Phastphil's Phlog

Second-Hand Smoke and Heart Attacks

2009-01-09T06:18:00.000-08:00

Doctors did a study in Peublo, Colorado after the city banned smoking in workplaces and indoor public areas. They compared hospital admissions for heart attacks for a year before and three years after the ban, and compared the results with two nearby areas that did not have similar bans.

The study found a 41 percent drop in hospital admissions for heart attacks resulting from the public smoking ban.

It turns out that tobacco companies started studying this in 1971 and knew about these results. But instead of doing something about it "Philip Morris masterminded a massive global effort to confuse and deceive the public about the health hazards of secondhand smoke and to delay laws restricting smoking in indoor public places."

Read about the techniques they used to prevent smoking bans at: Deadly Deception: The Tobacco Industry's Secondhand Smoke Cover Up | Center for Media and Democracy

Big Box Mart

2009-01-03T06:22:00.000-08:00

Hilarious Clips at JibJab | Funny Jokes at JibJab | Hilarious Stuff at JibJab

we need a nerd - now!

2008-12-31T15:25:00.001-08:00

Stimulus Two-Step: Implementation in the Real-World

2008-12-18T07:48:00.000-08:00

From: Taking Note

by Anthony Shorris

When it comes to jump-starting the US economy, there are a few things everyone seems to agree on: we need to invest in projects that can get started right now and which will have a long-term benefit to the nation’s economic vitality. The only problem is that these two ends are increasingly contradictory: the kinds of transformative infrastructure projects we need for our future are not the kinds of the projects we can start quickly enough to benefit the economy today.

Great public works take longer to build today than ever. Just look around the New York region: we built the George Washington Bridge in two years, the Empire State Building in eighteen months, and even the Erie Canal in eight years, and today we can’t build a new subway line in under a decade and, if all goes well, a new tunnel under the Hudson River will be completed a mere 25 years after it was first proposed.

Some of the reasons are good ones: we build more safely than we used to, think harder about the environment that we once did, have a fairer process for choosing contractors, and allow many more voices to be heard in the debate about how to plan and execute projects. But the costs are clear too – project budgets skyrockets as delays drive up prices, public frustration grows and confidence erodes, technologies change between the start of design and construction leaving some work outdated even before it has even begun. It’s these realities that forced some of the nation’s governors to admit to the President-elect that choosing projects for the stimulus is more complicated than they had thought.

And then there is the even bigger problem with transformational public works: bigger projects are harder because they often affect many jurisdictions, requiring political coordination and even consensus among cities, counties, and sometimes states that is harder than ever to achieve in the world of instant polls and 24-hour news cycles. Yet the bigger the project, the more likely it will have a significant effect on the future of the nation’s economic health.

Given these challenges, it’s tempting to simply fund projects already in the pipeline as part of a “stimulus” program – freeing up some money for states and localities to use for other things and perhaps making ourselves feel a bit better, but accomplishing little for either our long-term or short-term goals. But do we have to surrender the notion of creating work on projects now that will benefit the country in the future? No, but we have to think about it differently. We need to be clear about our goals and create an approach that is realistic in the face of these hurdles.

Go over to Taking Note and read the whole post...........

We Need H.R. 677 Now!

2008-11-26T08:25:00.000-08:00

What is H.R. 676?

H.R. 676, also called the United States National Health Insurance Act, is a bill to create a single-payer, publicly-financed, privately-delivered universal health care program that would cover all Americans without charging co-pays or deductibles. It guarantees access to the highest quality and most affordable health care services regardless of employment, ability to pay or pre-existing health conditions.

What is "single-payer"?

The term single-payer describes the kind of financing system that H.R. 676 uses. It means that one entity--in this case, established by the government--handles all billing and payment for health care services. Right now, there are thousands upon thousands of "payers"-- HMOs, PPOs, bill collection agencies, etc. The sheer volume of paperwork required by our current system means that administrative waste accounts for roughly 31% of the money spent on health care. The single-payer system would eliminate the wasteful paperwork and administrative costs, redirecting more of our health care dollars to providing care.

Medicare is perhaps the best known single-payer system. Essentially, H.R. 676 would improve Medicare and expand it, so that it covers all Americans, regardless of their income.

Go over to John Conyers.com to read more

David Horsey discovers the source of GM's difficulties.

2008-11-26T07:15:00.000-08:00

Thanks to The Seattle Post-Intelligence

Downed Elephant

2008-11-24T07:15:00.001-08:00

Thanks to McClatchy.com

Free Market Voo Doo Doo

2008-11-20T20:46:00.000-08:00

R.I.P: STUDS TERKEL.

2008-11-01T06:53:00.000-07:00

From: Ezra Klein|The American Prospect

R.I.P: STUDS TERKEL.

Sigh. Studs Terkel was one of my lights. A few years ago, when it was fashionable for folks on the Right to accuse liberals of lacking a canon, I used to bring Studs up in reply. His books were as authentic and fundamental texts as liberalism could ever desire. He understood that the school of thought meant little if it could not understand the struggles of life as it is lived, because then it could not ease them. He understood that to be a decent movement, we had to listen. And no one did it better than him. Read Working and Race. Read The American Dream. Hell, read Will the Circle Be Unbroken? In the introduction to that book, Terkel reveals an odd superstition: He never sleeps with his arms crossed before him, because that is how the dead are lain to rest. After I read that, I never slept with my arms crossed, either.

You hear that, Studs? I listened.

Update: The Chicago Historical Society has a page dedicated to Studs Terkel's work, and you can listen to some of his interviews. Spend some time there.

Don't Speak for me Sarah Palin

2008-10-29T07:19:00.001-07:00

Charles meets Barack

2008-10-29T06:53:00.000-07:00

We The People

2008-10-26T18:14:00.001-07:00

Try It!

2008-10-26T07:30:00.000-07:00

An Important Message from Barack Obama

2008-10-24T18:00:00.000-07:00

SNL - GW Endorses McCain/Palin

2008-10-24T06:43:00.000-07:00

Mr 90%

2008-10-16T06:07:00.000-07:00

Yippee!

2008-10-14T06:56:00.000-07:00

From: BobGeiger.com

McCain Dragging GOP Senators Down With Him

I suppose this is the opposite of presidential nominees having "coattails" -- with which they use their own momentum to help Congressional candidates win -- because even in Oregon, where for months I have assumed that Republican incumbent Gordon Smith would keep his Senate seat, Democratic challenger Jeff Merkley has pulled into the lead.

In a new poll released yesterday by Portland's KATU-TV and Survey USA, Merkley leads Smith 46 percent to 41 percent.

The GOP's Unholy Alliance

2008-10-10T06:04:00.000-07:00

From: Obsidian Wings

In short, the GOP has made an unholy alliance with the mob — and now the long-term debt is coming due. And they deserve it. After all, it’s not that the GOP establishment merely tolerated them, or treated them like the crazy uncle you basically nod at but ignore. They’ve been riling them up — feeding the hate. They’ve based campaigns on things like gay marriage and immigration and terrorist appeasing. They go on the Rush Limbaugh show, and validate his venom. They tell people who don’t have time to learn otherwise things like giving mortgages to poor minority families caused the housing crisis (Daniel Gross has the appropriate response to that — essentially, “it’s not risky to lend to minority families, it’s risky to lend to rich white people.”)

