Home
|
« Liberal Outrage: July 2009 | Main | Liberal Outrage: September 2009 » Liberal OutrageSorry, but... This guy is absolutely right. By fnord12 | August 28, 2009, 3:07 PM | Liberal Outrage | Link Link: The decision not to pursue indictments was made by top Justice Department officials, according to a person familiar with the investigation, who asked not to be identified because federal officials had not disclosed results of the probe. "It's over. There's nothing. It was killed in Washington," the person told The Associated Press. I don't have any idea if Richardson did anything wrong. Politically speaking, he's generally a 'good guy', so i ought to be happy that he's not being charged with anything. But it seems suspicious that the investigation was dropped after Democrats took back the White House. By fnord12 | August 27, 2009, 10:14 AM | Liberal Outrage | Link Update: Neither I nor my online editor realized that this article was published in 1970! We regret nothing and pass the blame onto others! Shameful original post remains below: My online editor wanted you to see this: Pointing out the obvious, wouldn't Protestant parents unduly influence a child to not worship a Roman Catholic God, etc., etc.? I guess as long as we've got them worshiping something, it's ok. It seems to me that the child of an atheist (and a pantheist, for that matter) is more likely to have the freedom to worship as she sees fit than the child of parents of a particular religion, since she's not forced down any particular path before she's old enough to decide. That Judge ought to be impeached, not because he's got a bias against atheists, but because his reasoning skills are badly flawed. By fnord12 | August 25, 2009, 9:35 AM | Liberal Outrage | Link Attorney General Eric Holder has appointed a prosecutor to investigate the torture that went on during the Bush Administration. But the prosecutor's mandate will be "relatively narrow" and seems to be focusing only on individuals who may have gone beyond the 'guidelines' given by top White House officials (i.e. John Yoo, Jay Bybee, and Dick Cheney). If true, and if it's not just the first step in a larger effort, doesn't really get to the heart of the problem, which isn't about bad apples down the food chain but about elected officials breaking the law and violating the Geneva Convention. If the people who issued the commands aren't prosecuted, there's no deterrent for a future Administration to not to it again. Someone in the comments at the TPM article wrote: By fnord12 | August 24, 2009, 3:37 PM | Liberal Outrage | Link Ezra Klein says everything that needs to be said about Lieberman's excuse that we should hold off on health care reform because we are in a recession. By fnord12 | August 24, 2009, 10:48 AM | Liberal Outrage | Link Link: It's worth noting that he didn't actually resign or make this known to the public. And now thinks he can write about it with impunity to sell his memoirs. Also, as Atrios writes: Nowadays, of course, Obama is creating Death Panels. By fnord12 | August 20, 2009, 12:19 PM | Liberal Outrage | Comments (1)| Link Another problem reaching 60 votes is that we have two very old and sick Senators, both of whom would normally be a reliable vote for health care reform. Neither have been making it to the Senate for votes lately, and both really ought to resign. From a tactical point of view, it's more straightforward for Senator Byrd from West Virginia. They've got a Democratic governor, and their law for replacing Senators is a simple appointment. For Kennedy, it's more complicated. Massachusetts also has a Democratic governor, but when Kerry was running for president and Mitt Romney was governor, the Democratic state legislature changed the law from an appointment to an election held 5 months from the resignation to prevent Romney from appointing a Republican if Kerry won. That would leave a vacancy in the Senate during this critical time. Kennedy is now asking the state legislature to change the law back. It's a pretty clear abuse of power, in my opinion. By fnord12 | August 20, 2009, 9:37 AM | Liberal Outrage | Link After finally realizing that the Republicans aren't negotiating in good faith and being surprised that people would be upset if they tried to remove the Public Option, the Democrats are now considering splitting health care reform into two bills, one which they pass normally, and one with more 'controversial' features that they pass via reconciliation. (For those who aren't up on this procedural stuff, passing something via reconciliation means that you can bypass debate and get right to voting on the bill. So you don't need 60 votes to end the debate/filibuster. It's supposed to be used only for budget related votes, and anything passed via reconciliation expires when that budget plan expires, typically in 10 years. That's why Bush's taxes cuts will expire; you've probably heard talk of 'making the Bush tax cuts permanent'. Of course 'budget related' is relatively ambiguous. Clinton's odious Welfare Reform passed via reconciliation. Since health care costs are such a strain on our federal budget, it's reasonable to pass laws that seek to reduce that strain.) I don't have any opinion on the tactics of splitting the bills this way. I think it's a joke to think that Republicans will respond positively to this tactic and vote for the less 'controversial' bill. I suspect they'll vote against anything the Democrats put out there, especially when they see that this is a trick to get the full reform passed. But i'm open to anything that gets us health care reform, and i have no insight into whether or not this is the best way. But it clarifies a key point for me. The WSJ article on the bill split assumes one of two options: either you only have 51 votes, or you have 60 votes. In fact there should be a 3rd option: you don't have 60 votes for final passage but you have enough votes to break a filibuster. In other words, there will be some senators, especially