every action of President Barack Hussein Obama.

A "black shadow" administration, as it were.

Now, it's true: every President has to be conscious of the impact and meaning of his gestures. Presidents are, like it or not, role models and trendsetters.

Imagine, if you will, George W Bush actually successfully riding the Segway. Undoubtedly, it would have been given a marketing boost (and no doubt, Segway had hopes for that).

Unfortunately he fell off, thus propagating the myth that the Segway is difficult to master and putting a crimp in its acceptance and certainly losing the chance to market is as "so simple a moron can use it".

Presidents acknowledging the loss of soldiers, however, is hardly a political novelty, and is often accompanied by frills and ceremony when he does it (as in laying the wreaths on Memorial Day in Arlington).

One has to question the...patriotism...of those who question this gesture.

Smart Power

noreply@blogger.com (Actor212) — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 06:46:13 PDT

The television show, The Six Million Dollar Man, used this as an opening monologue:

Gentlemen, we can rebuild him. We have the technology. We have the capability to build the world's first bionic man. Steve Austin will be that man. Better than he was before. Better, stronger, faster.

That program was about a test pilot crippled in a horrendous crash, rebuilt using the (then) latest technology.

So it goes with our electrical grid, if only in fits and starts and drips and drabs.

Winners in the Obama administration's $3.4 billion smart grid sweepstakes were exultant. Some losers sounded bitter. But there seemed to be no quarrel that yesterday's Energy Department grants will accelerate revolutionary changes in the ways electricity is generated and managed by utilities and their consumers.

"The grid has to evolve to support where policy is driving us," said Chris Baker, senior vice president and chief information officer of San Diego Gas & Electric Co., which won a $28.1 million federal smart grid grant yesterday. It will help to fund a $60 million futuristic information management system that ties key elements of its smart grid together.

As events of August 2003, as well as events early in the Bush administration demonstrated, we are running a 21st Century economy on bearskins and bone knives, in terms of electrical power.

The grid as it stands is basically a series of local nodes inadequately joined to create large regional swaths of interconnected power feeds. If one plant goes off line, another can shunt electricity to that region and draw on others down the line. This all happens incredibly fast with incredible amounts of power being rerouted chaotically, without function or form.

Not good, particularly as the ultimate oversight is a guy with a button or switch, in case things get hairy. As 2003 demonstrated, many times that guy ain't fast enough.

Current monitoring of power flow takes places in whole seconds, when milliseconds have proven to be critical in determining how to route power. That's going to change. This means that routing will not take place in chunks of power but in fine-tuned streaming.

That's going to save a lot in terms of efficiency, repairs, and load on the grid.

Ultimately, I would hope the goal for energy in America is tons of small, renewable energy plants sprinkled across the landscape, and a power grid that can fine tune the low-power generation that renewable sources will create into plentiful electricity for the nation.

It's just smarter that way.

A Walk In The Park

noreply@blogger.com (Actor212) — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 05:52:59 PDT

Leave it to Republicans to shoot themselves in the foot:

Reporting from Washington - Silvan Johnson adores Sarah Palin, belongs to a conservative discussion group and fumes at President Obama's spending policies. But when it comes to picking a new congressional representative for her upstate New York district, she is in no mood to help the Republican Party.

In fact, Johnson and many other conservatives want to use a Nov. 3 special election to teach the GOP a lesson about sticking to conservative values -- even though that lesson could mean the party loses a House seat it has held for decades. The conservatives are backing a third-party candidate, splitting the Republican vote and giving the Democrat a lead in some recent opinion polls.

"Both parties seem to be more for big government," said Johnson, a probation clerk in Fulton, N.Y. "The Republicans need to learn that the people they are running [for office] do not represent the views of the people."

Clueless Silvan Johnson might want to consider these words of Newt Gingrich:

"We have to decide which business we are in," Gingrich said on his website after conservatives derided his endorsement of[Republican party candidate in NY's 23rd Dede] Scozzafava. "If we are in the business of feeling good about ourselves while our country gets crushed, then I probably made the wrong decision."

The independent candidate, Doug Hoffman, is a rock-ribbed conservative. Lest you think New York as a blue state, it is based on overall population (meaning we have a lot of urban areas here) but swaths of the state make Alabama look progressive and modern, in political outlook.

