| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| ||||
Friday, February 12, 2010
Stewart nails Republican back-tracking
Again, Jon Stewart and The Daily show why they really are "The Most Trusted Name" in news. In a way it's sad, but I'm so thankful TDS and Stewart are there.
Again, David Brooks lives in La La land.
David Brooks is a long time editorial writer for such publications as The Washington Post, The New York Times and has been a senior editor at the neoconservative The Weekly Standard since its inception. While embracing many policies or beliefs somewhat to the center of dogmatic conservative principles, Brooks has maintained an aloof character which he uses to hide his still fervent beliefs that progressive and even mainstream Democrats hold little in the way of political, social or economic value.
He does this in quite a stealthy manner as can bee seen in his editorial for the NYT today which is nothing more than a wishful screed which tries to box in Pres. Obama while ignoring the mounting problem of Republican and conservative obstructionism.
This is a linguistic trick used by many pundits and politicians of every stripe. However, the right-wing has been using it as their main communicative form for decades, and have only increased its use exponentially in the last decade. A statement with zero facts and simple but hollow claims. Here, Brooks offers nothing to back up his claim for "Voters are in no mood for a wave of domestic transformation", and thinks stating such makes it fact. Yet, nothing could be further from the truth if we take in to account the most empirical evidence of voters desire for transformation, the 2008 national elections, in which the public voted in droves for a positive and clearly stated overhaul toward domestic policy changes.
This was even admitted by Brooks earlier in the same piece:
His latter point is negated by his former, yet Brooks seems tone deaf not just to the obvious populist sentiment for an overhaul, but to his own admission that this is exactly what the electorate therefore desired by electing Obama. Any claim that in writing an editorial and as such he is not constrained to the same journalistic standards is a fallacy. He can state his opinion as much as he wants, but as soon as he claims to know factually the will of people with no proof to back him up, he has overstepped his editorial purview and is therefore subject to far stricter journalistic ethic.
Here Brooks, as is the norm in conservative punditry, states something that is incorrect on it face. The spending enacted by the government in the stimulus plan is not just working, but even Republicans knew it would and are know claiming credit for it. If such a policy was falling on its face, you know damn well NO Republicans would be touting it. Brooks again misses the mark by a wide margin.
Continuing:
Unless Brooks has only had his attention gazing on the Tea Party movement, he must know something no one else does. Certainly when asked generally about the stimulus public opinion has gone down, there is broad support for of its functions. In other words, implementation is being questioned, not the overall policy behind the stimulus as Brooks would have you believe.
One wonders whether Brooks here is not simply delusional, but engaging in a bit of sophistry for his own ends. I know, but still I like to soften the blow to Mr. Brooks' ego sometimes. An ABC poll this week shows he is off target and again in his own red-faced populist world with Palin and cohorts, regardless of facts.
From here Brooks goes on to indulge in the fantasy that somehow the inability to get legislation passed or a shift in policy is down solely to the administration and its handling of the process. While I am certainly not happy with Obama in many ways, Brooks like almost every commentator this side of Keith Olbermann maintains the meme that Obama (and therefore the Dems) are singularly to blame. But this is churlish at best. When a party says "NO" to every single proposal, even ones with the specific requirements the Republicans want in the bill, they still continue to obstruct, waffle and show little remorse for their blatant hypocrisy.
It continues:
Who gives damn what Lamar Alexander thinks? Until his party shows any semblance of willingness to be honest and open to rational discussion, he can take a running jump like the rest of the mindless GOP robots. You're in the minority, you don't get to set the bloody rules.
See above. Brooks may now be venturing in to "fucking moron" land here. Yes David, it's Obama who needs to show bipartisanship. Missing our meds daily now are we?
Nothing new perhaps, but I feel the need to hold these fucker's feet to the fire whenever I can find time. Especially someone like Brooks who starts with soft, conciliatory language before then stridently pushing his right-wing agenda.
He does this in quite a stealthy manner as can bee seen in his editorial for the NYT today which is nothing more than a wishful screed which tries to box in Pres. Obama while ignoring the mounting problem of Republican and conservative obstructionism.