these conservative Democrats like Nelson and Baucus, who won't vote for the bill... but do they really intend to filibuster their own party? Apparently yes. So why are they Democrats? These Senators are given key committee chairs. We only need 50 Senators to keep Reid as majority leader. Not 60. And if these guys weren't Democrats, we'd have better Dems as committee chairs and we'd be getting better bills out of committee. If they won't vote to break a filibuster, there's no value to keeping them as Dems. Immediate Update: One problem i see with this tactic is you pass the subsidies for people who can't afford insurance under reconciliation, and you pass the mandates that everyone has to buy insurance the regular way. In 10 years, the subsidies expire, and the Senate is now held by Republicans. They may restore the subsidies at a reduced rate or let them die altogether. And now you've created an impossible burden on those who can't afford insurance. On a related tangent, I have a major problem with mandates without a public plan in any event, with or without subsidies. Without a public plan, you are simply creating a huge giveaway to insurance companies. You are saying everyone has to buy their product, and the government just pays the insurance companies for the people who can't afford their rates. This does absolutely nothing to reduce costs, and simply provides insurance companies with a captive consumer base (which is actually an incentive to raise prices, since demand is artificially raised). By fnord12 | August 20, 2009, 9:00 AM | Liberal Outrage | Link Greg Saunders at This Modern World: Seriously. I'm not kidding. The debate over healthcare has become so poisoned with lies and bitterness, we need something to really shake it up. Something that really grabs attention and is a game changer media-wise. If I were in charge of media strategy for the White House, I'd get Joe Biden on a high profile interview show and when the subject turns to the townhall protests/death panels/etc., I'd have him say that it's "bullshit". Do it on a Monday and the VP's potty-mouth will be the trivial topic du jour for the entire week. Republicans will spin up the faux outrage machine, reporters will pepper Robert Gibbs about whether or not Obama would repudiate Biden, and news outlets across the country would report the story and its various twists because, like it or not, it would be one of those silly little news stories they can't help but obsess over. Sure, there's downsides. Biden looks like a jackass (again), it would distract from the White House's wonkish healthcare messaging (that people aren't really following anyways), but there are two huge upsides. One, it energizes the base. When Dick Cheney told Patrick Leahy to fuck himself, liberals nearly passed out from all the faux outrage, but at the end of the day Cheney refused to apologize and conservatives respected him all the more for it. With liberal enthusiasm pretty much at a nadir, we could use a galvanizing middle-finger like gesture to feel more empowered (because our majorities in both houses of Congress don't seem willing to stand up for anything). Secondly, if Joe Biden calls protester bullshit for what it is, every mention of the story just repeats the association. Death panels, bullshit, pulling the plug on grandma, bullshit, euthanasia, bullshit, socialism, bullshit, Hitler, bullshit. It's a seed that needs to be planted in the minds of every uninformed person who's seeing footage of these rabid townhall protests and thinking "If they're THIS mad, there must be something wrong." Ummm...no, it's just a bunch of bullshit. By fnord12 | August 17, 2009, 4:58 PM | Liberal Outrage | Link Link: CHUCK GRASSLEY (Aug 13): If I had not been at the table, there would have been a bill through the committee the week of June 22, and it would have been through the Senate by now because there's sixty Democrats. By fnord12 | August 14, 2009, 4:09 PM | Liberal Outrage | Link A second element of the entrepreneurship myth is that the US is a land of economic mobility, that if you work hard and apply yourself, you can improve your economic standing considerable. Again, the US scores poorly in by international standards in economic mobility. The have-nots tend to remain have-nots. In addition. the high level of US carbon production is due to a surprisingly significant degree to our lifestyle, working long hours to consume, rather than "consuming" more vacation as Europeans do. The vacation part was interesting. Here's more from the Guardian article: On the other hand, most Americans pay a high price for the institutional arrangements that bring us these mythical successes. We have the dubious honour of being the only "no-vacation nation", ie no legally required paid time off and of course some weeks fewer actual days off per year than our European counterparts enjoy. We have a broken healthcare system that costs about twice as much per capita as that of our peer nations and delivers worse outcomes, as measured by life expectancy and infant mortality. We are near the top in terms of inequality among high-income countries and at the bottom for parental leave policies and paid sick days. The list is a long one... More from a different Naked Capitalism post: It was conventional wisdom in the US and UK financial press that Europe was dong a hopelessly bad job of responding to the economic downturn, that it needed to do vastly more in the way of fiscal stimulus, that it was consigning its citizens to continued recession, and the Te Germans in particular were to blame for their conservatism re emergency fiscal measures. German readers begged to differ, pointing out the Germany (and the rest of Europe) has large automatic stabilizers (very generous unemployment insurance, for instance), making discretionary fiscal spending less necessary. By fnord12 | August 14, 2009, 3:19 PM | Liberal Outrage | Link Guess i won't be shopping there anymore. By fnord12 | August 13, 2009, 3:02 PM | Liberal