Home
|
« Liberal Outrage: September 2009 | Main | Liberal Outrage: November 2009 » Liberal OutrageLet that be a lesson to you Blair's bid to becoming the president of the EU apparently isn't going well. And from the centre-right: Next time, don't support a stupid war. By fnord12 | October 30, 2009, 2:56 PM | Liberal Outrage | Link By fnord12 | October 30, 2009, 12:33 PM | Liberal Outrage | Link Link: Another asked Clinton how she would define terrorism. "Is it the killing of people in drone attacks?" she asked. That woman then asked if Clinton considers drone attacks and bombings like the one that killed more than 100 civilians in the city of Peshawar earlier this week to both be acts of terrorism. "No, I do not," Clinton replied. Earlier, in a give-and-take with about a dozen residents of the tribal region, one man alluded obliquely to the drone attacks, saying he had heard that in the United States, aircraft are not allowed to take off after 11 p.m., to avoid irritating the population. "That is the sort of peace we want for our people," he said through an interpreter. The same man told Clinton that the Obama administration should rely more on wisdom and less on firepower to achieve its aims in Pakistan. "Your presence in the region is not good for peace," he said, referring to the U.S. military, "because it gives rise to frustration and irritation among the people of this region." At another point he told Clinton, "Please forgive me, but I would like to say we've been fighting your war." A similar point was made by Sana Bucha of Geo TV during the live broadcast interview. "It is not our war," she told Clinton. "It is your war." She drew a burst of applause when she added, "You had one 9/11. We are having daily 9/11s in Pakistan." I don't think there's any doubt that we're doing more harm than good in this region. By fnord12 | October 30, 2009, 11:20 AM | Liberal Outrage | Link But when reporters asked Lieberman if he'd be willing to lose his powerful committee chairmanship as a consequence, he said: "Oh, God no." What's our answer? Hell yeah! We'll deliver this petition to Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN), among others. When Democrats let Lieberman keep his chairmanship after he endorsed John McCain for president, Bayh said: "If he does retain his chairmanship, we still exert oversight over him... He doesn't have the ability to just do whatever he wants. The caucus still has the right to remove him from that position at any time..." Now's the time for Democratic senators like Bayh to let Lieberman know they'll make good on that promise. Lieberman needs to be held accountable. While we all know that online surveys are not an effective way of remedying important issues, netroots activism has been very successful so far in moving the Senate to the point where a (limited) public option has been included in their version of the bill, so it's worth the clicks, in my opinion. By fnord12 | October 30, 2009, 9:24 AM | Liberal Outrage | Comments (1)| Link Schwarzenegger's response seems unbelievable, but if this story is true, both sides are being pretty immature. By fnord12 | October 28, 2009, 3:22 PM | Liberal Outrage | Link Foreign Service Officer Matthew Hoh: "I'm not some peacenik, pot-smoking hippie who wants everyone to be in love," Hoh said. Although he said his time in Zabul was the "second-best job I've ever had," his dominant experience is from the Marines, where many of his closest friends still serve. By fnord12 | October 27, 2009, 10:29 AM | Liberal Outrage | Link Link: At least in my example, Tony is my friend. Even if we were accepting the nutty argument that Iraq is somehow indebted to the US for invading it, why should the actions of US soldiers automatically benefit oil companies? By fnord12 | October 22, 2009, 10:48 AM | Liberal Outrage | Link
By fnord12 | October 21, 2009, 7:18 PM | Liberal Outrage | Link Link: House Democrats are looking at re-branding the public health insurance option as Medicare, an established government healthcare program that is better known than the public option. The strategy could benefit Democrats struggling to bridge the gap between liberals in their party, who want the public option, and centrists, who are worried it would drive private insurers out of business. While much of the public is foggy on what a public option actually is, people understand Medicare. It also would place the new public option within the rubric of a familiar system rather than something new and unknown. Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.) spoke out last week in favor of re-branding the public option as Medicare, startling many because he has loudly proclaimed his opposition to a public option. Some Democrats say there's no need to rename a legislative concept that's gained steadily in support since being lambasted as a "government takeover" in August. A Washington Post-ABC poll published Tuesday showed 57 percent of the public supports the idea -- up five points since August -- while 40 percent opposes it. In a closed-door caucus meeting last week, Ross, one of the most conservative Democrats in the House, offered support for expanding Medicare, saying it would prevent the need to create a new bureaucracy. He said he wasn't advocating a plan, however, and added that the new coverage would have to have much higher reimbursements for physicians and hospitals. He also said it would need to compete with private insurers. Ross' change in position indicates to me that earlier he just didn't know what the hell he was talking about, but he's welcome to join us. Overall the House has been doing an excellent job of pushing for a Public Option (it's the nitwits in the Senate we have to worry about), but the branding "Medicare for Everyone" is long overdue. By fnord12 | October 21, 2009, 2:29 PM | Liberal Outrage | Link Expect to see a lot of this, from Lieberman, Snowe, Conrad, etc.: But, he added, "I haven't decided yet." Who doesn't love a little attention? By fnord12 | October 16, 2009, 4:40 PM | Liberal Outrage | Link A Louisia Justice of the Peace is making the news for refusing to marry interracial couples. Bardwell said from his experience, "99 percent of the time" the interracial couple consists of a black man and white woman. Like Digby said, "Right. Their poor kids could grow up to be president someday." Sure, it's just a nutty old guy. I mean, the ACLU is doing the right thing trying to get him removed. But you could say it's not an official policy and it's just some loon acting