"No longer like a toad in these foul cellars will I secret the venom of hatred -- for you shall bring me love!" - Erik
|
Home
|
« Liberal Outrage: December 2006 | Main | Liberal Outrage: February 2007 » Liberal OutrageMadman Newsweek (found via This Modern World): By fnord12 | January 31, 2007, 4:06 PM | Liberal Outrage
& Ummm... Other? | Comments (6)| Link It's enjoyable and there's not an alternative product. The Altria Group, better known as Philip-Morris, is "spinning off" the Kraft portion of the business to shareholders cause they feel that it's really just a drag on their profits. He added: "If frozen dinners get too expensive, people will try something else. That's not true with cigarettes -- you are not up at night worried about that product that is going to make cigarettes obsolete." One might point out that the reason for this is that cigarettes are addictive. Like crack. Or heroin. Or that other socially acceptable drug - alcohol. So, yeah, i can see how a flunctuation in price might not affect tobacco sales. It's good to capitalize on someone's illness. Afterall, even if you don't, someone else will. You might as well get in on it. At least you donate money to the local charity every christmas. Now, just because their legally addictive product is doing well all around the world doesn't mean Philip-Morris is resting on its laurels. No, no. They continue to work hard to bring you new and innovative waves to get your nicotine fix. It also hopes eventually to lure consumers with new tobacco products, including a small tea-bag-like pouch that is smoke- free, spit-free and tucks into the cheek. And so that you can get an idea of the mentality of the people involved, "The exciting part for me," said Bonnie Herzog, an analyst at Citigroup, "is that tobacco use today will evolve. It's unlikely that there will ever be a 100 percent safe cigarette, but we feel that a reduced-risk cigarette is on the horizon." Dear Bonnie. You're an idiot and conscienceless. I hope you don't pass on your genetic material. Enjoy your wealth, you dosey cow. By min | January 31, 2007, 9:14 AM | Liberal Outrage | Comments (1)| Link Stolen directly from today's TPMmuckraker who stole it... "In an executive order published last week in the Federal Register, Mr. Bush said that each agency must have a regulatory policy office run by a political appointee, to supervise the development of rules and documents providing guidance to regulated industries. The White House will thus have a gatekeeper in each agency to analyze the costs and the benefits of new rules and to make sure the agencies carry out the president's priorities." That's right, each agency (like, for instance, the Environmental Protection Agency and Occupational Safety and Health Administration) will now have a politically appointed babysitter to make sure that regulations aren't too onerous for corporations. In fact, the directive ensures that regulation is the absolute last resort: "in deciding whether to issue regulations, federal agencies must identify 'the specific market failure' or problem that justifies government intervention." "Business groups welcomed the executive order," the Times notes, in a terrific understatement. By min | January 30, 2007, 1:30 PM | Liberal Outrage | Link "Tough crowd tonight," we thoughtfully said. Chris then offered us a look at the odd soul of the Washington press corps. His eyes stared past ours, scanning the Mayflower's block-long lobby in a classic thousand-yard stare. "I just saw the most incredible prostitute," he weirdly said. (Instead of "prostitute," he may have said "hooker.") To Plotkin's credit - again, we don't know him - he seemed to be just as surprised as we were by Chris' oddball comment. But Chris wasn't through with his weird discussion; his eyes continued to scan the long hall as he said something like, "Yeah, you have to ask for the 'pink sheet' rooms when you check in." (Not an exact quote.) At no point did Plotkin seem to think that this was a recognizable topic. For ourselves, we'd have to say it was the strangest thing any man has ever said to us. No, it simply isn't our experience that men make such weird comments to other men - much less, to men whom they barely know. Men like Matthews apparently think that this is standard male discussion. (We googled and Nexised "pink sheet" the next day. We found no usage which conformed to what Chris had said.) By fnord12 | January 30, 2007, 1:28 PM | Liberal Outrage & Ummm... Other? | Link For all the harsh criticism against President Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq, most Democrats blanch at the notion of cutting funding for new troops. Not Mr. Feingold, who believes his party has been too timid on this front. This is how Mr. Feingold opened the hearing: "There is little doubt that decisive action from the Congress is needed. Despite the results of the election, and two months of study and supposed consultation -- during which experts and members of Congress from across the political spectrum argued for a new policy -- the