Home
|
« Liberal Outrage: May 2012 | Main | Liberal Outrage: July 2012 » Liberal OutrageThe good is the enemy of the great Yglesias, speculating why Justice Roberts might have ruled in favor of the ACA: The ACA will do a lot in the medium term to improve people's lives, and i wouldn't wish for anything that would get rid of that but, um... damn. Update: John Cole urges me to buck up, soldier (sorry for the language; someone is clearly upset): For once in your god damned lives, put aside your fucking stupid beliefs about purity and how the public option was the bestest thing since sliced bread, accept the massive, game-changing victory you got today, and use it as a god damned bludgeon against the troglodytes whose health care plans are modeled after Ebeneezer Scrooge. For once, focus your bloodlust on Republicans instead of the DLC/Firebaggers/ANYONE WITHOUT AN (R) AFTER THEIR NAME. I'm begging you. For once in your lives turn a win into a win, just like the Republicans were able to do when I was a wingnut (and half the time they were able to turn a loss into a win). Don't argue amongst yourselves about what would have been better- smash the Republicans around the head and neck with the cudgel you have been given. We're not debating which Democratic plan would have been better, we're debating the reality of what we have now versus the 18th century version of what Republicans would replace it with. Again, as a former wingnut and lifelong Republican until 2006 or 2007, I am fucking begging- treat a win like a win and use it to your advantage. The most depressing thing about becoming a Democrat after being a Republican for so many years is just watching Democrats shit the bed whenever they win. Press the fucking advantage. By fnord12 | June 29, 2012, 3:47 PM | Liberal Outrage | Link Two news organizations go to the same "ordinary businessman" for a take on the ACA. Well, as it turns out, Joe Olivo of Perfect Printing turns up quite a bit in public discussions of this and other issues. Here he is testifying against the health care law before House and Senate committees in January 2011. Here he is on the Fox Business Network around the same time, discussing the same subject. Here he is a few days ago, also on Fox Business, talking to John Stossel about the law. Here he is discussing the same subject on a New Jersey Fox affiliate. And here he is in July 2010 discussing small business hiring with Neil Cavuto on Fox News. Here he is opposing an increase in the minimum wage in an MSNBC debate a couple of weeks ago. Go to many of these links and you find out something about Joe Olivo that NPR and NBC didn't tell you: he's a member of the National Federation of Independent Business. NFIB's site and YouTube page promote many of Olivo's public appearances. He was the subject of an NFIB "My Voice in Washington" online video in 2011. NFIB, you will not be surprised to learn, is linked to the ALEC and Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS, and to the usual rogues' gallery of right-wing zillionaires. Are the news organizations punked or complicit? By fnord12 | June 29, 2012, 3:32 PM | Liberal Outrage | Link Now that we're past the constitutional question on the ACA, we've moved on to "Can it survive a Romney presidency?". Most people think the answer is "Yes because Democrats would filibuster the repeal attempt." but Matthew Yglesias reminds us (as if we needed it) that the filibuster rules the Democrats were operating under were entirely self-imposed: The GOP is more ideologically unified and more focused on advancing a broad conception of the national interest rather than parochial concerns of individual legislators. Here's how they handled the reconciliation process last time Democrats attempted to filibuster a major legislative priority: That is how you get things done in Washington when you want to get things done. By fnord12 | June 29, 2012, 8:28 AM | Liberal Outrage | Link Via Kevin Drum: "I've got an election coming up, like all my colleagues," Dingell said, during his questioning of Dish Network Chairman Charlie Ergen. "We all put political ads on the local stations to reach our constituents. The Hopper potentially limits the ability of every member of this subcommittee to reach constituents to help them make up their minds on Election Day. "Do you understand and appreciate the concerns that the politicians up here on the dais and other politicians everywhere will feel about that, yes or no?" Dingell asked. By fnord12 | June 28, 2012, 4:15 PM | Liberal Outrage & TeeVee | Link Am i missing something here? The way i'm reading this article, this guy Anton Vickerman was convicted for sharing links. The conviction increases pressure to halt plans to extradite Sheffield student Richard O'Dwyer to the US on copyright charges relating to a far smaller website. At its peak, O'Dwyer's site reached about 300,000 users a month and was estimated by prosecutors to have taken approximately £147,000 in revenue over around three years. "And then [there's] the sheer shocking arbitrary nature of it all ... to be told that you could face up to 10 years for sharing links? When I heard that Nora Ephron died, I shared on Twitter a link to the full version of When Harry Met Sally on YouTube. Am I a criminal now? Why? Why not? So, if i'm better at finding stuff on the internet than you are, and i set up a website where i link to those things, and you use my website to find those things, and i get revenue from people visiting my site...that's a conspiracy to defraud? Please explain. "This was not a case brought using copyright law. The interest groups involved couldn't present a case of copyright infringement and instead decided to press for the use of the common law offence of 'conspiracy to defraud'," said UK Pirate party leader Loz Kaye. "This is one of the most controversial crimes in English law - it criminalises conduct by two or more people that would not be criminal when performed by an individual. Hrm... By min | June 28, 2012, 3:18 PM | Liberal Outrage | Link From his website: As John Cole says: But having said that, I have no problem with, and in fact think it is perfectly reasonable to require these labels. Let consumers make informed decisions- isn't that how the alleged "free market" is supposed