on his own. Except for this: He said the state attorney general told him years ago that he would eventually get into trouble for not performing interracial marriages. Ummm, why didn't the attorney general actually do anything about it? By fnord12 | October 16, 2009, 3:54 PM | Liberal Outrage | Link The video game: Mission: To defeat all enemies of the United States, both foreign and domestic. Includes: * C.O.R.N.Y. (Congress of Rejected and Neglected Youth) Shock Troops To Win: If you control 10 counties by end of turn 40, you get 1 'win' in challenge section. Game Time: 1 turn per minute with each turn representing days of battle. It takes 2 turns to take over a district, county, or city with the Blitzkrieg attack. All troops in a Blitzkrieg cannot be used until Blitzkrieg is settled. Misc. Details: Be sure to train your troops at start-up by clicking 'resources' then paying for the type of militia troops you want. You will need to do this every turn ( every minute). You start with 3000 points and get 300 more militia recruits eager for battle per turn per county controlled. You will also get more militia troops joining after each battle you are in, as the people are eager to defeat all tyrants. You will also get 300 points per turn per county controlled. Note: Your mission is to control as many counties in Virginia as possible. Enemy forces are in most counties so do not hesitate to attack any player not under your control as anarchy reigns in Virginia until Obama and his loyalists are defeated and game ends after 40 minutes (40 turns) There's plenty more insanity if you follow this link. I really do recommend it. Er, i mean i recommend clicking the link. Not playing the game. The game sounds like an awful convoluted mess. By fnord12 | October 16, 2009, 3:42 PM | Liberal Outrage & Video Games | Link NYT: What he must not do is follow the same weak and worn-out pattern of "opposition" we've become all-too-accustomed to, first with Vietnam and then with Iraq. You know the drill: after the dust settles, and the country begins to look back and not-so-charitably wonder, "what were they thinking?" the mea-culpa-laden books start to come out. On page after regret-filled page, we suddenly hear how forceful this or that official was behind closed doors, arguing against the war, taking a principled stand, expressing "strong concern" and, yes, "deep reservations" to the president, and then going home each night distraught at the unnecessary loss of life. Well, how about making the mea culpa unnecessary? Instead of saving it for the book, how about future author Biden unfetter his conscience in real time -- when it can actually do some good? If Biden truly believes that what we're doing in Afghanistan is not in the best interests of our national security -- and what issue is more important than that? -- it's simply not enough to claim retroactive righteousness in his memoirs. Though it would be a crowning moment in a distinguished career, such an act of courage would likely be only the beginning. Biden would then become the natural leader of the movement to wind down this disastrous war and focus on the real dangers in Pakistan. Doubt he'll resign, but i think Biden's evolution has been interesting and encouraging. I was originally disappointed when he was announced as the VP candidate because he had been a hawk. By fnord12 | October 14, 2009, 4:42 PM | Liberal Outrage | Link Link: ...the slip accompanying the book's return listed among the categories of books banned from the Guantanamo Bay prison library anything promoting "Anti-American, Anti-Semitic, Anti-Western" ideology, literature on "military topics," and works that portray "excessive graphic violence" and "sexual dysfunctions. Chomsky isn't shocked: "This happens sometimes in totalitarian regimes," Chomsky told Miami Herald reporter Carol Rosenberg in an email after he learned his book had been banned. By fnord12 | October 12, 2009, 4:17 PM | Liberal Outrage | Link
Everything's 50/50! By fnord12 | October 9, 2009, 9:03 AM | Liberal Outrage | Comments (2)| Link Give him the Nobel Peace Prize with Sprinkles on Top? Nominate him Space Pope? By fnord12 | October 9, 2009, 8:56 AM | Liberal Outrage | Link I didn't think there'd be a Public Option compromise that I'd like, but Senator Carper from Delaware found one: a national Public Option that individual state legislatures can vote to opt out of. We know that most states won't opt out, and the ones that do for the most part will be those states that are relatively sparsely populated anyway (exception: Texas), so it won't affect the Option's bargaining power. And it gives conservative Dems cover to vote for it. So all of the sane people get their public option, and the crazies can shoot themselves in the foot if they want to. The downside is expressed in this question to Ezra Klein: I asked because you posted about your support for the new idea that each state can opt-out of letting its residents get a government-run insurance. As somebody who could well still be a slave if "state's rights" were giv[en] too much weight, I hesitate. But you do get that a lot of uninsured people live in red states? They're low-income, they're rural, they're non-White, they're everything national Liberals claim to be wanting to help. Yet I was a bit shocked at how much you seemed to like this idea. I didn't like when Sarah Palin divided up the U.S.A. into good and bad parts, and I don't like it when anybody else does either. The response to that is basically that this is the start of an incremental approach and once the Public Option is proven successful in the states that don't opt-out, there will be a lot of pressure on the hold-out state legislatures to opt back in. If we're facing a choice between no Public Option or one that states can opt out of, I think the choice is clear. But i do understand the feeling of getting left behind and abandoning those who need help the most. And does this establish a weird precedent that leads to states soon being able to opt out of other Federal laws? Should we continue to fight for a Public Option that's guaranteed at the Federal level to be available to all, or should we accept this compromise? By fnord12 | October 8, 2009, 4:33 PM | Liberal Outrage | Link This is interesting (and a little scary), and shows Obama taking a strong and controversial stand, which i am impressed by. By fnord12 | October 2, 2009, 12:09 PM | Liberal Outrage | Link « Liberal Outrage: September 2009 | Main | Liberal Outrage: November 2009 » |