The stimulus package, the cap-and-trade legislation and the health care bill were all blends of expert planning and political power-broking. This project would have permanently changed government’s role in national life.
It was not to be. Voters are in no mood for a wave of domestic transformation.
This is a linguistic trick used by many pundits and politicians of every stripe. However, the right-wing has been using it as their main communicative form for decades, and have only increased its use exponentially in the last decade. A statement with zero facts and simple but hollow claims. Here, Brooks offers nothing to back up his claim for "Voters are in no mood for a wave of domestic transformation", and thinks stating such makes it fact. Yet, nothing could be further from the truth if we take in to account the most empirical evidence of voters desire for transformation, the 2008 national elections, in which the public voted in droves for a positive and clearly stated overhaul toward domestic policy changes.
This was even admitted by Brooks earlier in the same piece:
There were actually two elements to the Obama campaign. First, he promised a less partisan government. Second, he promised a more activist government.
His latter point is negated by his former, yet Brooks seems tone deaf not just to the obvious populist sentiment for an overhaul, but to his own admission that this is exactly what the electorate therefore desired by electing Obama. Any claim that in writing an editorial and as such he is not constrained to the same journalistic standards is a fallacy. He can state his opinion as much as he wants, but as soon as he claims to know factually the will of people with no proof to back him up, he has overstepped his editorial purview and is therefore subject to far stricter journalistic ethic.
The economy is already introducing enough insecurity into their lives. Unlike 1932 and 1965, Americans do not trust Washington to take them on a leap of faith, especially if it means more spending.
Here Brooks, as is the norm in conservative punditry, states something that is incorrect on it face. The spending enacted by the government in the stimulus plan is not just working, but even Republicans knew it would and are know claiming credit for it. If such a policy was falling on its face, you know damn well NO Republicans would be touting it. Brooks again misses the mark by a wide margin.
Continuing:
The country has reacted harshly to the course the administration ended up embracing.
Unless Brooks has only had his attention gazing on the Tea Party movement, he must know something no one else does. Certainly when asked generally about the stimulus public opinion has gone down, there is broad support for of its functions. In other words, implementation is being questioned, not the overall policy behind the stimulus as Brooks would have you believe.
The country has reacted harshly to the course the administration ended up embracing. Obama is still admired personally, but every major proposal — from the stimulus to health care — is quite unpopular.
One wonders whether Brooks here is not simply delusional, but engaging in a bit of sophistry for his own ends. I know, but still I like to soften the blow to Mr. Brooks' ego sometimes. An ABC poll this week shows he is off target and again in his own red-faced populist world with Palin and cohorts, regardless of facts.
A new poll taken by The Washington Post and ABC News shows voters want comprehensive health care reform passed
From here Brooks goes on to indulge in the fantasy that somehow the inability to get legislation passed or a shift in policy is down solely to the administration and its handling of the process. While I am certainly not happy with Obama in many ways, Brooks like almost every commentator this side of Keith Olbermann maintains the meme that Obama (and therefore the Dems) are singularly to blame. But this is churlish at best. When a party says "NO" to every single proposal, even ones with the specific requirements the Republicans want in the bill, they still continue to obstruct, waffle and show little remorse for their blatant hypocrisy.
It continues:
Second, he could propose some incremental changes in a range of areas and prove Washington can at least take small steps. Senator Lamar Alexander has been arguing that, given the climate of distrust, this is not a good period to push big, comprehensive reforms. He’s right.
Who gives damn what Lamar Alexander thinks? Until his party shows any semblance of willingness to be honest and open to rational discussion, he can take a running jump like the rest of the mindless GOP robots. You're in the minority, you don't get to set the bloody rules.
Third, Obama could serve as a one-man model for bipartisan behavior. Right now, the Republicans have no political incentive to deal on anything. But the president could at least exemplify the kind of behavior voters want to see in their leaders. For example, he could take several of the Republican health care reform ideas — like malpractice reform and lifting the regulatory barriers on state-based experimentation — and proactively embrace them as part of a genuine compromise offer.