This election is to fill the seat vacated by Army Secretary John M. McHugh. The last Democrat to win and hold the seat, Peter Peyser, won in 1980. Obama captured 52% of the vote in 2008, with third party candidates drawing an anomalous 2% of the vote. Clearly, some anger at Republicans exists.

While the district is Republican, it tends to elect moderates like McHugh and Sherwood Boehlert. This is what makes Hoffman's entrance into the race, as well as the bizarre divide of the Republican zodiac, so intriguing.

Scozzafava is pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, which has angered an awful lot of the more strident factions in the Republican party, and has Sarah Palin, among others on the list of Fucking Republican Loons, hitching her horse up to pull this wagon.

Sarah Palin, who's about as risk averse as the man wearing a belt and suspenders, is risking a lot to back an insurgency. The party machine in the district hand-picked Scozzafava over Hoffman and others. This cannot be viewed with anything but concern back at RNC HQ.

Should Hoffman win, Palin can count coup and run as an outsider in 2012 despite having burrowed her way deeply into the pile of piglets sucking at National's teat.

Should she lose, it could conceivably mean the end of her fairly sturdy Presidential nomination hopes.

Hoffman has been drawing large sums of money from outside of New York state and is currently out-raising Scozzafava.

But not the Democratic candidate, Bill Owens.

The polling in the district is all over the map: conservative polls tend to push Hoffman, liberal polls tend to push Owens and Siena College polls indicate a whipsaw race, with both Owens and Scozzafava grabbing leads. The most recent and most unreliable poll, taken Oct. 25 and published by the archconservative, Randian Club For Growth, shows Hoffman with a small lead, but I have no doubt this is incorrect, if only for degree not result.

Hm.

I'll say this much: this race is making the Republican nominating process suddenly relevant again. Not because Barack Obama can lose the 2012 election, but because we may be witnessing an historic event.

The complete collapse of a major political party under the weight of its own wrong-headed, heartless ideology. It has been said you can't be too vicious to be a Republican, but it's starting to look like you can!

At Loggerheads

noreply@blogger.com (Actor212) — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 07:40:13 PDT

There's an interesting dynamic at work in a nation where nearly 8 in 10 people agree on something: a public healthcare option.

It may not even come to a vote, despite the fact that it has more than enough votes for it to pass.

You know, that stupid "60 votes to avoid a filibuster" rule that has clogged up legislation for hundreds of years (OK, the vote total has come down in that time, but still...):

The Senate Democratic Leader, Harry Reid - and a majority of Members of the Senate - support the inclusion of public health insurance option in the Senate's health care reform bill. The debate over where the Senate of the United States stands on this question is now settled. The Senate - like the American people, the House of Representatives and the President - supports a public option.

What is not settled is whether the majority will be allowed to have an up or down vote on a health care bill that includes a public option.

The question is: will any of the Democratic Senators join with the Republicans to prevent an up or down vote on a bill containing a public option - one that is supported by the overwhelming majority of the American people?

Two words for ya, Bob: Joe Lieberman (I-Insurance Company Stooge)

It ain't happenin', Bob. Simple as that. Lieberman represents Connecticut and as insurers go, so goes Connecticut. He'd be cutting his nose to spite his face and rather than retire somewhat gracefully, Joe is hellbent-for-leather to show he still has stroke in this new Senate.

His ego is too big to write the check you want him to, Bob. I'm sorry.

This requires now that Olympia Snowe step up and vote her conscience, just like she (sort of) did in committee.

Even if every other Democratic Senator, plus Bernie Sanders (who will), voted for any form of public option in even this limited fashion, Lieberman wouldn't admit an up or down vote if you held a gun to his head.

Even his colleague from Connecticut, Chris Dodd, is sweating bullets over this issue, and while Dodd will likely have the cojones to vote this forward to burnish his populist credentials (his only announced opponent for his 2010 re-election, Linda McMahon, has been hammering him mercilessly for being yoked to big government), he has to be very careful and find whatever political cover he can.

The realpolitik of the situation is this: 80% of Americans want some form of public health insurance coverage. Nearly 60% of Senators want it.

