I miss Keith O...
Countdown dissects the debt deal
Here's the link:
http://current.com/shows/countdown/videos/special-comment-the-four-great-hypocrisies-of-the-debt-deal
Showing posts with label Democrat. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democrat. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
State of the Economy: Where's the Wealth?
When commenting on the state of the economy, someone close to me had this to say: People stay poor because they don't save their money or use it wisely. And penalizing the people who are responsible for their money, making them carry the burden [for the poor] is classism, bordering on socialism.
I was stunned. It was the second time in recent weeks I became painfully aware of the importance of history. Specifically this nugget of truth: when African Americans don't know their history, they leave themselves open to repeat it. That means their foundation in the present is shaky at best.
Most European Americans know a thing or two about English history. Before the film's opening credits they probably knew the Other Boylen Girl by name or could tell you that, while Elizabeth would soon be Queen, her beloved Dudley would never be King of England. After school many Jewish American children attend cultural studies to learn about their rich history.
But outside of Black History Month, Harriett Tubman and WEB Dubois, how many African Americans know the history behind why a disproportionate percentage of people of color remain in poverty?
For me, that statement about the poor may as well have indicted my father and his legacy. It was a slap in the face to everything he worked for all his life.
My dad was one of the wisest people I know. He was a military veteran, serving in World War II and the Korean war. He worked hard and saved virtually every nickel and dime he earned. He took pride in his home he invested in it for his family. He saved all his life and when I was old enough, he walked me and my piggy bank filled with weekly allowance straight to the nearest bank to open up a savings account.
But he couldn't save his way out of poverty. And no matter how comfortable our lives were, and how middle class we strived to be, the fact is that house he worked hard to make a home is smack in the middle of what is now a crime infested ghetto. The wealth he saved for all of his life barely makes a decent down payment in today's economy.
Poverty has little to do with who saves what. It has everything to do with who is denied opportunity and who isn't.
My dad didn't deserve to be refused housing in certain neighborhoods or to have the value of his home artificially kept low. He didn't deserve to be redlined out of his wealth.
But how to you explain this to someone who hasn't lived it firsthand? I was grateful to stumble across Tuesday's segment of the Rachel Maddow show, hosted by Melisssa Harris-Perry, which outlines why the new conservative talking point, that people are poor because they are careless with their money is not only not true, but also ignores the underlying issue of racism that is at the core of economic disparity in this country.
Use the link below if the video box doesn't appear.
The Rachel Maddow Show: US wealth gap reflects racism's legacy
Dr. Thomas Shapiro, the Pokross Professor of Law and Social Policy at Brandeis University, talks with TRMS guest host Melissa Harris-Perry about a new report showing a wider than ever wealth gap between whites and people of color.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/43904424#43904424
I was stunned. It was the second time in recent weeks I became painfully aware of the importance of history. Specifically this nugget of truth: when African Americans don't know their history, they leave themselves open to repeat it. That means their foundation in the present is shaky at best.
Most European Americans know a thing or two about English history. Before the film's opening credits they probably knew the Other Boylen Girl by name or could tell you that, while Elizabeth would soon be Queen, her beloved Dudley would never be King of England. After school many Jewish American children attend cultural studies to learn about their rich history.
But outside of Black History Month, Harriett Tubman and WEB Dubois, how many African Americans know the history behind why a disproportionate percentage of people of color remain in poverty?
For me, that statement about the poor may as well have indicted my father and his legacy. It was a slap in the face to everything he worked for all his life.
My dad was one of the wisest people I know. He was a military veteran, serving in World War II and the Korean war. He worked hard and saved virtually every nickel and dime he earned. He took pride in his home he invested in it for his family. He saved all his life and when I was old enough, he walked me and my piggy bank filled with weekly allowance straight to the nearest bank to open up a savings account.
But he couldn't save his way out of poverty. And no matter how comfortable our lives were, and how middle class we strived to be, the fact is that house he worked hard to make a home is smack in the middle of what is now a crime infested ghetto. The wealth he saved for all of his life barely makes a decent down payment in today's economy.
Poverty has little to do with who saves what. It has everything to do with who is denied opportunity and who isn't.
My dad didn't deserve to be refused housing in certain neighborhoods or to have the value of his home artificially kept low. He didn't deserve to be redlined out of his wealth.
But how to you explain this to someone who hasn't lived it firsthand? I was grateful to stumble across Tuesday's segment of the Rachel Maddow show, hosted by Melisssa Harris-Perry, which outlines why the new conservative talking point, that people are poor because they are careless with their money is not only not true, but also ignores the underlying issue of racism that is at the core of economic disparity in this country.
Use the link below if the video box doesn't appear.
The Rachel Maddow Show: US wealth gap reflects racism's legacy
Dr. Thomas Shapiro, the Pokross Professor of Law and Social Policy at Brandeis University, talks with TRMS guest host Melissa Harris-Perry about a new report showing a wider than ever wealth gap between whites and people of color.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/43904424#43904424
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Christian Science Monitor: The big lie is crumbling
Now that Rupert Murdoch's media empire is crumbling at the seams, it's a good time to dissect his propaganda machine. Fox News, specifically, is a dangerous outgrowth of rampant Republican fear mongering at the expense of people of color. While phone hacking is beyond outrageous, what's truly cause for concern are the abuses of power by New Corps, his media conglomerate, and the misinformation it thrusts onto the political debate.
President Obama was right in describing Fox as "destructive to [America's] long-term growth."
Of course spreading misleading and blatantly wrong information is nothing new. It was a pinnacle of the Hearst empire in the 50s and 60s. However, Hearst never had such global reach, nor the ability influence global markets with a bed of lies.
The Christian Science Monitor recently looked at President Obama's accomplishments contradicting some of the misinformation:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Walter-Rodgers/2011/0527/The-big-lie-that-Obama-can-t-lead-is-crumbling
President Obama was right in describing Fox as "destructive to [America's] long-term growth."
Of course spreading misleading and blatantly wrong information is nothing new. It was a pinnacle of the Hearst empire in the 50s and 60s. However, Hearst never had such global reach, nor the ability influence global markets with a bed of lies.