Go Read the Whole Post over at Obsidian Wings

Nostrobamus

2008-10-10T06:03:00.000-07:00

Vote Vets on the G.I. Bill

2008-10-08T09:17:00.000-07:00

Navajo, Hopi and Lakota delegation warned Lehman Brothers of consequences of mining sacred site

2008-10-08T09:00:00.000-07:00

From: Atlantic Free Press

Opinion
Written by Brenda Norrell
Monday, 06 October 2008
by Brenda Norrell A delegation of Navajo, Hopi and Lakota warned Lehman Brothers stockholders of the dire consequences of their actions in 2001. In a rare move, censored by most media, the Navajo, Hopi and Lakota delegation warned Lehman Brothers, after it acquired the financial interests of Peabody Coal, of the spiritual consequences of mining coal on sacred Black Mesa and the aftermath of Peabody Coal's machinations that led to the so-called Navajo Hopi Land Dispute. Lehman Brothers is now in the midst of financial collapse, with its bankruptcy producing a rippling effect throughout the world's economy. At the time of the Lehman Brothers stockholders meeting in 2001, Arlene Hamilton bought two shares of stocks in Lehman Brothers to pave the way for the delegation to address the stockholders. Hamilton said her life was threatened because of this action. Shortly afterwards, Hamilton was killed in a car crash. Longtime Navajo relocation resister Roberta Blackgoat died in California, where she had gone to attend Hamilton's memorial. A traditional Hopi was among those addressing the Lehman Brothers stockholders. His admonitions followed those of the late Hopi Sinom elders Thomas Banyacya and Dan Evehema, among the Hopi elders who warned of dire consequences, including natural disasters and worldwide consequences, if Peabody mined coal on Black Mesa and Navajos were relocated from this sacred region. The Hopi Sinom never authorized the establishment of the Hopi Tribal Council, which they referred to as a puppet government of the United States. Article Continues/Read More...

Keating Economics

2008-10-06T14:18:00.001-07:00

Conservatism = Debt

2008-10-05T06:40:00.000-07:00

From Matt Yglesias at: Think Progress

Cato’s David Boaz alleges that “it must be a great disappointment to Goldwater Republicans to discover this story that got almost no notice this week.” The story in question turns out to be about the burgeoning national debt in the Bush years:

But as the chart makes perfectly clear, it seems unlikely to me that Goldwaterites are genuinely disappointed with this turn of events. The major causes of growing debt-to-GDP ratio are World War II and the election of post-Goldwater conservative Republicans. That’s not necessarily the worst thing in the world — arguably some Democrats are too debt averse — but the record is pretty clear. Conservatives in power leads to skyrocketing debt.

Fake but True!

2008-10-05T06:07:00.000-07:00

George Bush in a Dress

2008-10-04T08:30:00.000-07:00

You're Never Too Old and It's Never Too Late

2008-10-02T07:48:00.000-07:00

Pay the Fiddler

2008-09-30T06:45:00.000-07:00

From: This Modern World

Jonathan Schwarz:

Abraham Lincoln Speaks Out On Public Money And Banks

This is Abraham Lincoln, then an Illinois state representative, speaking in the legislature on January 11, 1837. He’s referring to a dispute between private shareholders of the Illinois State Bank:

It is an old maxim and a very sound one, that he that dances should always pay the fiddler. Now, sir, in the present case, if any gentlemen, whose money is a burden to them, choose to lead off a dance, I am decidedly opposed to the people’s money being used to pay the fiddler…all this to settle a question in which the people have no interest, and about which they care nothing. These capitalists generally act harmoniously, and in concert, to fleece the people, and now, that they have got into a quarrel with themselves, we are called upon to appropriate the people’s money to settle the quarrel.

Lincoln’s speech was given just as one of the greatest speculative bubbles in US history was bursting. This was followed by the Panic of 1837, which led to a six-year contraction described by Milton Friedman as “the only depression on record comparable in severity and scope to the Great Depression.”

McCain Campaign in Picture Form

2008-09-30T06:37:00.000-07:00

From: Ocinus
For some reason ....

... This picture makes me think of John McCain.

Bailout Vote

2008-09-30T05:53:00.000-07:00

From: Balkinization

Representatives in Safe Seats, Not Vulnerable Ones, Killed the Bailout Bill

Rick Pildes

One of the instant myths being created about Congress' defeat of the bailout bill is that members facing close contests this fall were forced to cast a "tough vote" and, in order to protect their electoral prospects, voted against the bill. But this is misleading and it assigns short-term, self-interested electoral calculations for the depth of the resistance. Only 30 negative votes came from members in vulnerable seats. True, this means 79% of those in vulnerable seats voted against. But there were 198 votes against from those in safe seats, which is right around 50% of those in safe seats, and while those in vulnerable seats might be thought to have provided the marginal difference, those votes would be irrelevant if there were not such widespread opposition. Put another way, if those 30 no votes from vulnerable seats were split the same way as the votes from safe seats, there would still have been 213 votes against the bill. It's important not to lose sight of how few House seats are actually vulnerable and how few House elections are competitive.

I take the data here from http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/swing-district-congressmen-doomed.html, and I think Professor David Canon for pointing me in this direction.
continue reading . . .

Are you better off than you were eight years ago?

2008-09-29T14:49:00.000-07:00

From: Think Progress

Marcy Wheeler breaks down the numbers:

DOW January 19, 2001: 10,587.59
DOW September 29, 2008: 10,365.45

NASDAQ Jan 19, 2001 = 2770.38
NASDAQ September 29, 2008 = 1983.73

CPI, January 19, 2001: 175
CPI, September 29, 2008: 219

Dollar exchange with Euro, January 19, 2001: 1.068
Dollar exchange with Euro, September 29, 2008: .695

Pastor: Outraged by Gordon Smith's rapist ads

2008-09-29T10:22:00.000-07:00

From: Blue Oregon

letter to the editor

The following letter to the editor was published today by the Oregonian. It's by the Reverend Brian Brandt of Central Lutheran Church in Portland.

As Jeff Merkley's pastor, I am writing to express my outrage over the TV ads that Gordon Smith is running in his Senate campaign, accusing Merkley of aiding rapists through legislative votes.
I've been with Merkley at church and in his home. I've seen how respectfully he treats others. Jeff Merkley is as good and thoughtful a man as you'd ever hope to meet. I'm honored to be his pastor. Oregonians would be proud to have him as their U.S. senator.

Smith's political ads distort Merkley's voting record and misrepresent the man. They amount to lies. Smith should be ashamed of himself for approving those ads, and Oregonians should hold him accountable when they cast their ballots.