president has decided to escalate the war. When asked whether he would persist in this policy despite congressional opposition, he replied: 'Frankly, that's not their responsibility.' Last week Vice President Cheney was asked whether the non-binding resolution passed by the Foreign Relations Committee that will soon be considered by the full Senate would deter the President from escalating the war. He replied: 'It's not going to stop us.'" This coincides with Bush being the "decider" and Cheney's statement that he's the VP and you're not. I love snappy comebacks. I'm happy to see someone actually making a tough stance. I just fear that instead of getting behind this in a united front, the Dems instead will try to distance themselves from the "radical". Hey, guys, it's not high school anymore. You don't have to impress the popular kids and shun the "nerds". I really really really hope they get the marketing to work for them on this one. Feingold has already stated that this will not affect the troops' supplies and salaries. It will only prevent more deployment of soldiers. They really need to push that meme because the neo-con PR machine is already in place and very good and dealing out misinformation to the willfully misinformed. The Democrats need to put up a united front on this with no holdouts on their side and they need to make sure they work the media machine. Fast. As i was told, even if you have the superior product, you can lose out because the inferior product had the better marketing. 8 years of Bush is a harsh price to pay for poor marketing decisions. Have they learned their lesson? Are we cutting thru the bozone* layer? I have no high expectations, but i would like to be pleasantly surprised. Edwards has already introduced legislation to do the same. That's 2. And one of them running for president. Hope this lights a fire under the fence straddlers.
By min | January 30, 2007, 12:33 PM | Liberal Outrage | Link Bridge the Gap, a non-profit org specializing in nuclear safety issues, sent a proposal to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in 2004 to toughen up their security measures and to build steel cages around nuclear reactors in an effort to deflect the impact of a plane. The NRC's response? Now, i haven't read Bridge the Gap's proposals nor do i know anything about nuclear power plant safety. Mebbe their proposal is completely wacky and impractical. Mebbe steel cages is not going to do squat against a jetliner. How should i know? I just want to point out that the NRC's response is not exactly reassuring. It boils down to "good enough" and "not our responsibility". I guess none of the NRC officials live near a nuclear reactor so it doesn't really matter much to them either way. Thanks guys. Good lookin' out. By min | January 30, 2007, 12:24 PM | Liberal Outrage | Link Link: Alexander (R-TN) By fnord12 | January 26, 2007, 12:42 PM | Liberal Outrage | Comments (1)| Link As Josh Marshall put it. On behalf of his client, an alleged crack cocaine dealer who's accused of killing a man he'd robbed to prevent him from talking to the police, Little Rock lawyer John Hall has challenged the appointment of Timothy Griffin, the recently-appointed U.S. Attorney for eastern Arkansas with close ties to the White House. Meanwhile in the Senate, Schumer (D-NY) is moving to have a Judiciary Committee hearing on the firings and appointments of Attorney Generals by Gonzalez and Feinstein (D-CA) (along with Specter, R-PA) is working to get a bill thru to close this loophole. Ofc, Specter was responsible for the loophole being there in the first place, but i guess he gets points for cleaning up his mess. By min | January 26, 2007, 12:34 PM | Liberal Outrage | Link From Dana Milbank at the Washington Post: This delicious morsel about the "Meet the Press" host and the vice president was part of the extensive dish Cathie Martin served up yesterday when the former Cheney communications director took the stand in the perjury trial of former Cheney chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Flashed on the courtroom computer screens were her notes from 2004 about how Cheney could respond to allegations that the Bush administration had played fast and loose with evidence of Iraq's nuclear ambitions. Option 1: "MTP-VP," she wrote, then listed the pros and cons of a vice presidential appearance on the Sunday show. Under "pro," she wrote: "control message." "I suggested we put the vice president on 'Meet the Press,' which was a tactic we often used," Martin testified. "It's our best format." "How embarrassing for Russert. He's been shown the fool. A mere puppet. How will he respond?") More from the Post: But the trial has already pulled back the curtain on the White House's PR techniques and confirmed some of the darkest suspicions of the reporters upon whom they are used. Relatively junior White House aides run roughshod over members of the president's Cabinet. Bush aides charged with speaking to the public and the media are kept out of the loop on some of the most