The Christian Science Monitor recently looked at President Obama's accomplishments contradicting some of the misinformation:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Walter-Rodgers/2011/0527/The-big-lie-that-Obama-can-t-lead-is-crumbling
Thursday, July 14, 2011
The Blame Game
Today I got a robo-call from Dick Morris, the conservative pollster and hooker patron, trying to "take America back" -- I guess from President Obama -- by buying his book in order to "make America great again." Forget the fact that the majority of Americans voted for Obama and still support him. The call went on to call the President an "idealog who rammed the deficit up to 14 trillion dollars by expanding government to likes never seen in American history. Really?
Unfortunately it's all a lie. I've been a conservative for years, but if the conservative ideals are worth fighting for, why do Republicans feel the need to lie to get others to support them?
The truth is adeptly told in this Washington Post article written by Lori Montgomery, Published: April 30. She writes:
"The nation’s unnerving descent into debt began a decade ago with a choice, not a crisis.
In January 2001, with the budget balanced and clear sailing ahead, the Congressional Budget Office forecast ever-larger annual surpluses indefinitely. The outlook was so rosy, the CBO said, that Washington would have enough money by the end of the decade to pay off everything it owed."
She goes on to do the simple math that sums up our deficit woes:
"Big-ticket spending initiated by the Bush administration accounts for 12 percent of the shift. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars have added $1.3 trillion in new borrowing. A new prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients contributed another $272 billion. The Troubled Assets Relief Program bank bailout, which infuriated voters and led to the defeat of several legislators in 2010, added just $16 billion — and TARP may eventually cost nothing as financial institutions repay the Treasury."
And Obama?
"Obama’s 2009 economic stimulus, a favorite target of Republicans who blame Democrats for the mounting debt, has added — 6 percent of the total shift."
SIX PERCENT.
You can read it for yourself here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/running-in-the-red-how-the-us-on-the-road-to-surplus-detoured-to-massive-debt/2011/04/28/AFFU7rNF_story.html?fb_ref=NetworkNews
In the meantime, I have a great idea: Let's stop blaming President Obama for the enormous hole dug into the economy by the Bush tax cuts. In reality, if you cut billions of dollars worth of income out of the economy, you get exactly what we have today, a massive deficit.
Unfortunately it's all a lie. I've been a conservative for years, but if the conservative ideals are worth fighting for, why do Republicans feel the need to lie to get others to support them?
The truth is adeptly told in this Washington Post article written by Lori Montgomery, Published: April 30. She writes:
"The nation’s unnerving descent into debt began a decade ago with a choice, not a crisis.
In January 2001, with the budget balanced and clear sailing ahead, the Congressional Budget Office forecast ever-larger annual surpluses indefinitely. The outlook was so rosy, the CBO said, that Washington would have enough money by the end of the decade to pay off everything it owed."
She goes on to do the simple math that sums up our deficit woes:
"Big-ticket spending initiated by the Bush administration accounts for 12 percent of the shift. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars have added $1.3 trillion in new borrowing. A new prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients contributed another $272 billion. The Troubled Assets Relief Program bank bailout, which infuriated voters and led to the defeat of several legislators in 2010, added just $16 billion — and TARP may eventually cost nothing as financial institutions repay the Treasury."
And Obama?
"Obama’s 2009 economic stimulus, a favorite target of Republicans who blame Democrats for the mounting debt, has added — 6 percent of the total shift."
SIX PERCENT.
You can read it for yourself here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/running-in-the-red-how-the-us-on-the-road-to-surplus-detoured-to-massive-debt/2011/04/28/AFFU7rNF_story.html?fb_ref=NetworkNews
In the meantime, I have a great idea: Let's stop blaming President Obama for the enormous hole dug into the economy by the Bush tax cuts. In reality, if you cut billions of dollars worth of income out of the economy, you get exactly what we have today, a massive deficit.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Top Ten Codewords from the Right-winged Playbook
It's important to understand the codewords the far-right uses in advertising, speeches and debates. The following top ten list serves as a reference guide for decyphering the real meaning behind Republican talking points.
1. Government Take-over. Any proposal that was thoroughly debated in the 2008 Presidential primary, and subsequently voted on and approved by the American electorate that manage to pass a Republican roadblock in Congress and be signed into law by the President of the United States… i.e. a law following the mandated will of the American electorate.
2. American. Anyone who supports far-right, conservative ideology. syn True American or True Patriot.
3. Patriot - A person who watches Fox News. 2. Anyone who stood with the Confederacy over the Union Army during the civil war. 3. Anyone not a person of color.
4. Nazi A derogatory term that should never be used to describe someone with whom you disagree -- unless they happen to be liberal or moderate. 2. Anyone who is not a Republican.
5. Partisan Politics. Any reasonable attempt to discuss issues and determine the best plan of action, especially if suggested by a Democrat.
6. Common Sense Solutions . 1. Any proposal put forth by a Republican that has already failed when tried previously. Also known as Reaganomics (80s), or supply-side economics. 2.Tax breaks for the richest 2 percent of the population.
7. Unconstitutional. 1. Any Constitutional amendment except the second amendment. 2. Having to do with any of the Constitutional amendments and provisions as outlined in the Bill of Rights beyond the second amendment. Most often seen in issues involving the fourth, fifth and sixth amendements, which insure the right of due process for those facing legal action, protect Americans from illegal search and seizure and forbid cruel and unusual punishment. For example: forbiding protestors from bearing arms during a presidential rally merits outrage for being unconstitutional. No similar protests are warranted when people are wiretapped, detained without charges and tortured in secret detention camps .
8. Entitlement program. 1. Any program that benefits average American citizens over big corporations. 2. The percent of the Federal Budget remaining after military spending. Also known as Medicare, Social Security or Unemployment Insurance.
9. Activist judge. Any judge who supports the 14th amendment or Roe versus Wade.
10. Wasteful Spending (sometimes called Government Waste.) The 12 percent or less of the national budget remaining after earmarks to the military…also known as entitlements. 2. The Federal Budget dollars remaining after Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy are subtracted.