THE REV. BRIAN E. BRANDT
Central Lutheran Church
Northeast Portland

How the markets really work (from 2007)

2008-09-28T11:30:00.001-07:00

SNL Uses actual Quotes from Couric Interview

2008-09-28T07:14:00.000-07:00

Sound Familiar

2008-09-23T07:06:00.000-07:00

From: Angry Bear

Your Urgent Help Needed

Dear American:

I need to ask you to support an urgent secret business relationship with a
transfer of funds of great magnitude.
I am Ministry of the Treasury of the Republic of America. My country has had
crisis that has caused the need for large transfer of funds of 800 billion
dollars US. If you would assist me in this transfer, it would be most
profitable to you.
I am working with Mr. Phil Gram, lobbyist for UBS, who will be my
replacement as Ministry of the Treasury in January. As a Senator, you may
know him as the leader of the American banking deregulation movement in the
1990s. This transactin is 100% safe.
This is a matter of great urgency. We need a blank check. We need the funds
as quickly as possible. We cannot directly transfer these funds in the names
of our close friends because we are constantly under surveillance. My family
lawyer advised me that I should look for a reliable and trustworthy person
who will act as a next of kin so the funds can be transferred.
Please reply with all of your bank account, IRA and college fund account
numbers and those of your children and grandchildren to
wallstreetbailout@treasury.gov so that we may transfer your commission for
this transaction. After I receive that information, I will respond with
detailed information about safeguards that will be used to protect the
funds.
Yours Faithfully Minister of Treasury Paulson

Explain What She Just Said

2008-09-21T08:43:00.000-07:00

Just a Reminder

2008-09-21T08:24:00.001-07:00

Senate Democrats go after Deregulator Republicans

2008-09-18T16:36:00.000-07:00

McCain Channels Herbert Hoover

2008-09-17T07:05:00.000-07:00

Senator Whitehouse Asks the Question

2008-09-15T09:04:00.001-07:00

Bridge to Uh - Uh

2008-09-15T08:51:00.001-07:00

From: Tom Toles at the Washington Post

Brave New Films Does It Again

2008-09-13T08:15:00.001-07:00

Republican Change

2008-09-13T07:39:00.000-07:00

Thanks to: Lee Judge / The Kansas City Star (September 6, 2008)

A Picture tells a Thousand Words

2008-09-12T06:35:00.000-07:00

Thanks, Grist:

Enough!

2008-09-10T11:01:00.001-07:00

Sack the QB

2008-09-10T05:27:00.000-07:00

From: TPMCafe

Obama: Sack the QB (Palin). The Old Guy On the Bench Has Got Nothing!

By M.J. Rosenberg - September 10, 2008, 7:35AM

I think it is absolutely right that our Presidential candidate go after their Vice Presidential candidate.

Why? Because, as the Republicans learned under Karl Rove, you go after the other side's strength not its weakness. You attack Kerry on his military record or Gore for being smart. The idea is that if you hit them where they are strong, the rest collapses too.

Sarah Palin has turned out to be the GOP's #1 asset this year. That is not only because she's a woman and an interesting character. It is because McCain is just so utterly flat and uninspiring.

He is now running on her coat tails and it's up to us to cut them off. Both Obama and Biden should go after her hard, laughingly rebuke the GOP's shock and horror that they would attack a mother, and let the media do the rest. Today's NEWSWEEK story could be an indication that the Palin master stroke could well end up destroying the GOP's chances. Hit 'em where they are strong and let the old white guy fade into oblivion. (Not that we shouldn't attack him too).

But, first, sack the QB. That's Palin.

The Maverick!

2008-09-10T04:57:00.001-07:00

Rex Babin / Sacramento Bee (September 9, 2008)

Minimum Wage Should be $13.67 per Hour

2008-09-03T07:21:00.000-07:00

From: Angry Bear

Minimum wage and a regular citizen can create this

by Noni Mousa

Hmmm. $13 per hour minimum wage? I am CERTAIN that those dollars wouldn't go into savings -- instead they would go into paying bills and buying stuff, probably more pricey stuff than dollar store gimcrackery.

Certainly it appears to be hard on employers. But I wonder how much of this is a problem built up over the past 30 years, with unsustainable wages now structured into business models. Suppose John Doe Jr. never left home, but lived comfortably in the basement with his wife and family (it's a big basement), then his "business model" would not include rent. When the widow Doe died and the will left the estate to her cats, John would be in for a shock.

My minimum wage job in 1972 in Minneapolis paid $2.65 per hour. The Federal Reserve site provides a handy calculator for CPI over time (here http://www.minneapolisfed.org/Research/data/us/calc/)

I plugged in the numbers, and this is what I got:

If in (year)1972
I bought goods or services for $2.65,

then in (year) 2008
the same goods or services would cost $ 13.67

So minimum wage today is less than half of what it was in the early 70s, in terms of dollar value.

This might mean that in 1974 I was wildly overpaid. That is not my recollection. But apparently many others had it worse.

Here are Federal statutory minimum wage rates since 1955 (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774473.html)

Here's a few data points from that chart:

Year stat MW Constant $2008

1972 $1.60 $6.01
1977 $2.30 $5.95
1982 $3.35 $5.78
1987 $3.35* $4.63
1992 $4.25 $4.75
1997 $5.15 $5.03
2002 $5.15* $4.49
2007 $5.85 $4.41

(*) I find it interesting to note that there were two very long stretches of time, from 1981 to 1989, and then from 1997 to 2006, where minimum-wage wages remained flat, first at $3.35 (falling in value from $5.78 to $4.24 over that time) and then at $5.15 (falling in value from $5.03 to $4.04 over that time).

I charted the federal figures this morning and it presents an interesting picture. The minimum wage was put in place in 1955. It rose in a very jagged manner from 1955 to 1968, reaching a peak in $1996 of $7.01 per hour. then it fell to about six dollars an hour, remaining there through most of the 70s. From 1980 to about 1990 the statutory rate was held steady, and inflation pushed the minimum wage into the $4-$5 an hour range, where it has remained ever since.

comparing this line of minimum wage buying power to the other line showing the statutory rate shows something else -- around 1980, the pattern of statutory changes changed dramatically. From 1955 to 1980, minimum wages were raised every couple of years, yielding a gradual rising line, with one plateau corresponding to the fall which followed the $7.01 peak -- a peak which has never been remotely approached since then.

But beginning in 1980, the statutory minimum wage adjustments assumed a pattern of plateaus, each one lasting five to 10 years. After about 1985, the buying value of the minimum wage zigzags between four and five dollars an hour -- strangely, the five dollar mark after about 1985 looks exactly like a ceiling, and a four dollar mark like a floor.

One more point -- the buying value of the US statutory minimum wage hit its absolute lowest point in 2006.
----------------------

Noni is a regular person who has reseached this for a post, which means it is entirely possible for any citizen.

Stand Up America! Gov. Brian Schweitzer

2008-08-27T07:15:00.000-07:00

Conservative Agenda Doesn't Work!

2008-08-27T06:59:00.000-07:00

From: Paul Krugman's Blog at the NY Times

About that Bush Boom …

The 2007 income, poverty and health insurance numbers are out. As far as I can tell on a first read, there’s nothing deeply surprising. Still, they represent a landmark — and not in a good way.

The key point is that 2007 was the end of an economic expansion — whether or not the NBER declares a recession, the employment situation, which is what matters to most people, has deteriorated sharply this year. So 2007 was as good as it got in this cycle. Yet median household income was lower than in 2000, while both the poverty rate and the percentage of Americans without health insurance were higher.

In short, the economic policies we’ve been following just aren’t working.