to work? By fnord12 | June 22, 2012, 2:55 PM | Liberal Outrage | Link For the contribution our government has made in inspiring your secrecy bill. Take that, whistleblowers (I'm looking at you, Bradley Manning)! Opponents of the bill fear that, with South Africa often regarded as a beacon of democracy and freedom on the continent, it could be used as an excuse by repressive African regimes for renewed crackdowns on journalists and activists. It makes you feel good to know that we're setting an example for the world. I know, i know. We can't take all of the credit. We're not the only country in the west. But still. We contributed, and we should get credit for it. Ofc, we should also see what they've got in their secrecy bill and compare it to our secrecy policies. They might have some good ideas in there that we didn't think of. Today, South Africa boasts arguably the freest press in Africa, with no shortage of revelations about shady deals or satirical cartoons lampooning politicians' foibles. Freedom of expression, including freedom of the press and other media, has been protected under the constitution. But opponents of the bill believe the gains of the past 18 years are under threat and warn that the rest of the continent is watching. In neighbouring Zimbabwe, journalists continue to be harassed and arrested, while state broadcasters remain firmly under President Robert Mugabe's control. Meh. The South African government should learn another thing from the western world - propaganda through the media (see post below). By min | June 8, 2012, 2:01 PM | Liberal Outrage | Link In today's Guardian, Glenn Greenwald writes: But at the very same time that they invoke broad secrecy claims to shield their conduct from outside scrutiny, it is Obama officials themselves who have continuously and quite selectively leaked information about these same programs to the US media. Indeed, the high publicity-value New York Times scoops of the past two weeks about covert national security programs have come substantially from Obama aides themselves. But that process is a recipe for government deceit and propaganda. This was precisely the dynamic that, in the run-up to the attack on Iraq, co-opted America's largest media outlets as mindless purveyors of false government claims. The defining journalistic sin of Judith Miller, the New York Times' disgraced WMD reporter, was that she masqueraded the unverified assertions of anonymous Bush officials as reported fact. In the article, Greenwald gives two examples of the difference in how two NYT journalists are treated when one writes glorifying articles on successful government missions and the other points out the mistakes. I don't think they need to amend that ban on domestic dissemination of propaganda. They've already figured out how to spread government misinformation. By min | June 8, 2012, 12:28 PM | Liberal Outrage | Link Quoting most of a Yglesias post: In other words, whatever it is that people who aren't named "Ben Bernanke" think is standing in the way of the Fed reducing the unemployment rate, Ben Bernanke thinks that nothing is standing in his way other than his own relative lack of concern with the fate of jobless people. His view is that he could do more, and that if the situation gets worse he may do more, but that he doesn't regard a years-long period of mass unemployment as that big a problem. He's more concerned with preserving the Fed's credibility at capping consumer price increases at a two percent annual level. That's his personal judgment. Better for millions to stay unemployed than for them to start commuting to work and moving out of their parents' basement, pushing up oil prices and rents. It's a perverse judgment in my view, but nobody on the Hill wanted to directly challenge it. This is entirely fair criticism and i agree with it, but it's worth remembering that the reason we're looking to the Fed right now is because our political system is completely gridlocked and the Fed (because it isn't accountable directly to voters or politicians) is the only one with any power that can act. But most economists agree that fiscal stimulus (e.g., government spending) is more effective than monetary stimulus (e.g., manipulating interest rates). And interest rates are already effectively at 0, so anything the Fed does will be somewhat unconventional and unproven. This isn't to say there aren't a lot of good ideas about what the Fed can do (and indeed, as Yglesias points out, Bernanke himself thinks he could do a lot, if he only wanted to). But we should also keep in mind that we're only looking here because of the failure of our political system. By fnord12 | June 8, 2012, 10:04 AM | Liberal Outrage | Link Holy Crap! The first 50 seconds aren't all that exciting, but the last 30... The brawl, a first in the nearly 40 years since democracy was returned to its birthplace, broke out during a morning talkshow when Ilias Kasidiaris, the spokesman of the far-right Chrysi Avgi (Golden Dawn) took umbrage at deputy Rena Dourou declaring that his party "will take the country back 500 years". The Golden Dawn party has refused to condemn the actions of their spokesman, so that's how you know they're totally not for "the violence". The guy's also going on trial on June 11th for aiding and abetting an armed robbery. The Dems drop you like a hot potato if you get caught sending pictures of your crotch to women. This guy is going on trial for a crime that ended up with someone getting stabbed, and they made him their spokesman! Woof. By min | June 7, 2012, 8:39 AM | Liberal Outrage | Comments (2)| Link Frum (who is probably ok with the Wisconsin results) and Krugman both end on a somewhat positive note for Dems. But it's ugly, and i don't see the Dems getting better organized in time for the election later this year. By fnord12 | June 6, 2012, 5:11 PM | Liberal Outrage | Link By fnord12 | June 4, 2012, 10:46 AM | Liberal Outrage | Link I'm pretty sure that's an act of war. The Pentagon seems to think so, based on this article from a year ago: I ask because just a few days ago, Obama promised us no more wars than were "absolutely necessary". By fnord12 | June 1, 2012, 12:58 PM | Liberal Outrage | Link « Liberal Outrage: May 2012 | Main | Liberal Outrage: July 2012 » |