1. Government Take-over. Any proposal that was thoroughly debated in the 2008 Presidential primary, and subsequently voted on and approved by the American electorate that manage to pass a Republican roadblock in Congress and be signed into law by the President of the United States… i.e. a law following the mandated will of the American electorate.
2. American. Anyone who supports far-right, conservative ideology. syn True American or True Patriot.
3. Patriot - A person who watches Fox News. 2. Anyone who stood with the Confederacy over the Union Army during the civil war. 3. Anyone not a person of color.
4. Nazi A derogatory term that should never be used to describe someone with whom you disagree -- unless they happen to be liberal or moderate. 2. Anyone who is not a Republican.
5. Partisan Politics. Any reasonable attempt to discuss issues and determine the best plan of action, especially if suggested by a Democrat.
6. Common Sense Solutions . 1. Any proposal put forth by a Republican that has already failed when tried previously. Also known as Reaganomics (80s), or supply-side economics. 2.Tax breaks for the richest 2 percent of the population.
7. Unconstitutional. 1. Any Constitutional amendment except the second amendment. 2. Having to do with any of the Constitutional amendments and provisions as outlined in the Bill of Rights beyond the second amendment. Most often seen in issues involving the fourth, fifth and sixth amendements, which insure the right of due process for those facing legal action, protect Americans from illegal search and seizure and forbid cruel and unusual punishment. For example: forbiding protestors from bearing arms during a presidential rally merits outrage for being unconstitutional. No similar protests are warranted when people are wiretapped, detained without charges and tortured in secret detention camps .
8. Entitlement program. 1. Any program that benefits average American citizens over big corporations. 2. The percent of the Federal Budget remaining after military spending. Also known as Medicare, Social Security or Unemployment Insurance.
9. Activist judge. Any judge who supports the 14th amendment or Roe versus Wade.
10. Wasteful Spending (sometimes called Government Waste.) The 12 percent or less of the national budget remaining after earmarks to the military…also known as entitlements. 2. The Federal Budget dollars remaining after Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy are subtracted.
Top Ten Codewords from the Right-wing Playbook
2. American. Anyone who supports far-right, conservative ideology. syn True American or True Patriot.
3. Patriot - A person who watches Fox News. 2. Anyone who stood with the Confederacy over the Union Army during the civil war. 3. Anyone not a person of color.
4. Nazi A derogatory term that should never be used to describe someone with whom you disagree -- unless they happen to be liberal or moderate. 2. Anyone who is not a Republican.
5. Partisan Politics. Any reasonable attempt to discuss issues and determine the best plan of action, especially if suggested by a Democrat.
6. Common Sense Solutions . 1. Any proposal put forth by a Republican that has already failed when tried previously. Also known as Reaganomics (80s), or supply-side economics. 2.Tax breaks for the richest 2 percent of the population.
7. Unconstitutional. 1. Any Constitutional amendment except the second amendment. 2. Having to do with any of the Constitutional amendments and provisions as outlined in the Bill of Rights beyond the second amendment. Most often seen in issues involving the fourth, fifth and sixth amendements, which insure the right of due process for those facing legal action, protect Americans from illegal search and seizure and forbid cruel and unusual punishment. For example: forbiding protestors from bearing arms during a presidential rally merits outrage for being unconstitutional. No similar protests are warranted when people are wiretapped, detained without charges and tortured in secret detention camps .
8. Entitlement program. 1. Any program that benefits average American citizens over big corporations. 2. The percent of the Federal Budget remaining after military spending. Also known as Medicare, Social Security or Unemployment Insurance.
9. Activist judge. Any judge who supports the 14th amendment or Roe versus Wade.
10. Wasteful Spending (sometimes called Government Waste.) The 12 percent or less of the national budget remaining after earmarks to the military…also known as entitlements. 2. The Federal Budget dollars remaining after Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy are subtracted.
3. Patriot - A person who watches Fox News. 2. Anyone who stood with the Confederacy over the Union Army during the civil war. 3. Anyone not a person of color.
4. Nazi A derogatory term that should never be used to describe someone with whom you disagree -- unless they happen to be liberal or moderate. 2. Anyone who is not a Republican.
5. Partisan Politics. Any reasonable attempt to discuss issues and determine the best plan of action, especially if suggested by a Democrat.
6. Common Sense Solutions . 1. Any proposal put forth by a Republican that has already failed when tried previously. Also known as Reaganomics (80s), or supply-side economics. 2.Tax breaks for the richest 2 percent of the population.
7. Unconstitutional. 1. Any Constitutional amendment except the second amendment. 2. Having to do with any of the Constitutional amendments and provisions as outlined in the Bill of Rights beyond the second amendment. Most often seen in issues involving the fourth, fifth and sixth amendements, which insure the right of due process for those facing legal action, protect Americans from illegal search and seizure and forbid cruel and unusual punishment. For example: forbiding protestors from bearing arms during a presidential rally merits outrage for being unconstitutional. No similar protests are warranted when people are wiretapped, detained without charges and tortured in secret detention camps .
8. Entitlement program. 1. Any program that benefits average American citizens over big corporations. 2. The percent of the Federal Budget remaining after military spending. Also known as Medicare, Social Security or Unemployment Insurance.
9. Activist judge. Any judge who supports the 14th amendment or Roe versus Wade.
10. Wasteful Spending (sometimes called Government Waste.) The 12 percent or less of the national budget remaining after earmarks to the military…also known as entitlements. 2. The Federal Budget dollars remaining after Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy are subtracted.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Top Ten Code Words from the Right-winged Playbook
3. Patriot - A person who watches Fox News. 2. Anyone who stood with the Confederacy over the Union Army during the civil war. 3. Anyone not a person of color.
4. Nazi A derogatory term that should never be used to describe someone with whom you disagree -- unless they happen to be liberal or moderate. 2. Anyone who is not a Republican.
5. Partisan Politics. Any reasonable attempt to discuss issues and determine the best plan of action, especially if suggested by a Democrat.