Is the bad economic news all Bush’s fault? No, of course not — but remember, the key argument of the right has always been that tax cuts and deregulation would produce good news, a rising tide that raised all boats. Boy, has that not happened.

But remember, we’re just a nation of whiners.

Same Old Tune

2008-08-25T11:33:00.000-07:00

America's Party

2008-08-23T07:21:00.000-07:00

You Need a President Who's Gonna Fight for You

2008-08-21T22:25:00.001-07:00

John McCain Can't Remember How May Houses He Owns

2008-08-21T08:41:00.000-07:00

Please Keep Karl Rove as a Spokesperson - Please!

2008-08-18T07:19:00.000-07:00

Fox News Lies, Lies and Lies some more!

2008-08-14T21:42:00.001-07:00

New DNC Ad - Exxon John

2008-08-12T07:28:00.000-07:00

Still One for the lobbyists

2008-08-12T07:24:00.000-07:00

From: The Jed Report

Barns for Obama

2008-08-11T19:40:00.001-07:00

McCain Campaign run by lobbyists

2008-08-11T06:52:00.000-07:00

Oil Execs for McCain

2008-08-10T08:15:00.001-07:00

Obama vs McCain's Tax Proposal

2008-08-10T08:01:00.001-07:00

Obama Campaign Sets the Record Straight

2008-08-09T20:46:00.000-07:00

"Drill only" is a great way to flip the frame. That's what it should always be called.

2008-08-08T09:32:00.000-07:00

From: D-Day

D-Trip, Schumer Play Hardball

The DCCC is pretty agressively hitting back on House Republicans' "Drill Only" pose, in particular using the fact that John Boehner was out golfing while his colleagues were whipping it up playing model Congress on the House floor.

The Washington Post reported this morning that Minority Leader John Boehner has spent the first week of the congressional recess doing a series of golf outings while a small band of House Republicans remain in Washington to call for "drill only" legislation that does nothing to bring immediate relief to Americans paying high gas prices.

Big Oil tax breaks and subsidies supported by Republicans ... $14 Billion
Political contributions made to Republicans by Big Oil this cycle ... $13.5 Million
Profit earned by the top five Big Oil Companies last quarter ... $44 Billion
Cost of John Boehner's green fees while a small band of House Republicans' express faux outrage about gas prices * ... $240
The Grand Oil Party's hypocrisy about the cost of gas ... Priceless

("Drill only" is a great way to flip the frame. That's what it should always be called.)

They're apparently headed out to Capitol Hill today in golfing outfits (also known as "Republican casual").

Another guy hitting back hard in unexpected ways is Chuck Schumer.

"I thought the Britney Spears commercial was powerful," Schumer said, referring to McCain's television ad casting Obama as a vapid "celebrity."

"They're trying to say, 'He's not one of us,'" Schumer said.

"I would answer back hard. What do you mean he's not one of us? It's John McCain who wears $500 shoes, has six houses and comes from one of the richest families in his state," Schumer said. "It's Barack Obama who climbed up the hard way, and that's why he wants middle-class tax cuts and better schools for our kids."

Makes me feel relieved about the D-Trip and the D-Stick, not necessarily about the Obama campaign that Schumer has to go over their heads to contrast with them in public. Of course, the campaign committees are attack dog organizations, sort of different from a Presidential candidate campaign. This comes down to why it was so stupid to drain the swamp of 527s and control message solely from the top. Obama would have benefited greatly from some attack dog ads right about now.

Labels: Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer, DCCC, golf, negative campaigning, offshore drilling

Republicans Take Credit for Sunrise

2008-08-06T08:44:00.000-07:00

From: Paul Krugman's Blog at the New York Times

Deep voodoo

What passes for policy discussion in the world’s greatest nation:

House Republicans issued the boldest claim yet in their three-day energy protest, insinuating on Tuesday morning that their demonstration [speeches to an empty chamber demanding more offshore drilling] may in fact have already begun to lower gas prices.

“The market is responding to the fact that we are here talking,” said Republican Rep. John Shadegg.

In other news, Republicans credited their speeches for the fact that the sun rose today.

Maverick? Or Just More of the Same?

2008-08-05T21:22:00.001-07:00

The War on the Working Class

2008-08-03T06:45:00.000-07:00

From: Cogitamus

One of the things that I would find endlessly amusing, if it didn't make me want to kill somebody, is the use by the right wing and their witless allies in the media of the term "class warfare." It is always invoked when any slightly populist economic notions are floated by Democratic candidates. Of course, real class warfare has been going on unabated in this country since the start of Reagan's first term and working people have paid a bitter price in terms of the decline of real wages and benefits, the loss of voice that has accompanied deunionization, and the assumption of a huge amount of the economic and physical risk now borne in this society.

I am just getting involved in two cases dealing with egregious exploitation of immigrant labor in the construction industry -- one involves workers who are illegally classified as independent contractors, and receive a substandard wage from which a "labor broker" deducts ten percent of their gross pay, and for which they receive no worker's compensation, unemployment protection, social security coverage, or overtime pay. Naturally, they do not receive health care coverage. The second case involves similar types of workers who were transported about 250 miles from their homes by the employer, leaving them in a state of near slavery. They were forced to work 12-14 hours a day seven days a week, at the command of the employer, again without receiving overtime, worker's compensation or unemployment coverage or social security payments. Workers who balked at this were told to find their own way home from this relatively rural setting.

This work, by the way, was in the first case done primarily in high end office buildings in Washington, DC, while the second occurred at a major state university. In other words, this is exploitation that occurs in plain view, not off in some migrant labor camp associated with the agricultural industry. It is my fondest hope to severely break it off in the backsides of these employers, but I worry about a legal system that is infested with Federalist Society and "Chicago School" type judges. All of which put me in a rather bad mood for reading about the following:

- The Wall Street Journal had a fascinating article the other day about Wal-Mart attempting to intimidate its employees (or "associates" as those assholes call them) about the negative implications of a Democratic victory in the upcoming election -- (yeah they'll lose their chains). Kathy G. had a good post about this. What is clear is that Wal-Mart is pissing its pants over the idea that the Employee Free Choice Act may become law under an Obama administration. I am afraid that I am a terminal pessimist on the prospects for labor law reform, but if this were to happen it would be an enormous victory for working people. (This should also give you some hint about the credibility of people who claim that unions don't make a difference in the lives of the working class.) It is outrageous that employers are permitted to hold these types of captive audience meetings regarding either unionization or politics -- it is such an inherently coercive environment that it should also be made illegal as part of any meaningful labor law reform. (Why would any Democrats would take money from Wal-Mart is the question raised in this post.)

Go over to Cogitamus to read the whole post and comment.

Gordon Smith - Bad for Your Health

2008-07-30T07:08:00.000-07:00

From: the Daily Kos

by sarahlane Tue Jul 29, 2008 at 01:19:25 PM PDT

Right now, millions of Americans are uninsured and millions more are under-insured. Seniors are having a difficult time being able to afford their prescription drugs. American families can't keep up with the high cost of hospice care and child care. Thousands of Americans die every year because they can't afford to get treatment. Bush and Republicans like Gordon Smith have done nothing but line the pockets of big pharma and the insurance industry at the expense of the health of American families.