Outrage | Link I'm seeing that a lot of Democrats are publicly stating that the reactions they're running into in their town hall meetings are not influencing their decisions about supporting health care reform. I'm a bit torn about that, actually. On the one hand, these protesters are extremely misinformed and irrational, and according to polls they don't seem to represent even close to a majority opinion. And it's nice to see Democrats actually standing up for (supposedly) their principles. But on the other hand, i know what it's like to hear your protests dismissed as fringe views and that despite a huge showing at demonstrations across the country, politicians are going to continue with their proposed policies. It feels very anti-democratic. Also, strategically, you have to wonder what the purpose of these town halls are. It's clearly not to gauge the opinions of their constituents. And it doesn't seem to be a great forum for educating or gaining support. It seems largely a way to generate news coverage for the protesters. Even if the Dems weren't prepared for that initially, by now they should know better. This is a tactical failure; the Democrats were outmaneuvered by the Republicans. They let the debate on the bill extend into recess, and didn't anticipate the attack that was waiting for them at their town halls. It's time to cut that loss and find a new way to go on the messaging offensive. By fnord12 | August 13, 2009, 10:46 AM | Liberal Outrage | Link Ladies and gentlemen, the Wall Street Journal: But the comparison sells President Bush short in a way that is independent of the merits of the policies. Whereas Obama seems to think the country owes it to him to accept ObamaCare because he was kind enough to agree to be our president, Bush actually made an effort to persuade the public--including the opposite party--that his plan for Iraq was a good idea. The effort was very successful: Congress authorized the use of military force with strong bipartisan majorities, and by early 2003, public approval of the plan was in the 70% range. Republican politicians did not label opponents of the war effort "un-American," as Steny Pelosi and Nancy Hoyer have done to ObamaCare foes. Bush's White House, unlike Obama's, did not urge supporters to report "fishy" pro-Saddam arguments. Bush did not tell his critics to shut up and "get out of the way," as Obama did last week. The Bush administration simply made a compelling argument and won. The Obama administration, on the verge of losing after making a poor argument, now is lashing out at its critics--which seems a strategy to maximize the damage of this effort. By fnord12 | August 12, 2009, 9:49 AM | Liberal Outrage | Comments (2)| Link Link: "People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless," the editorial claims. Of course, that same Stephen Hawking who wouldn't have a chance in the United Kingdom was in fact born in the United Kingdom, has lived his entire life in the United Kingdom and lives there still today, at the ripe old age of 67. (He was in fact hospitalized earlier this month.) Hawking is, you might say, living, breathing proof that these people are first-class fools. By fnord12 | August 10, 2009, 1:16 PM | Liberal Outrage | Link Link: Gonzales: All the inspector-general investigations, they're now over with. They found that I had not engaged in any criminal wrongdoing. Q: Isn't there still an ongoing investigation by a special prosecutor who was appointed last year to look into the removal of the attorneys? Gonzales: I wish I could comment on that, but because it's an ongoing investigation, I cannot. By fnord12 | August 10, 2009, 11:56 AM | Liberal Outrage | Link Presidents do not have a line item veto. It's something they've been asking for at least since the first George Bush, but Congress have never enacted it. As well they shouldn't. Giving a president line item veto essentially destroys the negotiation process in Congress. You want to provide a tax break to a certain industry? Fine, i'll vote for that, but only if you'll put in a restriction on their carbon emissions. Then we send the bill to the president, and he crosses out my restriction before signing it? Forget it, i'm never negotiating on a bill again. But the use of signing statements attempts to do the same thing. The president signs the bill, but says "Now, this portion of the bill right here, we're not going to comply with that." It's usually only done with laws that attempt to restrict Executive Branch power in some way. But it's still unacceptable. You can't sign a bill but say that certain portions of it don't apply. President Obama campaigned against Bush's use of signing statements. But now he's doing it. That's nonsense. Imagine reading over your lease agreement, seeing some provision you didn't like, and instead of going back to the landlord and negotiating, you just crossed out that line. If your landlord ever caught you doing whatever the lease was restricting, you'd be laughed out of small claims court if you told them you crossed that out before signing the lease. By fnord12 | August 10, 2009, 8:55 AM | Liberal Outrage | Link Am i beating this to death? I really thought this was a fluke, ironic and funny but nothing more, when i saw the first example of it. Not anymore. By fnord12 | August 6, 2009, 3:27 PM | Liberal Outrage | Link Arthur Laffer on CNN: We've moved beyond 'confused old people at rallies' and we're now looking at right wing economists on television. Are people really this confused or is this a coordinated effort to mislead? Update: This is interesting. Don't know how accurate it is. But if it's true, i bet it's still effective with certain segments of the population, despite being "obsolete". But that's changed over the years as a visit to both places will attest. Laffer is dating himself, using an obsolete slur. By fnord12 | August 4, 2009, 2:34 PM | Liberal Outrage | Comments (4)| Link « Liberal Outrage: July 2009 | Main | Liberal Outrage: September 2009 » |