6. Common Sense Solutions . 1. Any proposal put forth by a Republican that has already failed when tried previously. Also known as Reaganomics (80s), or supply-side economics. 2.Tax breaks for the richest 2 percent of the population.
7. Unconstitutional. 1. Any Constitutional amendment except the second amendment. 2. Having to do with any of the Constitutional amendments and provisions as outlined in the Bill of Rights beyond the second amendment. Most often seen in issues involving the fourth, fifth and sixth amendements, which insure the right of due process for those facing legal action, protect Americans from illegal search and seizure and forbid cruel and unusual punishment. For example: forbiding protestors from bearing arms during a presidential rally merits outrage for being unconstitutional. No similar protests are warranted when people are wiretapped, detained without charges and tortured in secret detention camps .
8. Entitlement program. 1. Any program that benefits average American citizens over big corporations. 2. The percent of the Federal Budget remaining after military spending. Also known as Medicare, Social Security or Unemployment Insurance.
9. Activist judge. Any judge who supports the 14th amendment or Roe versus Wade.
10. Wasteful Spending (sometimes called Government Waste.) The 12 percent or less of the national budget remaining after earmarks to the military…also known as entitlements. 2. The Federal Budget dollars remaining after Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy are subtracted.
4. Nazi A derogatory term that should never be used to describe someone with whom you disagree -- unless they happen to be liberal or moderate. 2. Anyone who is not a Republican.
5. Partisan Politics. Any reasonable attempt to discuss issues and determine the best plan of action, especially if suggested by a Democrat.
6. Common Sense Solutions . 1. Any proposal put forth by a Republican that has already failed when tried previously. Also known as Reaganomics (80s), or supply-side economics. 2.Tax breaks for the richest 2 percent of the population.
7. Unconstitutional. 1. Any Constitutional amendment except the second amendment. 2. Having to do with any of the Constitutional amendments and provisions as outlined in the Bill of Rights beyond the second amendment. Most often seen in issues involving the fourth, fifth and sixth amendements, which insure the right of due process for those facing legal action, protect Americans from illegal search and seizure and forbid cruel and unusual punishment. For example: forbiding protestors from bearing arms during a presidential rally merits outrage for being unconstitutional. No similar protests are warranted when people are wiretapped, detained without charges and tortured in secret detention camps .
8. Entitlement program. 1. Any program that benefits average American citizens over big corporations. 2. The percent of the Federal Budget remaining after military spending. Also known as Medicare, Social Security or Unemployment Insurance.
9. Activist judge. Any judge who supports the 14th amendment or Roe versus Wade.
10. Wasteful Spending (sometimes called Government Waste.) The 12 percent or less of the national budget remaining after earmarks to the military…also known as entitlements. 2. The Federal Budget dollars remaining after Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy are subtracted.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Top Ten Codewords from the Republican Playbook
4. Nazi A derogatory term that should never be used to describe someone with whom you disagree -- unless they happen to be liberal or moderate. 2. Anyone who is not a Republican.
5. Partisan Politics. Any reasonable attempt to discuss issues and determine the best plan of action, especially if suggested by a Democrat.
6. Common Sense Solutions . 1. Any proposal put forth by a Republican that has already failed when tried previously. Also known as Reaganomics (80s), or supply-side economics. 2.Tax breaks for the richest 2 percent of the population.
7. Unconstitutional. 1. Any Constitutional amendment except the second amendment. 2. Having to do with any of the Constitutional amendments and provisions as outlined in the Bill of Rights beyond the second amendment. Most often seen in issues involving the fourth, fifth and sixth amendements, which insure the right of due process for those facing legal action, protect Americans from illegal search and seizure and forbid cruel and unusual punishment. For example: forbiding protestors from bearing arms during a presidential rally merits outrage for being unconstitutional. No similar protests are warranted when people are wiretapped, detained without charges and tortured in secret detention camps .
8. Entitlement program. 1. Any program that benefits average American citizens over big corporations. 2. The percent of the Federal Budget remaining after military spending. Also known as Medicare, Social Security or Unemployment Insurance.
9. Activist judge. Any judge who supports the 14th amendment or Roe versus Wade.
10. Wasteful Spending (sometimes called Government Waste.) The 12 percent or less of the national budget remaining after earmarks to the military…also known as entitlements. 2. The Federal Budget dollars remaining after Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy are subtracted.
5. Partisan Politics. Any reasonable attempt to discuss issues and determine the best plan of action, especially if suggested by a Democrat.
6. Common Sense Solutions . 1. Any proposal put forth by a Republican that has already failed when tried previously. Also known as Reaganomics (80s), or supply-side economics. 2.Tax breaks for the richest 2 percent of the population.
7. Unconstitutional. 1. Any Constitutional amendment except the second amendment. 2. Having to do with any of the Constitutional amendments and provisions as outlined in the Bill of Rights beyond the second amendment. Most often seen in issues involving the fourth, fifth and sixth amendements, which insure the right of due process for those facing legal action, protect Americans from illegal search and seizure and forbid cruel and unusual punishment. For example: forbiding protestors from bearing arms during a presidential rally merits outrage for being unconstitutional. No similar protests are warranted when people are wiretapped, detained without charges and tortured in secret detention camps .
8. Entitlement program. 1. Any program that benefits average American citizens over big corporations. 2. The percent of the Federal Budget remaining after military spending. Also known as Medicare, Social Security or Unemployment Insurance.
9. Activist judge. Any judge who supports the 14th amendment or Roe versus Wade.
10. Wasteful Spending (sometimes called Government Waste.) The 12 percent or less of the national budget remaining after earmarks to the military…also known as entitlements. 2. The Federal Budget dollars remaining after Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy are subtracted.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Top Ten Codewords from the RNC Playbook
Coming into the mid-term election, it's important to understand the codewords the far-right tends to use in advertising, speeches and local debates. The following top ten list serves as a reference guide for decyphering the real meaning behind the talking points.
8. Entitlement program. 1. Any program that benefits average American citizens over big corporations. 2. The percent of the Federal Budget remaining after military spending. Also known as Medicare, Social Security or Unemployment Insurance.