Full disclosure, I am the netroots director for OR-Sen candidate Jeff Merkley

Gordon Smith has taken nearly one million dollars from the pharmaceutical and insurance industry since he began his run for the Senate in 1995. Smith even joined the likes of Tom Delay and Denny Hastert on the infamous junket to London, England where he mingled with lobbyists from companies like Bristol-Meyer Squibb and the Altria Group which is the parent company of Philip Morris. There's no telling what kind of conversations the lobbyists had with Republican Gordon Smith. If his record is any indication of who he favors with his votes, there's no question that Gordon Smith favors the insurance and pharmaceutical companies over helping everyday Americans.

Gordon Smith's Abysmal Record on Health Care

Here are a handful of votes to let you know which side Gordon Smith is on when it comes to health care.....

Smith on Prescription Drugs and Medicaid

In 2005, Smith voted against forcing pharma companies to fully warn consumers of the dangerous side effects in their advertising.

In 2002, Smith voted against providing prescription drug coverage for seniors on Medicare rather than through private insurers.

In 2000, Smith voted against expanding outpatient prescription drug coverage for seniors.

In 2005, Smith voted for the Republican budget which cut 10 billion in Medicaid health services to the states.

Smith on Patient Rights

In 1998, Smith voted to kill the Patients Bill of Rights.

In 1999, Smith voted to block an amendment offered up by Senator Wyden which would have ensured hospitals wouldn’t retaliate against doctors who help patients appeal HMO decisions.

Smith on Women's Health Care

The Smith Campaign has yet to take a position on Bush's recent attacks on funding contraceptives.

In 2007, Smith voted to ban HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions.

In 2005, Smith voted against an effort to reduce teen pregnancy by funding sex education and providing contraceptives.

In 1998, Smith voted twice to allow HMO's to skirt paying for minimal hospital stays for outpatient surgery for childbirth, mastectomies, or reconstructive surgery.

Smith on Health Care for Kids

In 2000, Smith cast the deciding vote against reducing Bush's taxcuts in order to expand SCHIP and Medicaid to cover uninsured parents of kids on SCHIP and Medicaid.

In 1997, Smith voted against restoring Medicaid coverage to disabled children who lost their coverage under the 1996 welfare law.

In 1997, Smith voted against providing additional benefits to uninsured children with special needs.

In 1997, Smith voted against a tax increase on cigarettes in order to fund health care insurance for low income children.

Health Care should be a Human Right not a Privilege

Oregon Senate candidate Jeff Merkley believes that health care should be a human right and not a privilege for those who can afford it. Jeff Merkley is a proponent of UHC and will support a single payer bill in the Senate. As House Speaker, he lowered prescription drug prices for seniors, championed a UHC bill for kids (sadly defeated by big tobacco), forced insurance companies to cover contraceptives and made the morning after pill available to sexual assault victims.

The race is in a dead heat in Oregon. You never know, Oregon's Senate seat could end up being lucky number 60. If we want to move the Senate to the left and increase our majority, we need to elect Jeff Merkley. We need your help. We need your voice. Wouldn't we be so much better off if we had Jeff Merkley fighting in the Senate for UHC, rather than Gordon Smith who will legislate for the insurance industry and leave ordinary Americans behind?

Go over to the Daily Kos to comment.

One More Reason to Always Vote Democratic

2008-07-29T06:26:00.000-07:00

From: Paul Krugman's Blog at the NY Times

Look who’s talking

Annual rates of employment growth, by president:

There’s something happening here

Obamanomics is a recipe for recession, declares Michael Boskin, the chief economic adviser during the administration of George H.W. Bush.

The Vindication Of Wes Clark

2008-07-23T08:22:00.000-07:00

From: Lawyers, Guns and Money

The news that John McCain doesn't understand even basic facts about the strategy around which he's conducting most of his campaign is obviously extremely important. First, CBS's judicious editing demonstrates the extent to which the media is still willing to cover for Maverick McStraightTalk. But more importantly, is also reminds us that Wes Clark was right. McCain's war heroism is admirable, and can even be seen as some sort of qualification for the presidency, but it most certainly does not constitute foreign policy expertise. In fact, McCain has both awful substantive views on foreign affairs and frequently has no idea what he's talking about. Given that he can barely even bother to pretend to know anything about domestic policy, this makes his case to be president exceedingly weak.

Gramn Old Party

2008-07-20T07:03:00.001-07:00

From: Paul Kruman's Blog at the New York Times

They still believe
The classic definition of a gaffe is when someone accidentally tells the truth. Phil Gramm committed a slightly different sin: he accidentally said what he, and most of the conservative movement, really believe.

What you have to realize is that the faith of modern conservatives in tax cuts and deregulation is absolute, not susceptible to refutation by evidence. After all, if evidence mattered, they would have been shaken by the boom after Bill Clinton raised taxes; instead, they first denied the boom, then ascribed it to the lagged effects of Reagan’s tax cuts. (I tried to point out that if credit for the booming economy in 1999 went to the 1981 tax cut — that is, if current prosperity is the result of policy actions 18 years ago — then Ronald Reagan should have given credit for “morning in America” to Lyndon Baines Johnson. But somehow that argument didn’t fly.)

So what can conservatives say about our current economic troubles? There have been a few attempts to blame Bill Clinton — and Grover Norquist is saying that it’s all Nancy Pelosi’s fault. But mainly, the attitude Phil Gramm takes — an attitude shared by many on the right — is that we know that tax cuts work, so they must have worked. If Americans are unhappy with the state of the economy, the problem lies with public attitudes, not actual economic performance. Bunch of whiners! The alternative — that supply-side policies really failed — is literally unthinkable.

My Plan for Iraq

2008-07-14T06:54:00.000-07:00

From: The New York Times

BARACK OBAMA

CHICAGO — The call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States.

The differences on Iraq in this campaign are deep. Unlike Senator John McCain, I opposed the war in Iraq before it began, and would end it as president. I believed it was a grave mistake to allow ourselves to be distracted from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban by invading a country that posed no imminent threat and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Since then, more than 4,000 Americans have died and we have spent nearly $1 trillion. Our military is overstretched. Nearly every threat we face — from Afghanistan to Al Qaeda to Iran — has grown.

In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda — greatly weakening its effectiveness.

But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we’ve spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq’s leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.

The good news is that Iraq’s leaders want to take responsibility for their country by negotiating a timetable for the removal of American troops. Meanwhile, Lt. Gen. James Dubik, the American officer in charge of training Iraq’s security forces, estimates that the Iraqi Army and police will be ready to assume responsibility for security in 2009.

Only by redeploying our troops can we press the Iraqis to reach comprehensive political accommodation and achieve a successful transition to Iraqis’ taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country. Instead of seizing the moment and encouraging Iraqis to step up, the Bush administration and Senator McCain are refusing to embrace this transition — despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq’s sovereign government. They call any timetable for the removal of American troops “surrender,” even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government.

But this is not a strategy for success — it is a strategy for staying that runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, the American people and the security interests of the United States. That is why, on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war.

As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal.