See above. Brooks may now be venturing in to "fucking moron" land here. Yes David, it's Obama who needs to show bipartisanship. Missing our meds daily now are we?
Nothing new perhaps, but I feel the need to hold these fucker's feet to the fire whenever I can find time. Especially someone like Brooks who starts with soft, conciliatory language before then stridently pushing his right-wing agenda.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Mercenary group Blackwater charges US Government for prostitute
In a revealing and pretty bloody shocking report today, Carol D. Leonnig in The Washington Post exposes a bombshell about practices by crusading right-wing mercenary contractor Blackwater (now Xe Services LLC).
In it Leonnig reports that husband & wife Brad and Melan Davis, who worked for Blackwater, claim that the company double-charged the Federal Government, and had on its payroll a prostitute for the company's "Moral Welfare Recreation"
Not exactly what one thinks of when paying a contractor for security services and also a company run by supposed devout Christian Erik Prince. Prince is a little rich boy with a Napoleon complex, who when confronted about the criminal and shaky moral foundation of his company, ran away like a scared little school boy.
The Davises also claim that there were a plethora of dubuious accounting practices by Blackwater, in which the company either double-charged or simply falsified claims:
Of course, this will be nothing new to anyone who has followed the unending stories of Blackwater's repugnant murdering christian crusade and morally bankrupt endeavors reported by The Nation's Jeremy Scahill here, here, and here.
Huffinton has an excellent page on Blackwater. And of course make sure and read Scahill's ruthless and brilliant expose of the company Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army
In it Leonnig reports that husband & wife Brad and Melan Davis, who worked for Blackwater, claim that the company double-charged the Federal Government, and had on its payroll a prostitute for the company's "Moral Welfare Recreation"
The Davises assert that Blackwater officials kept a Filipino prostitute on the company payroll for a State Department contract in Afghanistan, and billed the government for her time working for Blackwater male employees in Kabul. The alleged prostitute's salary was categorized as part of the company's "Morale Welfare Recreation" expenses, they said.
Not exactly what one thinks of when paying a contractor for security services and also a company run by supposed devout Christian Erik Prince. Prince is a little rich boy with a Napoleon complex, who when confronted about the criminal and shaky moral foundation of his company, ran away like a scared little school boy.
The Davises also claim that there were a plethora of dubuious accounting practices by Blackwater, in which the company either double-charged or simply falsified claims:
[Melan] said in court papers that she later traveled to a hotel in Amman, Jordan, where Blackwater personnel were often housed en route to Iraq. She said that while there, she and two co-workers spent numerous hours generating reams of false invoices for plane travel at inflated rates, so that her Blackwater bosses could overcharge the government for the travel.
Of course, this will be nothing new to anyone who has followed the unending stories of Blackwater's repugnant murdering christian crusade and morally bankrupt endeavors reported by The Nation's Jeremy Scahill here, here, and here.
Huffinton has an excellent page on Blackwater. And of course make sure and read Scahill's ruthless and brilliant expose of the company Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army
Monday, February 8, 2010
Fiorina campaign ad: the greatest commercial ever!
Running for the Barbara Boxer seat for Senate in California, Republican Carly Fiorina's campaign last week released perhaps the greatest commercial ever. And by greatest, I mean worst, and by worst I mean so insanely bad it is beyond hysterical.
Watch:
Wow! That's taking going off of the batshit crazy deep-end with no safety net to a level never seen before. When this first surfaced last week initial reactions were that it had to be a hoax. But the ad was confirmed as genuine. What the hell was Fiorina and her campaign thinking? Seriously, it looks like they gave $40 to a 12 year old heroin addict who then went on an acid binge after watching Sesame Street, to produce it. Firstly, you're going to go with the trite sheep/wolf theme? Really? Hold on, is that a wolf? Or is it just a demonic sheep? It's so hard to tell it is dumbfounding. But the found-in-a-carnival-trash-can wolf/sheep/monkey puppet with Velcro arms & legs my brother had when he was 7 suit with "red piercing eyes" is simply stunning. Did she pay an ad agency to come up with this? I'd love to have been in on that creative meeting. And FCINO? Who the fuck comes up with an acronym that rolls off your tongue like broken glass?