9. Activist judge. Any judge who supports the 14th amendment or Roe versus Wade.
10. Wasteful Spending (sometimes called Government Waste.) The 12 percent or less of the national budget remaining after earmarks to the military…also known as entitlements. 2. The Federal Budget dollars remaining after Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy are subtracted.
8. Entitlement program. 1. Any program that benefits average American citizens over big corporations. 2. The percent of the Federal Budget remaining after military spending. Also known as Medicare, Social Security or Unemployment Insurance.
9. Activist judge. Any judge who supports the 14th amendment or Roe versus Wade.
10. Wasteful Spending (sometimes called Government Waste.) The 12 percent or less of the national budget remaining after earmarks to the military…also known as entitlements. 2. The Federal Budget dollars remaining after Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy are subtracted.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Top Ten Codewords from the RNC Playbook
Coming into the mid-term election, it's important to understand the codewords the far-right tends to use in advertising, speeches and local debates. The following top ten list serves as a reference guide for decyphering the real meaning behind the talking points.
9. Activist judge. Any judge who supports the 14th amendment or Roe versus Wade.
10. Wasteful Spending (sometimes called Government Waste.) The 12 percent or less of the national budget remaining after earmarks to the military…also known as entitlements. 2. The Federal Budget dollars remaining after Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy are subtracted.
9. Activist judge. Any judge who supports the 14th amendment or Roe versus Wade.
10. Wasteful Spending (sometimes called Government Waste.) The 12 percent or less of the national budget remaining after earmarks to the military…also known as entitlements. 2. The Federal Budget dollars remaining after Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy are subtracted.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Top Ten Codewords from the RNC Playbook
Coming into the mid-term election, it's important to understand the codewords the far-right tends to use in advertising, speeches and local debates. The following top ten list serves as a reference guide for decyphering the real meaning behind the talking points.
10. Wasteful Spending (sometimes called Government Waste) The 12 percent or less of the national budget remaining after earmarks to the military…also known as entitlements. 2. The Federal Budget dollars remaining after Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy are subtracted.
10. Wasteful Spending (sometimes called Government Waste) The 12 percent or less of the national budget remaining after earmarks to the military…also known as entitlements. 2. The Federal Budget dollars remaining after Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy are subtracted.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Questions for so-called Fiscal Conservatives
Dear Tea Party:
An extension of all the George W. Bush-era tax cuts would increase the federal debt by $4 trillion over the next decade. How can you claim you want to cut the deficit and still support extending the Bush tax cuts?
An extension of all the George W. Bush-era tax cuts would increase the federal debt by $4 trillion over the next decade. How can you claim you want to cut the deficit and still support extending the Bush tax cuts?
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Jeff Neuman-Lee: Fighting for Peace in the Current American Civil War
A friend passed on this article to me and I'm reposting it largely because I think it summarizes my feelings on the right-wing hate-filled misinformation campaign currently sweeping the country. Here's why:
When I hear the radical right use deliberately provocative language, i.e. "death panels" and "Armageddon," to describe a perfectly reasonable point of view, or label someone who happens to disagree as "confused" or "un-American" or "un-Patriotic," or refer to our duly elected government and its officials as "Hitler" or "Nazi" or "the Regime" --- it makes me cringe. Now, with zealous abandon, any disagreement with GOP can and will be met by a personal attack.
If childhood bullying is on the up-swing, we need only look as far as the antics of the Republican party as the reason.
And it didn't start with George W Bush and his infamous "you're either with us or against us" ideology. For the last 20 years or so, the GOP has resorted to fear-mongering and hate speech to attack people it disliked.
It started with the push to impeach Bill Clinton, who incidentally, I didn't vote for and whose policies I disagreed with for most of his time in office.
When Hillary spoke of a "vast, right-wing conspiracy," many laughed. But I knew exactly what she was referring to. The Right attacked the Clintons with such a ferocity, it prompted some in the Black community to refer to Bill as the first "Black President" more due the manner in which Clinton was treated than for any affinity with him as a sympathizer of issues of relevance to African Americans.
Polls show most of the American people were against trying to impeach a sitting President for what amounted to personal issues of morality. While most didn't like what Clinton did, they felt that was best dealt with between the Clintons. Most felt a marital affair did not rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors" against the country. Yet the Right insisted the country push on with a public spectacle of an impeachment hearing.
Soon anyone that challenged the Republican misinformation machine wound up targeted in some way, largely by hateful name-calling or some lie created about them - think John Kerry and the Swift boat incident.
Now we're in the middle of a war - a bitter war between the right and the left -- in a battle built largely by right-winged media strategists and their unethical use of misinformation and highly emotional words chosen more for their impact than their honest portrayal of the subject at hand. Now instead of legislators, the radical right has become a hate-mongering lie-machine, a tool of Republican pollster Frank Luntz, and his highly researched wordsmithing designed to incite more anger than it describes any real issue.
As a media person, I see clearly how we got here. What is less clear is how we can ever hope to get out, without some legal regulation of not only the broadcast industry but also the public relations profession. Both the article and its link are posted below:
Jeff Neuman-Lee: Fighting for Peace in the Current American Civil War
Fromt he Huffington Post : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-neumanlee/fighting-for-peace-in-the_b_549605.html?ref=fb&src=sp#sb=647059,b=facebook
Fighting for Peace in the Current American Civil War
I get mad, just like anyone else, when I see lies, distortions, and simple obstruction. The other night I watched Rachel Maddow report on the real, uncensored video from the ACORN case in California. Looks like the folks who lost their jobs because of this were actually doing their jobs; the videos were presented by FOX News in such a way as to bear false witness against them, charging them with encouraging child prostitution. FOX, as a shill for the my-money-is-more- important-than-humans-crowd, holds prime responsibility for this "bearing false witness" (Exodus 20:17 and Deuteronomy 5:20).
It's not the only incidence, of course. When the self-proclaimed clown Glenn Beck calls my kind of faith a communistic, Nazi faith because I see the Biblical undergirding of what is loosely known as "social justice"; when I hear the formerly esteemed Charles Grassley of Iowa blatantly lie about "death panels" and killing Grandma; when I see the unprepared, off-the-cuff, divisive Sarah Palin given any sort of regular public pulpit; when I hear obvious lies about the efficacy of government as though it is not part of the "real" economy and automatically corrupts anyone ever engaging with it; when I hear Beck's ahistorical diatribes that miseducate uneducated and ahistorical people; when the outrage of calling creationism in any form "scientific"...