In carrying out this strategy, we would inevitably need to make tactical adjustments. As I have often said, I would consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government to ensure that our troops were redeployed safely, and our interests protected. We would move them from secure areas first and volatile areas later. We would pursue a diplomatic offensive with every nation in the region on behalf of Iraq’s stability, and commit $2 billion to a new international effort to support Iraq’s refugees.

Ending the war is essential to meeting our broader strategic goals, starting in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Taliban is resurgent and Al Qaeda has a safe haven. Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been. As Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently pointed out, we won’t have sufficient resources to finish the job in Afghanistan until we reduce our commitment to Iraq.

As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there. I would not hold our military, our resources and our foreign policy hostage to a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq.

In this campaign, there are honest differences over Iraq, and we should discuss them with the thoroughness they deserve. Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face. But for far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender.

It’s not going to work this time. It’s time to end this war.

Barack Obama, a United States senator from Illinois, is the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.

The Mind and the Obama Magic

2008-07-13T12:33:00.000-07:00

As far as I'm concerned George Lakoff is the only one who truly understand the differences between the ways Liberal and Conservative mind works.

From: The Huffington Post

By George Lakoff

Barack Obama should not move, or even appear to be moving, toward right-wing views on issues -- even with nuanced escape clauses. Arianna Huffington, Paul Krugman, and the NY Times Editorial Page all agree, for various reasons. I agree as well, for many of the same reasons, as well as important reasons that go beyond even excellent political commentary. My reasons have to do with results in the cognitive and brain sciences, as discussed in my recent book, The Political Mind: Why You Can't Understand 21st Century Politics with an 18th Century Brain.

But before I get into the details, it is important to get a sense of why Obama might be "moving to the Right." There are at least three possibilities. The first is for political expediency. The second is to reassure voters that he is a responsible leader, not a crazy radical. The third is that he thinks that nuanced positions don't have the effect of the moving to the right.

Let's start with the first possibility -- expediency, the one assumed by most observers.

The Political Expediency Argument

The usual political wisdom is (1) voters vote on the basis of positions on issues, (2) there is a left-to-right spectrum of voters defined by positions on issues, (3) most voters are in the "center." Polls are constructed to appear consistent with this tri-partite hypothesis. The Dick Morris strategy, based on this hypothesis, says: if a Democrat moves the Right, he will get more votes because he will "take away" the other side's issues. If Obama and his advisors believe this, then the more they more to the Right, the bigger their win should be. But all three hypotheses are false, and so is the conclusion based on it.

First, voters mostly vote not on the details of positions on issues, but on five aspects of what might be called "character," as Richard Wirthlin discovered in the 1980 Reagan campaign. They are Values (What are the ethical principles that form the basis of your politics?); Authenticity (Do you say what you believe?); Communication (Do you connect with voters and inspire them?); Judgment; Trust; and Identity (If you share voters' values, connect with them, tell them the truth effectively while inspiring trust, then they will identify with you -- and they will voter for you. Positions on issues matter when they come to stand symbolically for values. Reagan and George W. Bush understood this. Carter, Mondale, Gore, and Kerry did not. And in the primaries. Hillary Clinton did not get it (she focused on policy, while Obama and McCain focused more on character, on who he was).

Values, authenticity, communication, judgment, and trust are not irrational reasons for voting for a president, even over positions on specific issues. The reason is that situations change, and what you rationally wind up depending on are just those virtues.

Obama introduced himself to the primary voters not as a policy wonk, but as a person of character, who announced his values, said what he believed (no pussyfooting), communicated beautifully and powerfully, and gave examples of his good judgment -- he was someone you could trust and identify with. That was a major part of the Obama magic. If Obama even appears to adopt Right-wing views for the sake of getting more votes, he will appear to be giving up on his values, renouncing his authenticity and believability, clouding his judgment, and raising questions about whether he can be trusted. The Obama magic will be in danger of fading.

Let us now turn to the second reason. There are two major modes of thought in American politics -- conservative and progressive, what I've called "strict" and "nurturant." We all grow up with brains exposed to both and capable of using both, but usually in different areas of life. Some people are conservative on foreign policy and progressive on domestic policy, or conservative on economic issues and progressive on social issues -- or the reverse. There is no left-to-right linear spectrum; all kinds of combinations occur. I've called such folks "biconceptuals." Brainwise, they show a common situation called "mutual inhibition," where two modes of thought are possible but the activation of one inhibits the other. The more you activate a conservative mode of thought, the more you inhibit the progressive mode of thought -- and the more likely it is that the conservative mode of thought will spread to other issues.

Interestingly, many people who call themselves "conservatives" actually think like progressives on a range of issue areas. For example, many "conservatives" love the land as much as any environmentalist; want to live in communities where people care about each other, that is, have social not just individual responsibility; live progressive business principles of honestly, care for their employees, and care for the public; and have progressive religious values: helping the poor, caring for the sick, being good stewards of the God's creation, turning the other cheek. One view of "bipartisanship" for progressives is finding self-described conservatives and independents who have such progressive values and working with them on that basis. That's what Obama did when he went to Rick Warren's megachurch and it is his strategy in Project Joshua. Note that this is the opposite of the form of bipartisanship that involves really adopting right-wing values, or even appearing to. What this bipartisan strategy does, from the brain's viewpoint, is to activate the progressive mode of thought in the brains of conservatives, and thus tends to inhibit conservative thought.

But the form of bipartisanship that involves adopting, or appearing to adopt, right-wing views has the opposite effect. It strengthens conservative thought in the brains on those biconceptuals and weakens progressive thought. In short, it actually helps conservatives. Rather than "taking arguments away from them" it strengthens their basic values and hence all their arguments. It give conservatives more reason, not less, for voting for conservatives.

If Obama adopts, or appears to adopt, right-wing positions, he may still win, since McCain is such a weak candidate. But it will hurt Democrats running for office all up and down the ticket, since it will strengthen general conservative positions on all issues and hence work in the favor of conservative candidates.

As has often been said, if you are a conservative, why vote for the progressive spouting conservative views when you can vote for a real conservative?

In short, if Obama adopts, or appears to adopt, rightwing views, he will not only hurt himself, but also hurt other Democrats.

The Responsibility Position

Suppose that Obama's motivation is not political expediency, but rather an attempt to counter both rightwing and centrist stereotypes of progressives as being irresponsible.

Adopting, or appearing to adopt, rightwing positions is not going to work, and will only hurt, for reasons given above. What is the alternative?

In The Audacity of Hope, Obama portrays what I would call progressive ideals as simply American ideals, and he continued that account throughout the primary campaign. I think it is a correct account. And I think it is the key to uniting the country without adopting rightwing views. From this perspective, responsibility and the strength and judgment to act responsibly works with empathy (caring about other people) to define the basic American ideals: freedom, fairness, equality, opportunity, and so on. One can speak from this perspective of "full responsibility" both social and individual as central to the American vision, and they say what it means to be both responsible and committed to American ideals in each issue area. Moving to rightwing views, and abandoning American ideals, is never necessary to win.

The Nuanced Policy Position

It is possible to add nuance to a policy to make it look like you are moving to the right without actually doing so in policy terms. This can seem to do double duty, avoiding criticisms without making really substantive changes. It is an illusion.