important issues. And bad news is dumped before the weekend for the sole purpose of burying it. By fnord12 | January 26, 2007, 8:55 AM | Liberal Outrage | Link From Americablog: "He's tried this two times - it's failed twice," the California Democrat said. "I asked him at the White House, 'Mr. President, why do you think this time it's going to work?' And he said, 'Because I told them it had to.' " Asked if the president had elaborated, she added that he simply said, " 'I told them that they had to.' That was the end of it. That's the way it is." Transcript, including punchline: PELOSI: He's tried this two times - it's failed twice. I asked him at the White House, 'Mr. President, why do you think this time it's going to work?' By fnord12 | January 26, 2007, 8:51 AM | Liberal Outrage | Link Link: Q: "By taking the policy you have, haven't you, Mr. Vice President, ignored the expressed will of the American people in the November election?" The vice president: "Well, Chris, this president, and I don't think any president worth his salt can afford to make decisions of this magnitude according to the polls. The polls change." Q: "This was an election, sir." The vice president: "Polls change day by day, week by week." By fnord12 | January 25, 2007, 12:31 PM | Liberal Outrage | Comments (1)| Link Obama supports universal health care. Throw a major project to overhaul mass transportation in this country and maybe the democrats can become the party of ideas. By fnord12 | January 25, 2007, 11:47 AM | Liberal Outrage | Comments (3)| Link Spored sent this lovely little pick-me-up. Attorney General Gonzalez manages to stun the Senate Judiciary Committee with his interpretation of the Constitution. Specter was incredulous, asking how the Constitution could bar the suspension of a right that didn't exist... Habeas corpus is an extremely important right for us to have. We're pretty much screwed if they decide we don't automatically have such a right. One law prof quoted puts it pretty plainly. "This is the key protection that people have if they're held in violation of the law,'' said Erwin Chemerinsky, a Duke University law professor who has criticized the administration's actions on civil liberties. "If there's no habeas corpus, and if the government wants to pick you or me off the street and hold us indefinitely, how do we get our release?''[emphasis mine] This type of "logic" doesn't just affect habeas corpus. Many of the fundamental rights we hold dear aren't directly stated. They're all bestowed by wording saying it can't be taken away. For instance, the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Now apply Gonzalez's version of reasoning to that. See the problem? The only positive thing that occurred was Specter's exchange with Gonzalez. Gonzales: There is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There's a prohibition against taking it away. ... By min | January 25, 2007, 11:00 AM | Liberal Outrage | Comments (1)| Link We bring democracy. Democracy good. Iraq's parliament is at a total standstill. They might be earning $120k, but safety is such a huge issue that the salary barely pays for the guards hired by members to protect them. One guy says he has 40 bodyguards and the money only covers 20. The speaker of the parliament is thinking of trying to clamp down on the rampant absenteeism. He hit a slight snag on that, though. He needs a quorum in order to pass the proposal. By min | January 24, 2007, 10:22 AM | Liberal Outrage | Link So we'll make that goal, easy. By fnord12 | January 23, 2007, 3:50 PM | Liberal Outrage | Link Sign up. It's 15 bucks a month. You won't even notice that it's gone. So we're launching our own massive escalation. More pressure on Congress, more voices calling on Democrats to stand up to the president, more Americans opposed to the war. It'll cost about $90,000 per month for the resources required - including skilled staff organizers deployed around the country. If 6,000 of us chip in $15 a month, we can do it. Can you give $15 a month to end the war? By fnord12 | January 23, 2007, 11:46 AM | Liberal Outrage | Link I appreciate Mr. Freedom Fries trying to make amends, but don't we already have something for this?: Follow up from the article Tapped links to: Such a basic expression of the separation of powers should be obvious. But with the Bush Administration, one never knows. So H.J. Res 14 spells it out. "This resolution says a strong message that Congress won't stand idly by and it won't get railroaded into another war that will only make America and the world less safe," said Rep. Marty Meehan. "A lot of people in Congress are fearful that this war will expand," added Rep. Ron Paul. Containing an expansion of the war, said Rep. Neil Abercrombie, is "the most important issue this Congress will face aside from Iraq." They're basically pushing through a law that says "You have to follow the Constitution". (Of course Bush can still do whatever he wants after the law is passed, with the proper signing statement.) I'm not feeling secure about the whole democratic process today. By fnord12 | January 19, 2007, 2:52 PM | Liberal Outrage | Comments (1)| Link Just in time for another attempt to privatise social security. There's clearly only one solution. The Logan's Run solution. It's not like most of us care about the elderly anyway. The freak us out with their obvious mortality. By min | January 19, 2007, 9:49 AM | Liberal Outrage | Comments (2)| Link Gee, i find that so hard to believe. Why would the cigarette companies do such a thing? Needless to say, Phillip Morris took issue with the study. By min | January 19, 2007, 9:44 AM | Liberal Outrage