Well I could go on. I've let myself be mad.
And it has a corrosive effect on us all. It's divisive in the worst way: the intent is not to find truth together, but to subjugate some to other's will. Controversy and conflict are normal and good, but the folks who have been creating this division offer no way out of this other than the rest of us to resign in conformity to their ideas. It's pretty clear that they want to win and dominate me, and that makes me want to win! But I don't want to be like that; getting others to be in lockstep with my ideas is not my sort of victory.
However, I would be glad if both of us could use the same sort of open, empirical, and dialogical process I admire. But the real battleground may be over the process. It adds up to the effect that they don't want to (or perhaps don't understand how to) have a conversation, a real conversation, because even if I listen and change my mind about some position or another that they like, I still win by having the conversation with them.
A second, obvious corrosive effect of all this division is that it confuses and exhausts a lot of people. So many people who would be part of a real conversation allow themselves to get discouraged and drop out. Which is great for the my-money-is-more-important-than-humans-crowd because the main constraint on them is people who recognize that money has limited importance and who simply are themselves and engage the world. If we get discouraged, we acquiesce to the money power. They are glad when we drop out.
It feels like war. The problems seem so intractable. It seems so very us-against-them. And the stakes are so high. There are real winners and losers. People die in this undeclared war; from soldiers and the tens of thousands of innocents in the war of choice in Iraq to the poor who lived below the levies or had no building codes when the earthquake hit or had no insurance when it was time to take the tests. Tell the victims that this is not war. Tell those who jobs evaporate in the wake of class war-fare waged from the top this is not a war.
But there I go again, I got mad. I have a problem with just getting mad. It solves nothing and we have really enormous problems to be solved. The pressures of population on resources and pollution by themselves threaten to break any hope of a world where all men and women are equal in respect and opportunity. These pressures could even break down civilization and lead to a massive die-off.
So how do we be at peace with our enemies? Jesus calls us to love our enemies. It's been done so little by the people who call themselves Jesus' church, but we are not without models or people who today take this admonition seriously. Still, it has been taken as utopian or impossible or truly impractical.
However, consider these political and cultural leaders whose successes are legendary and whose sentiments clearly reflect Jesus' call to love the enemy:
"Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?" Lincoln.
"Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into friend." King.
"It is easy enough to be friendly to one's friends. But to befriend the one who regards himself as your enemy is the quintessence of true religion. The other is mere business." Gandhi.
An interesting selection of men. All three faced horrifying injustice inflicted on their
neighbors, if not themselves. One, Lincoln, uses violence and gets caught up in an unforeseen maelstrom; the other two intentionally provoke violence. Their attempts to make friends of enemies kills them all. Yet, all three wind up furthering the progressive liberation of humanity.
How do we make peace in times like this? This is the question I raise to anyone who might push the Huffington Post religion button. I hope we ask the basic questions. I hope that we refrain from jumping to conclusions before we ask and listen. No matter our background, we each will move back and forth from our different metaphors to the actual physical ground. I doubt we all will agree. I can't even imagine that we would even fully understand each other. But I think that we all can be encouraged to the very necessary work of making peace in this time of the continuing American Civil War
When I hear the radical right use deliberately provocative language, i.e. "death panels" and "Armageddon," to describe a perfectly reasonable point of view, or label someone who happens to disagree as "confused" or "un-American" or "un-Patriotic," or refer to our duly elected government and its officials as "Hitler" or "Nazi" or "the Regime" --- it makes me cringe. Now, with zealous abandon, any disagreement with GOP can and will be met by a personal attack.
If childhood bullying is on the up-swing, we need only look as far as the antics of the Republican party as the reason.
And it didn't start with George W Bush and his infamous "you're either with us or against us" ideology. For the last 20 years or so, the GOP has resorted to fear-mongering and hate speech to attack people it disliked.
It started with the push to impeach Bill Clinton, who incidentally, I didn't vote for and whose policies I disagreed with for most of his time in office.
When Hillary spoke of a "vast, right-wing conspiracy," many laughed. But I knew exactly what she was referring to. The Right attacked the Clintons with such a ferocity, it prompted some in the Black community to refer to Bill as the first "Black President" more due the manner in which Clinton was treated than for any affinity with him as a sympathizer of issues of relevance to African Americans.
Polls show most of the American people were against trying to impeach a sitting President for what amounted to personal issues of morality. While most didn't like what Clinton did, they felt that was best dealt with between the Clintons. Most felt a marital affair did not rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors" against the country. Yet the Right insisted the country push on with a public spectacle of an impeachment hearing.
Soon anyone that challenged the Republican misinformation machine wound up targeted in some way, largely by hateful name-calling or some lie created about them - think John Kerry and the Swift boat incident.
Now we're in the middle of a war - a bitter war between the right and the left -- in a battle built largely by right-winged media strategists and their unethical use of misinformation and highly emotional words chosen more for their impact than their honest portrayal of the subject at hand. Now instead of legislators, the radical right has become a hate-mongering lie-machine, a tool of Republican pollster Frank Luntz, and his highly researched wordsmithing designed to incite more anger than it describes any real issue.
As a media person, I see clearly how we got here. What is less clear is how we can ever hope to get out, without some legal regulation of not only the broadcast industry but also the public relations profession. Both the article and its link are posted below:
Jeff Neuman-Lee: Fighting for Peace in the Current American Civil War
Fromt he Huffington Post : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-neumanlee/fighting-for-peace-in-the_b_549605.html?ref=fb&src=sp#sb=647059,b=facebook
Fighting for Peace in the Current American Civil War
I get mad, just like anyone else, when I see lies, distortions, and simple obstruction. The other night I watched Rachel Maddow report on the real, uncensored video from the ACORN case in California. Looks like the folks who lost their jobs because of this were actually doing their jobs; the videos were presented by FOX News in such a way as to bear false witness against them, charging them with encouraging child prostitution. FOX, as a shill for the my-money-is-more- important-than-humans-crowd, holds prime responsibility for this "bearing false witness" (Exodus 20:17 and Deuteronomy 5:20).