When Obama ran for Senator in Illinois he had to at least appear to support Illinois industries -- coal, ethanol, and nuclear energy. He has used nuanced escape clauses, such as if it turns out to be economically feasible, while aware that sequestered coal, corn ethanol, and nuclear could not be economically feasible. Is this good politics? It may have been for a new senator, but it is not for a president. The reason again is that doing so activates a conservative mode of thought and inhibits a progressive mode of thought, making the move to real alternative energy that much harder.

Positions like this depend on a deep mistake about policy. There are two aspects to policy: cognitive and material. Material policy is about the nuts and bolts, how things are to work in the world. Cognitive policy is about what the public has to have in its brain/mind in order to fully support the right material policies. Coal, nuclear energy, and ethanol are policy disasters, and even giving them support with nuanced escape clauses hurts the possibility of real energy reform, but it activates, and hence strengthens, the conservative modes of thought that lie behind those proposals.

The bottom line: A nuanced policy that looks like a rightward move has the cognitive effect of a rightward move. Cognitive effects matter awfully in presidential campaigns.

Can You Avoid Attacks?

No. No matter how many rightwing views you move toward, you will be viciously attacked as too liberal, as influenced by radicals, as inexperienced, as unpatriotic, as all words and no content. Stick to your core values. Be yourself. Voters will respect you.

Why Understanding the Political Mind Matters

Politics looks different from the perspective of the cognitive and brain sciences. That is why I have written The Political Mind. Your arguments change when you start with how the brain and mind really work.

From the brain's perspective, the pragmatic arguments and moral arguments converge: Don't adopt rightwing positions for the sake of political expediency (that will backfire) or to demonstrate responsibility (that too will backfire). The best way to be expedient is to be authentic, stick to your core values, show and discuss responsibility, and thus garner trust. That is how to lead our nation, and to do so responsibly and toward fulfillment of its ideals.

George Lakoff is the author of The Political Mind: Why You Can't Understand 20th Century American Politics with an 18th Century Brain. He is Goldman Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley.

Obama Smacks a Homer!

2008-07-11T07:43:00.000-07:00

Obama's Grace

2008-06-28T09:08:00.000-07:00

From: The Reality Based Community

Posted by Mark Kleiman

At about 6:30 in the tape of the Obama/Clinton "Unity" rally, the crowd interrupts HRC's speech with a chant of "O-ba-MA! O-ba-MA! O-ba-MA! Watch Obama's left hand; he very gently tamps the chant down: not demonstratively, in a way that steals the scene from the speaker, but subtly, a conductor gesturing for a pianissimo.

Then, as Clinton begins to go on, a new chant starts up in the same cadence, only one or two voices at first: Hill-a-REE! Hill-a-REE! This time Obama encourages the chant rather than discouraging it: the hand movement is more emphatic, but still understated rather than overstated. It's hard to believe that the scene was pre-planned; as a spontaneous gesture, it tells me a great deal about the man I'm going to vote for, all of it good.

This reminds me of the story Bill Richardson told in endorsing Obama. At one of the early debates, Richardson had let his mind wander and didn't notice that the moderator was asking him a question until the moderator said his name; he knew that it was his turn to talk, but not what he was supposed to talk about. Obama, standing next to him, whispered "Katrina," sparing Richardson an unpleasant moment.

That sort of generosity of spirit is fully consistent with fighting hard; if you don't believe me, ask the Clinton campaign staff. But I can't imagine George W. Bush making either gesture, or, if he did, making it in a way that didn't draw attention to himself.

Footnote Also note the moment at 24:30 when Obama uses the "brush it off" shoulder swipe he applied to his own critics to describe the "grace and aplomb" with which Sen. Clinton dealt with hers. The man has natural stagecraft.

Print up on a flier and pass it around to your communities

2008-06-24T06:53:00.000-07:00

From: The Sideshow

Alterman: "Let's take a moment to sum up: the anti-torture candidate supports torture. The pro-immigration candidate opposes immigration. The candidate who opposes tax cuts for the rich supports them. The pro-campaign finance reform candidate has a campaign that is run almost exclusively by lobbyists, and exploits loopholes in the law to skirt spending limits--even the laws the candidate wrote. The candidate who opposes "agents of intolerance" in the Republican Party embraces them. The candidate with the foreign policy experience frequently confuses Sunnis and Shiites and misreads Iranian influence in the region, but is proposing permanent war. The candidate who claims to be a fiscal conservative wants to bust the budget. The candidate who claims to take global warming seriously does not want to take any serious action to address it." And yet, the media seem to believe he is something better. Hm, that paragraph would work nicely as a little list you can print up on a flier and pass around to your communities.

McCain Debates Himself

2008-06-15T06:38:00.000-07:00

Bringing a gun to a knife fight

2008-06-14T17:39:00.000-07:00

From: The Carpetbagger Report

What Barack Obama said:

He warned that the general election campaign could get ugly. “They’re going to try to scare people. They’re going to try to say that ‘that Obama is a scary guy,’” he said. A donor yelled out a deep accented “Don’t give in!”

“I won’t but that sounded pretty scary. You’re a tough guy,” Obama said.

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said.

What the Republican National Committee said:

“Why is Barack Obama so negative? In the last 24 hours, he’s completely abandoned his campaign’s call for ‘new politics,’ equating the election to a ‘brawl’ and promising to ‘bring a gun,’ ” said the RNC’s Alex Conant.

Now, I guess I know what the RNC means. “New politics” is apparently supposed to mean refraining from playing hardball or giving as good as he gets when it comes to the Republican Smear Machine. Obama has been promising for a year to be a tougher kind of Dem; maybe the GOP hasn’t been paying attention.

But that said, I have to wonder: if a Democrat brings a gun to knife fight, wouldn’t that necessarily be a “new” kind of politics?

Brave New Films: Welcome to John McCain's Womens Clinic

2008-06-14T07:43:00.000-07:00

2008-06-13T17:44:00.000-07:00

From: The Huffington Post

Do They Really Want To Play The Mi-chelle Game?

By John Ridley

"Obama's Baby Mama?" The pound she shared with her husband that was really a "terrorist fist jab?" When she thinks nobody's listening she loves to use the pejorative "whitey?" C'mon, do the Reactionary Regressives really want to shape the campaign on demonizing Barack Obama's wife Michelle?

They might as well take out a full page ad in the Weekly Standard announcing: EEH, WE GOT NOTHING

First off, demonizing the potential first lady; didn't they try that with Hillary Clinton? All that got them was eight years of Bill in the White House, and eventually Mrs. C as Senator from New York. Seriously, before the far Right Retro Guard gets too far down that road they might want to move on to Plan D.

Go read the whole post over at: The Huffington Post

Planned Parenthood on the real McCain

2008-06-13T17:12:00.000-07:00

I think the answer is "yes"

2008-06-13T06:52:00.000-07:00

From: Hullabaloo
The Exorcist

by tristero

Maybe everyone already knows this, but I didn't. When he was in college, the governor of Louisiana performed an exorcism on a classmate. This would be hilarious were it not for the fact that Jindal actually believes the exorcism also cured the woman of cancer. People die on account of such stupid beliefs.