& Science | Comments (4)| Link I suppose i can hold out hope that they just got it wrong in the translation, but i'm not that optimistic. It's so pathetic that our government can make these statements in earnest without the weight of their hypocrisy crushing them into flat pancakes. China shot down one of their old weather satellites about a week ago. Here is the "intelligent" response our nation is so famous for. "The United States believes China's development and testing of such weapons is inconsistent with the spirit of cooperation that both countries aspire to in the civil space area," AP quoted National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe as saying. "We and other countries have expressed our concern to the Chinese," he said. Ok. I don't know if i should laugh or cry in shame. We're going to go and give a lecture about civility and cooperation while in the same breath discuss the satellites we have in orbit to spy on other countries? I'm sure this was reported with absolutely no hint of irony. WTF is wrong with you people? It gets better. Read on. AP said President Bush signed an order last October asserting the United States' right to deny adversaries access to space for hostile purposes. As part of the first revision of U.S. space policy in nearly 10 years, the policy also said the U.S. would oppose the development of treaties or other restrictions that seek to prohibit or limit U.S. access to or use of space. There's nothing more effective for making friends and gaining respect than saying "You're my bitch". Gotta love the "do as i say, not as i do" policy this administration adheres to. AP said that what drove China to act now remains a mystery. AP should get its head out of its butt. Mebbe what drove China to "act now" is the sad fact that the United States is being run by a bunch of lunatics and fascists whose diplomatic approach entails such well thought out strategies as "Glass 'em" and "You're either with us or against us" so they figured they ought to be prepared. Or mebbe they were tired of being spied on. By min | January 19, 2007, 8:35 AM | Liberal Outrage & Science | Link Link: Could you imagine the reaction from Ledeen's pals at Pajamas Media if Markos Moulitsas (or God forbid, John Kerry) had said exactly the same thing in the exactly the same context? It would have been a pure shitstorm of indignation. Roger Simon would have written a cute little post about liberal reactionaries that incorporated a Buddy Holly song, Charles Johnson would have cited it as inconvertible proof of the worldwide conspiracy between Islam and The Left to enslave us all using the Vulcan Mindmeld, Glenn Reynolds would have sputtered something about Markos (and/or Kerry) hating America and the troops, while Michelle Malkin synthesized it all into a really stupid post of fifteen or so very small words. By fnord12 | January 18, 2007, 4:24 PM | Liberal Outrage | Link Alright! We have the 53rd most free press in the world! Take that, islamofascists! Democracies and open societies will always prevail! Why? Freelance journalist and blogger Josh Wolf was imprisoned when he refused to hand over his video archives. Sudanese cameraman Sami al-Haj, who works for the pan-Arab broadcaster Al-Jazeera, has been held without trial since June 2002 at the US military base at Guantanamo, and Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein has been held by US authorities in Iraq since April this year. By fnord12 | January 17, 2007, 9:53 AM | Liberal Outrage | Comments (2)| Link In an article i was reading yesterday, it was mentioned in passing that we've spent more money on the Iraq invasion so far than has ever been spent on researching a cure for cancer. And amazingly, we have less to show for it. At least our cancer research hasn't made cancer worse (unless you count mammograms). *I was going to do a title that did something with cancer cells vs. terrorist cells but i couldn't think of anything good and the Iraq invasion had nothing to do with terrorism anyway. By fnord12 | January 17, 2007, 9:46 AM | Liberal Outrage | Link link: By fnord12 | January 16, 2007, 12:38 PM | Liberal Outrage | Comments (1)| Link Link: The US government has been involved in drawing up the law, a draft of which has been seen by The Independent on Sunday. It would give big oil companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon 30-year contracts to extract Iraqi crude and allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil interests in the country since the industry was nationalised in 1972. The huge potential prizes for Western firms will give ammunition to critics who say the Iraq war was fought for oil. They point to statements such as one from Vice-President Dick Cheney, who said in 1999, while he was still chief executive of the oil services company Halliburton, that the world would need an additional 50 million barrels of oil a day by 2010. "So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies," he said. Here's a good line (You have to appreciate British snark): Oil industry executives and analysts say the law, which would permit Western companies to pocket up to three-quarters of profits in the early years, is the only way to get Iraq's oil industry back on its feet after years of sanctions, war and loss of expertise. Yep, oil industry executives say this is the only way to help the Iraqis. They're doing this for the Iraqi people's own good. Opponents say Iraq, where oil accounts for 95 per cent of the economy, is being forced to surrender an unacceptable degree of sovereignty. I think they've been waiting for things to "settle down" over there but that's not happening and they see that their time is running out so they're just gonna open things up now. Of course, since things aren't "settled down", these oil companies will need protection in order to extract the oil. They have two choices: 1) Hire private armies, bringing us even closer to a dystopian future where corporations are more powerful than governments or 2) Let the US army protect them, which puts our troops in the line of fire so that oil executives can have their profits (oh wait, that's been going on for years). By fnord12 | January 11, 2007, 1:18 PM | Liberal Outrage | Comments (1)| Link Oh god yes let the Republicans filibuster a minimum wage increase. By fnord12 | January 11, 2007, 1:07 PM | Liberal Outrage | Comments (1)| Link Or mebbe it's the French. Or the Russians. Or the Chinese. Actually, it's prolly not the Canadians. Yeah. Prolly not them. Link c/o nsxt290. The government said the mysterious coins were found planted on U.S. contractors with classified security clearances on at least three separate occasions between October 2005 and January 2006 as the contractors traveled through Canada. ntelligence and technology experts said such transmitters, if they exist, could be used to surreptitiously track the movements of people carrying the spy coins. The U.S. report doesn't suggest who might be tracking American defense contractors or why. It also doesn't describe how the Pentagon discovered the ruse, how the transmitters might function or even which Canadian currency contained them. What an odd thing to say. Experts said hiding tracking technology inside coins is fraught with risks because the spy's target might inadvertently give away the coin or spend it buying coffee or a newspaper. But then again, a coin would be something that wouldn't seem suspicious in the least to find in your stuff. By min | January 11, 2007, 9:47 AM | Liberal Outrage & Science | Comments (1)| Link "George W. Bush spoke with all the confidence of a perp in a police lineup. I first interviewed the guy in 1987 and began covering his political rise in 1993, and I have never seen him, in public or private, look less convincing, less sure of himself, less cocky. With his knitted brow and stricken features, he looked, well, scared. Not surprising since what he was doing in the White House library was announcing the escalation of an unpopular war." - Howard Fineman, MSNBC Personally, i can't stand looking at the guy, let alone listening to him make a speech for over an hour (i'm assuming it was over an hour. i know it takes him at least that long to say "uh.....fluff buh?"), so i appreciate it when others take one for the team and not only sacrifice their time to sit there while Bush talks, but actually pay attention to the words coming out of his mouth. Thank you. By min | January 11, 2007, 9:21 AM | Liberal Outrage | Link AP: _35 percent predict the military draft will be reinstated. _35 percent predict a cure for cancer will be found. _25 percent anticipate the second coming of Jesus Christ. _19 percent think scientists are likely to find evidence of extraterrestrial life. By fnord12 | January 5, 2007, 3:14 PM | Liberal Outrage | Link What the hell is the deal with these "signing statements" anyway? Why the hell is he allowed to get away with that crap? The law generally prohibits opening first class mail without a warrant unless "there is credible evidence that a package contains a bomb or other dangerous material." I guess Bush and Co. are taking "dangerous material" to mean "foreign intelligence". Or anti-Bush propaganda. Or pro-choice propaganda. Or propaganda on keeping schools and government secular. At least Mussolini made sure the trains were on time. By min | January 5, 2007, 1:42 PM | Liberal Outrage | Comments (1)| Link « Liberal Outrage: December 2006 | Main | Liberal Outrage: February 2007 » |