It's not the only incidence, of course. When the self-proclaimed clown Glenn Beck calls my kind of faith a communistic, Nazi faith because I see the Biblical undergirding of what is loosely known as "social justice"; when I hear the formerly esteemed Charles Grassley of Iowa blatantly lie about "death panels" and killing Grandma; when I see the unprepared, off-the-cuff, divisive Sarah Palin given any sort of regular public pulpit; when I hear obvious lies about the efficacy of government as though it is not part of the "real" economy and automatically corrupts anyone ever engaging with it; when I hear Beck's ahistorical diatribes that miseducate uneducated and ahistorical people; when the outrage of calling creationism in any form "scientific"...
Well I could go on. I've let myself be mad.
And it has a corrosive effect on us all. It's divisive in the worst way: the intent is not to find truth together, but to subjugate some to other's will. Controversy and conflict are normal and good, but the folks who have been creating this division offer no way out of this other than the rest of us to resign in conformity to their ideas. It's pretty clear that they want to win and dominate me, and that makes me want to win! But I don't want to be like that; getting others to be in lockstep with my ideas is not my sort of victory.
However, I would be glad if both of us could use the same sort of open, empirical, and dialogical process I admire. But the real battleground may be over the process. It adds up to the effect that they don't want to (or perhaps don't understand how to) have a conversation, a real conversation, because even if I listen and change my mind about some position or another that they like, I still win by having the conversation with them.
A second, obvious corrosive effect of all this division is that it confuses and exhausts a lot of people. So many people who would be part of a real conversation allow themselves to get discouraged and drop out. Which is great for the my-money-is-more-important-than-humans-crowd because the main constraint on them is people who recognize that money has limited importance and who simply are themselves and engage the world. If we get discouraged, we acquiesce to the money power. They are glad when we drop out.
It feels like war. The problems seem so intractable. It seems so very us-against-them. And the stakes are so high. There are real winners and losers. People die in this undeclared war; from soldiers and the tens of thousands of innocents in the war of choice in Iraq to the poor who lived below the levies or had no building codes when the earthquake hit or had no insurance when it was time to take the tests. Tell the victims that this is not war. Tell those who jobs evaporate in the wake of class war-fare waged from the top this is not a war.
But there I go again, I got mad. I have a problem with just getting mad. It solves nothing and we have really enormous problems to be solved. The pressures of population on resources and pollution by themselves threaten to break any hope of a world where all men and women are equal in respect and opportunity. These pressures could even break down civilization and lead to a massive die-off.
So how do we be at peace with our enemies? Jesus calls us to love our enemies. It's been done so little by the people who call themselves Jesus' church, but we are not without models or people who today take this admonition seriously. Still, it has been taken as utopian or impossible or truly impractical.
However, consider these political and cultural leaders whose successes are legendary and whose sentiments clearly reflect Jesus' call to love the enemy:
"Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?" Lincoln.
"Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into friend." King.
"It is easy enough to be friendly to one's friends. But to befriend the one who regards himself as your enemy is the quintessence of true religion. The other is mere business." Gandhi.
An interesting selection of men. All three faced horrifying injustice inflicted on their
neighbors, if not themselves. One, Lincoln, uses violence and gets caught up in an unforeseen maelstrom; the other two intentionally provoke violence. Their attempts to make friends of enemies kills them all. Yet, all three wind up furthering the progressive liberation of humanity.
How do we make peace in times like this? This is the question I raise to anyone who might push the Huffington Post religion button. I hope we ask the basic questions. I hope that we refrain from jumping to conclusions before we ask and listen. No matter our background, we each will move back and forth from our different metaphors to the actual physical ground. I doubt we all will agree. I can't even imagine that we would even fully understand each other. But I think that we all can be encouraged to the very necessary work of making peace in this time of the continuing American Civil War
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Why the Public is Genuinely Confused About Health Care Reform
The principle foundation of a democracy relies on an informed electorate. But the true bastions of that democracy, a free and impartial press, lately have been consistently sleeping on the job. Consider this: today, Alan Fram of the Associated Press writes the following:
Seldom used? Health Care reform has traditionally been shaped by reconciliation in this country. COBRA was created by reconciliation, which is what the "R" in the acronym stands for. So was S-CHIP. And to make things worse, this simple sentence suggests that a simple majority vote represents some sort of unsavory legislative tactic, as opposed to the normal way the senate has operated for centuries. Is it little wonder that "polls [show] that some voters consider the process unfair"?
Truth is majority rule is normal. The Reconciliation process is also normal. MSNBCs Rachel Maddow outlines its use over the past 28 years.
Rachel Maddow Feb 24
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#35573155
Out of 22 times reconciliation has been used in recent years, 16 of those times they were used by Republicans to strong-arm their efforts through Congress. Now they claim the process is seldom used. Seldom used by whom? Democrats? Where is the fact-checking here? Why did such a blatantly false comment so blithely slip past the Associated Press without question?
What is new is how Republican lawmakers have hijacked the filibuster, virtually bringing the legislative process to a standstill. Maybe I missed it, but did Mr. Fram simlarly condemn this process, which truly isn't normal?
Rachel Maddow (MSNBC): http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#35359330
There was a time when truth took precedence and facts mattered. A time when we didn't justify repeating or reporting blatantly false information by blaming the source. And we didn't go back to a source who consistently provided erroneous information.
More than 200 bills are currently bogged down in the Senate, held hostage by Republican filibusters. Bills that would help families who are facing foreclosure or that would help create jobs. Where are the stories about how the entire legislative process has come to a standstill, making it virtually impossible to pass simple legislation with a clear majority vote. Where are the investigative, in-depth stories about that?
Rachel Maddow (Feb 23): http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#35551900
When the President announced his plans for a health care summit to bring both Democrats and Republicans to the table for a substantive discussion on health care reform he expressed optimism that Republicans truly cared about this country, as opposed to just scoring political points. It was a genuine opportunity for both sides to "roll up their sleeves" and get to down to real work on real issues and come to a common understanding.