This is truly, astonishingly funny. But in what may become the most expensive senate race in history, such a crazy decision by Fiorina may well be the first in a serious of questions about her judgment along with her illegal sales to Iran, as well as her shocking time as Hewlett-Packard CEO.
Watch:
Wow! That's taking going off of the batshit crazy deep-end with no safety net to a level never seen before. When this first surfaced last week initial reactions were that it had to be a hoax. But the ad was confirmed as genuine. What the hell was Fiorina and her campaign thinking? Seriously, it looks like they gave $40 to a 12 year old heroin addict who then went on an acid binge after watching Sesame Street, to produce it. Firstly, you're going to go with the trite sheep/wolf theme? Really? Hold on, is that a wolf? Or is it just a demonic sheep? It's so hard to tell it is dumbfounding. But the found-in-a-carnival-trash-can wolf/sheep/monkey puppet with Velcro arms & legs my brother had when he was 7 suit with "red piercing eyes" is simply stunning. Did she pay an ad agency to come up with this? I'd love to have been in on that creative meeting. And FCINO? Who the fuck comes up with an acronym that rolls off your tongue like broken glass?
This is truly, astonishingly funny. But in what may become the most expensive senate race in history, such a crazy decision by Fiorina may well be the first in a serious of questions about her judgment along with her illegal sales to Iran, as well as her shocking time as Hewlett-Packard CEO.
Rep. John Murtha passes away.
Just announced that Pennsylvania Democratic Representative John Murtha has died at age 77.
Make no mistake about it, as a former Marine and staunch Veteran's advocate, Murtha being a vocal critic of the Iraq war was a watershed moment for the anti-war movement.
RIP
Tebow Superbowl ad. Wtf?
Okay, by now there have been a million plus posts on the Tim Tebow/Focus On The Family anti-abortion ad. Now,there are a myriad of things that justifiably could be discussed in regard to the ad: the fact that there is a blanket ban on abortion in the Philippines with mandatory jail time for the recipient and abortion performer and Pam Tebow's claim her doctors all suggested she abort the fetus; the fact that after a long standing policy of not showing advocacy ads, CBS' reversal on advocacy ads changed solely for the anit-choice ad; and further, CBS' decision to deny a a gay dating site ad for little apparent reason.
Anyway, here is the ad:
Truthfully, it's a rather benign ad on it's face, although I still object to CBS' handling of the situation, and also anything remotely connected to the hate mongering Focus On The Family. But what really had me puzzled was the viscous hit Tebow puts on his own mother in the ad! Wtf? I mean, it's just completely bizarre given the message and tone of the commercial. I assume it was meant as a little slapstick, but in an ad trying to convey a loving family and supposed pro-family values, we get a monster football player whacking his mother like a cardboard cut-out of Richard Dawkins? With all the usual misogyny rampant in Superbowl ads, I find it puzzling that such an ad had an act, albeit perhaps in jest, of violence against a woman. Bizarre indeed.
I'll have much more on Tebow, his father and the ad in days to come.
Anyway, here is the ad:
Truthfully, it's a rather benign ad on it's face, although I still object to CBS' handling of the situation, and also anything remotely connected to the hate mongering Focus On The Family. But what really had me puzzled was the viscous hit Tebow puts on his own mother in the ad! Wtf? I mean, it's just completely bizarre given the message and tone of the commercial. I assume it was meant as a little slapstick, but in an ad trying to convey a loving family and supposed pro-family values, we get a monster football player whacking his mother like a cardboard cut-out of Richard Dawkins? With all the usual misogyny rampant in Superbowl ads, I find it puzzling that such an ad had an act, albeit perhaps in jest, of violence against a woman. Bizarre indeed.
I'll have much more on Tebow, his father and the ad in days to come.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Collins puts "moderate" myth firmly to bed.
As often as it is said by those who believe it, upon the utterance of "moderate Republican", it is swiftly followed by a few names, one always being Susan Collins of Maine. What she has done lately, or even at all to prove her political or temperament of moderation is highly spurious, and pretty much non-existent.