Somehow, we on the ground here have to get thru to Senators we might be able to sway from the Republican party. That's precious few, to be certain. Perhaps Susan Collins of Maine, maybe George Voinovich in Ohio (based on job losses, Ohio has an unemployment rate inching up towards 11%) could be arm-twisted, but even then, every single Democrat besides Lieberman would have to be cracked into line.

That's going to be hard. Support for a public option in the Blue Dog Democrat states is only 54%.

So close, yet so far...

Free Speech Link(TV)ed

noreply@blogger.com (Actor212) — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 06:19:58 PDT

(post pinned to top of blog until 10/26)

First, I have to badger you: if you don't have DISH Network, you are overpaying a corporatist titan who is determined to keep you from finding out the truth.

I urge you to toss out your cable box, get rid of Rupert Murdoch's DirecTV with its hidden fees and open agenda, and get thee to DISH!

Why? Well, in addition to LinkTV, which I featured twice on my blog last week, you get Free Speech TV.

Even better, if you're too mind-numbingly zombified by the blinking lights on your cable box, you can now watch it streaming on-line.

For free.

Oh. But they are holding a fund raising drive, so please give a few bucks to keep them going.

But I digress...

Nobody Asked Me, But...

noreply@blogger.com (Actor212) — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 05:59:59 PDT

1) This makes me very sad. Where I grew up, I knew most of the big timers: Sonny Fox, Sandy Becker, was on Bozo The Clown, even dated Bob McAllister's daughter once or twice...but I never met Soupy Sales, even tho he lived a few blocks away from me. I loved his show most of all. Think Pee Wee's Playhouse, but with a LOT more edge to it.

2) Were they sleeping, or drunk?

3) Like Clinton in the Baltic, Obama now has NATO cover for the troops.

4) Why Axelrod bothered meeting with someone who clearly has an agenda that includes lying to the American people under the false heading "news" is beyond me.

5) Interesting. Sarah Palin just gave the 23rd District in NYS to the Democrats.

6) If Patterson pulls this off, either it will save his re-election bid or will be the final graceful act of a lame duck governor.

7) It's ironic that one childhood hero, Soupy Sales, dies as another is brought back to life.

8) Like putting out fire with gasoline (bonus points for identifying the singer)

9) The Ten Worst Food Developments of the past ten years. I dunno...blooming onions are pretty cool. Too bad I can't eat them.

10) Some guys will never learn...

Republicans Ain't Got Balls

noreply@blogger.com (Actor212) — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 06:22:05 PDT

This comes as no surprise to liberal men:

Republican men nationwide may have experienced a drop in testosterone levels the night Barack Obama was elected president, according to the results of a small study that found another link between testosterone and men's moods.

I've long known that Republican men have no balls.

But let's take a closer look at this phenomenon. After eight years of balls-to-the-wall international violence, aggression, and bullying, in one night of repudiation, we find that aggressive men have lost a few feet off their fastball (pun intended).

Which raises an interesting question: is man, as a gender, inherently and genetically predisposed to violence?

Perhaps. Testosterone is associated with fear and stress: there seems to be a correlation between aggression and testosterone (so the old wive's tale appears intact). Since testosterone is also closely linked to the genetic drive to reproduce, and since our cave ancestors often had to fight for the right to deposit their seed in a woman, there seems to be some anecdotal association that allows for the equation "violence=sex".

Certainly the crime of rape is about violence, possession, aggression and control, and yet it is undeniable that somewhere in there is an element of sexuality.

Too, it has been demonstrated that the observation of violence and aggression can trigger violence and aggression in men (and women). How else can one explain how a bar fight turns into a brawl?

Now, our friends on the right will come up with reams of anecdotal evidence to contradict...something...here, but the simple fact is, cause and effect: they lost, their testosterone dropped. If they had won, their testosterone levels would have remained the same.

This is, of course, good news for John McCain's campaign. All he has to do is just win the 2008 election, and his followers will get erections. He'll be like political Viagra if he can just beat Senator Obama!

Why Americans Are Woefully Uninformed

noreply@blogger.com (Actor212) — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 09:18:00 PDT

With all that's going on in the world, with Afghanistan and healthcare reform and wars and famine and global warming, this is the headline of the second largest selling general newspaper in New York City.

And it's owned by FOX, no surprise there!