I have known many devout Catholics, including priests and nuns. I have never met a single one, however, that performed an exorcism. While I haven't spoken to all of them about the subject, those I have talked to about exorcism are more embarrassed by the practice than anything else. Sure, they believe in evil spirits, but c'mon, there are limits, seems to be the attitude. (Question, did the Vatican give Jindal, et al, permission to perform the exorcism? I thought you could only "legally" do them after a very careful, official review.)

Once again, I am amazed by the Republican propensity for elevating genuine weirdos into high office. Ashcroft, whose father anointed him with Crisco when he was made Attorney General. Frist, who tortured cats, and despite a medical education, refused to say that AIDS could not be spread by kissing. Santorum, and so many other GOPers who have an obsession with man-dog sex. Evolution deniers. Racists. Homophobic homosexuals. Scalia, who simply can't read the very clear Declaration of Independence without serious misunderstandings. Twisted New Age flakes like Newt Gingrich, now an elder statesman. Boykin, a general who's lost his mind, sees Satan hovering over battlefields, in charge of the hunt for bin Laden. A serious contender for the GOP nomination who once released a serial rapist just to get back at Bill Clinton. The current GOP nominee who thought it was funny - ah, ha ha ha! - to sing "Bomb Iran!" to the tune of the Beach Boys' "Barbara Ann."

In my America - which includes Greil Marcus's Old Weird America AND the modern art scene in New York City - it just isn't that easy to find people as bizarre - and as tawdry - as these. The Republican party is one very, very strange gaggle of geese. I wonder:

Do crazy people flock to the top of the Republican party because like attracts like, or does Republicanism drive perfectly normal people insane?

I think the answer is "yes."

Hope VS Nope

2008-06-12T09:37:00.000-07:00

I'm Voting Republican

2008-06-12T07:14:00.000-07:00

Obama Speaks to HQ Staff

2008-06-08T06:46:00.000-07:00

I Agree!

2008-05-29T06:22:00.000-07:00

From: Political Animal

Guest: Hilzoy

MUSIC TO MY EARS...

From the Reuters blog:

"During a fund-raiser in Denver, Obama --a former constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago Law School -- was asked what he hoped to accomplish during his first 100 days in office.
"I would call my attorney general in and review every single executive order issued by George Bush and overturn those laws or executive decisions that I feel violate the constitution," said Obama."

It makes me smile just thinking about it.

Barak Obama at Wesleyan

2008-05-25T20:37:00.001-07:00

Immigration Myths

2008-05-22T13:09:00.000-07:00

Obama Responds to Bush and McCain

2008-05-16T10:33:00.000-07:00

‘There is no district that is safe for Republican candidates’

2008-05-14T07:38:00.000-07:00

From: The Carpetbagger

The presidential primary in West Virginia was certainly a high-profile contest, but the eyes of the political world were largely focused further south, where a special election in Mississippi was poised to tell us a whole lot about the Republicans’ congressional strategy for 2008.

A few months ago, GOP congressional leaders came up with a sure-fire strategy for success. The Republican brand had fallen apart, but the party assumed it could persevere, especially in “red” districts, by nationalizing House races, calling Democratic candidates liberals, and connecting them to Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi. What could possibly go wrong?

Republicans gave this a shot in March, in Illinois’ 14th. The GOP felt good about its chances — the district had been represented by former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R), Bush won the district twice by double digits, and Republicans have held the seat for decades. But when voters headed to the polls, a Democrat won by six points.

They tried again in April, in Louisiana’s 6th. Once again, the GOP went into the race optimistic — Bush won the seat by 19 points in ‘04, and Republicans have dominated the district for decades. This time, the Democrat won by three points.

Republicans were committed to doing whatever it took to prevent their strategy from failing three times in three months. So, when it came time for yesterday’s special election in Mississippi’s 1st, a very Republican district, the GOP pulled out all the stops to hold onto it — pumping money into the race, sending Dick Cheney down to campaign, running a bunch of ads featuring Jeremiah Wright, and using robo-calls from McCain, Bush, and the First Lady.

The Democrat won by eight points.

Democrats scored a remarkable upset victory on Tuesday in a special Congressional election in this conservative Southern district, sending a clear signal of national problems ahead for Republicans in the fall.

The Democrat, Travis Childers, a local courthouse official, pulled together a coalition of blacks, who turned out heavily, and old-line “yellow dog” Democrats, to beat his Republican opponent, Greg Davis, the mayor of Southaven, a Memphis suburb. With 99 percent of the precincts reporting, the vote was 54 percent for Mr. Childers to 46 percent for Mr. Davis.

The seat had been in Republican hands since 1995, and the district, largely rural and stretching across the northern top of Mississippi, had been considered one of the safest in the country for President Bush’s party, as he won here with 62 percent of the vote in 2004.

Given the results, it seems as if congressional Republicans are … what’s the word I’m looking for … screwed.
Read more

Obama's Close In North Carolina

2008-05-03T19:56:00.000-07:00

De Fazio Give the GOP the Business

2008-04-23T19:21:00.000-07:00

Rev. Michael Pfleger repeats what Sister Mary Catherine taught me in Catechism Class

2008-04-19T19:23:00.000-07:00

45 Minutes

2008-04-17T13:49:00.001-07:00

Obama Responds to Charges of Elitism

2008-04-12T13:26:00.000-07:00

10 Days that changed our financial world

2008-03-29T07:20:00.000-07:00

Robert Borosage and Rob Johnson over at the Blog for America's Future nails it down with a perfect description of how socialism is great for Wall Street , but God forbid that the government should help working class folks with silly stuff like health care or education.

As Barack Obama noted in his speech yesterday, the deregulation that fostered this folly was supported by both parties. It began under Jimmy Carter, accelerated under Ronald Reagan, went into hyper speed under Bill Clinton, and spiraled into catastrophe under George Bush. The freedom to gamble with other peoples’ money has been protected by lavish campaign contributions and powerful lobbies. These financial buccaneers have treated the laws and rules that govern our financial markets like just one more asset to be bought and sold. They have been unabashed in their arrogant abuse of power, rigging the rules and daring the world to stop them. A particularly audacious example occurred only last year when a concerted lobby campaign convinced the Democratic majority in the Senate to sustain the tax dodge that enables billionaire hedge fund operators to pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries.

Read more at the Blog for America's Future

New Movie from the guys who brought you "The Iraq War"

2008-03-28T10:02:00.000-07:00

From the pen of Ben Sargent

2008-03-28T09:31:00.000-07:00

See More at: goComics.com

Couldn't Happen to Nicer Bunch of People

2008-03-24T07:45:00.000-07:00

"We are trying to change the tones in the state capitals -- and turn them toward bitter nastiness and partisanship." -- Grover Norquist, 2003

From: Politico

GOP state parties are in dire straits

By DAVID PAUL KUHN & CHARLES MAHTESIAN | 3/24/08 4:51 AM

Internal strife, poor fundraising, onerous debt and scandal at state parties could hinder grassroots support for John McCain.

Go over to Politico and read more......

From the pen of Chris Britt

2008-03-20T07:45:00.000-07:00

See More at Springfield Journal Register: SJ-R.COM

Deep Though of the Day

2008-03-17T07:29:00.000-07:00

From: Obsidian Wings

by publius

It's too bad we didn't invest one-third of the Social Security system in the market.