But late last week she may have outdone herself. In a five minute video in regards to the decision by the Justice Dept. to arrest, interview, and allow Christmas day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab miranda rights, Collins goes on to spew as many lies as she can pack in to 314 seconds.
This is a perfect example of the right-wing's deceit and shocking hypocrisy when it comes to national security and their own recent past. First let's point out that Collins claims that no-one in the national intelligence power structure was informed of the administration's decision to move forward with the prosecution of UFA by way of simple, criminal procedures:
This was not only quickly refuted by a myriad of sources online, but NBC's Andrea Mitchell even corrected Collins to her face in an interview. Collins, looking like she had seen a Sarah Palin debate, then went on to answer none of Mitchell's facts and did the time honored Republican response of shuck & dive.
Whitehouse counterterrorism and homeland security advisor John Brennan has now come out swinging, letting it be known that Republican leaders were fully briefed on the administration's intention of prosecuting the xmas bomber in a civil trial.
Where the complete hypocrisy and typical right-wing myopia enter into it is Collins' seeming amnesia with regard to the Bush administrations policy of trying over 300 terrorists in civilian court, with a 100% conviction rate. But listen to the right and lawyered up these people would be walking around with a venti latte in the Village planning their next attack thanks to those demonic Justice Dept. officials. Funny how the conservatives were only too happy to keep schtum about that process while Saint George was in office. Need more be presented to show the Repubs are engaged in nothing but bloviating hypocrisy and staunch obstructionism?
What makes the story even more compelling when taken in context of the right's claim that trying terror suspects in civilian courts is the fact that Abdulmutallub is singing like a canary. But I'm sure giving him the old Jack Bauer treatment would have worked so much better. Well, at least in the minds of those who wish Bauer was real and "24" was actually a reality show.
Update:
Video of Rachel Maddow decimating Collins.
But late last week she may have outdone herself. In a five minute video in regards to the decision by the Justice Dept. to arrest, interview, and allow Christmas day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab miranda rights, Collins goes on to spew as many lies as she can pack in to 314 seconds.
This is a perfect example of the right-wing's deceit and shocking hypocrisy when it comes to national security and their own recent past. First let's point out that Collins claims that no-one in the national intelligence power structure was informed of the administration's decision to move forward with the prosecution of UFA by way of simple, criminal procedures:
When the Obama administration decided to treat Abdulmutallab as an ordinary criminal, it did so without the input of our nation‘s top intelligence officials.
The director of national intelligence was not consulted. The secretary of defense was not consulted. The secretary of homeland security was not consulted. The director of the National Counterterrorism Center was not consulted.
This was not only quickly refuted by a myriad of sources online, but NBC's Andrea Mitchell even corrected Collins to her face in an interview. Collins, looking like she had seen a Sarah Palin debate, then went on to answer none of Mitchell's facts and did the time honored Republican response of shuck & dive.
Whitehouse counterterrorism and homeland security advisor John Brennan has now come out swinging, letting it be known that Republican leaders were fully briefed on the administration's intention of prosecuting the xmas bomber in a civil trial.
"On Christmas night, I called a number of senior members of Congress," Brennan said on NBC, specifically identifying Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, and House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, as well as the ranking Republicans on the Senate and House intelligence committees, Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., and Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich.
Where the complete hypocrisy and typical right-wing myopia enter into it is Collins' seeming amnesia with regard to the Bush administrations policy of trying over 300 terrorists in civilian court, with a 100% conviction rate. But listen to the right and lawyered up these people would be walking around with a venti latte in the Village planning their next attack thanks to those demonic Justice Dept. officials. Funny how the conservatives were only too happy to keep schtum about that process while Saint George was in office. Need more be presented to show the Repubs are engaged in nothing but bloviating hypocrisy and staunch obstructionism?
What makes the story even more compelling when taken in context of the right's claim that trying terror suspects in civilian courts is the fact that Abdulmutallub is singing like a canary. But I'm sure giving him the old Jack Bauer treatment would have worked so much better. Well, at least in the minds of those who wish Bauer was real and "24" was actually a reality show.
Update:
Video of Rachel Maddow decimating Collins.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)