But as you can see from these before and after clips, Republicans used the opportunity for "more of the same."
Do you really call this patriotism?
Hardball with Chris Matthews (Feb 25) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#35594811
Republicans seem quick to claim they care about this country and about what Americans want. They claim the overwhelming majority of the country who voted for the President and who support health care reform aren't "real Americans." Yet, they spread misinformation routinely that seldom gets challenged in any meaningful way by the press. Case in point: All the brouhaha over carrying the health care debate on C-Span.
John McCain made a point blaming the President for not showing the health care debate on C-Span, as if the President has any choice about what C-Span does or does not air. Anyone who follows C-Span knows that the debate over health care has been part of their coverage as a normal part of what they cover every day. Just because there was no one single "show" that exclusively focused on health care doesn't mean it hasn't been on the air, and has been on the air since the bill was introduced last year through passing both House and Senate. What hasn't been on C-Span is the part that C-Span never covers, efforts after a bill has passed both chambers of the house.
What McCain didn't mention was all the amendments to the existing health care bill that were made to adopt his own recommendations.
The White House currently lists all the amendments to the original health care proposal taken from suggestions made by Republicans. So much for trying to force legislation through with no no-bipartisanship.
So what's next? It's time to move forward. The Health Care summit showed clearly that the Republican party has no interest in making legislation or listening to the majority of the American people. Their only goal seemingly is to completely thwart and circumvent the legislative process.
Hardball with Chris Matthews (Feb 26): http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#35611531
The Democrats seem ready to use "reconciliation," a seldom-used procedure that could let them push legislation through the Senate with a simple majority. Republicans say reconciliation should be used for budget changes, not a dramatic reshaping of national health care policy. With polls showing that some voters consider the process unfair, some moderate Democrats have expressed a reluctance to support it. Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, D-S.D., said Friday she will be a "definite no" if it is used.
Seldom used? Health Care reform has traditionally been shaped by reconciliation in this country. COBRA was created by reconciliation, which is what the "R" in the acronym stands for. So was S-CHIP. And to make things worse, this simple sentence suggests that a simple majority vote represents some sort of unsavory legislative tactic, as opposed to the normal way the senate has operated for centuries. Is it little wonder that "polls [show] that some voters consider the process unfair"?
Truth is majority rule is normal. The Reconciliation process is also normal. MSNBCs Rachel Maddow outlines its use over the past 28 years.
Rachel Maddow Feb 24
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#35573155
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Out of 22 times reconciliation has been used in recent years, 16 of those times they were used by Republicans to strong-arm their efforts through Congress. Now they claim the process is seldom used. Seldom used by whom? Democrats? Where is the fact-checking here? Why did such a blatantly false comment so blithely slip past the Associated Press without question?
What is new is how Republican lawmakers have hijacked the filibuster, virtually bringing the legislative process to a standstill. Maybe I missed it, but did Mr. Fram simlarly condemn this process, which truly isn't normal?
Rachel Maddow (MSNBC): http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#35359330
Watch the Rachel Maddow Show for fair, impartial analysis of world news and health care reform.
There was a time when truth took precedence and facts mattered. A time when we didn't justify repeating or reporting blatantly false information by blaming the source. And we didn't go back to a source who consistently provided erroneous information.
More than 200 bills are currently bogged down in the Senate, held hostage by Republican filibusters. Bills that would help families who are facing foreclosure or that would help create jobs. Where are the stories about how the entire legislative process has come to a standstill, making it virtually impossible to pass simple legislation with a clear majority vote. Where are the investigative, in-depth stories about that?
Rachel Maddow (Feb 23): http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#35551900
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
When the President announced his plans for a health care summit to bring both Democrats and Republicans to the table for a substantive discussion on health care reform he expressed optimism that Republicans truly cared about this country, as opposed to just scoring political points. It was a genuine opportunity for both sides to "roll up their sleeves" and get to down to real work on real issues and come to a common understanding.
But as you can see from these before and after clips, Republicans used the opportunity for "more of the same."
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Do you really call this patriotism?
Hardball with Chris Matthews (Feb 25) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#35594811
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Republicans seem quick to claim they care about this country and about what Americans want. They claim the overwhelming majority of the country who voted for the President and who support health care reform aren't "real Americans." Yet, they spread misinformation routinely that seldom gets challenged in any meaningful way by the press. Case in point: All the brouhaha over carrying the health care debate on C-Span.
John McCain made a point blaming the President for not showing the health care debate on C-Span, as if the President has any choice about what C-Span does or does not air. Anyone who follows C-Span knows that the debate over health care has been part of their coverage as a normal part of what they cover every day. Just because there was no one single "show" that exclusively focused on health care doesn't mean it hasn't been on the air, and has been on the air since the bill was introduced last year through passing both House and Senate. What hasn't been on C-Span is the part that C-Span never covers, efforts after a bill has passed both chambers of the house.
What McCain didn't mention was all the amendments to the existing health care bill that were made to adopt his own recommendations.
The White House currently lists all the amendments to the original health care proposal taken from suggestions made by Republicans. So much for trying to force legislation through with no no-bipartisanship.
So what's next? It's time to move forward. The Health Care summit showed clearly that the Republican party has no interest in making legislation or listening to the majority of the American people. Their only goal seemingly is to completely thwart and circumvent the legislative process.
Hardball with Chris Matthews (Feb 26): http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#35611531
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Simple Fact-checking Unearths a Host of Right-winged (t)error-mongering
Benjamin Franklin said it best: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Fear is no excuse for dismantling the very constitution on which this nation was founded. Yet, once again the radical right tries to use the public's genuine fear of terrorism for its own political gain ad as an excuse to dismantle the U.S. Constitution.
This time, Repuplican leaders play fast and loose with the facts surrounding the capture of the so-called Christmas Day bomber. And if you listen closely you'll hear the same erroneous charge made by Sarah Palin, during her address to the Tea Party Patriots.
Here's the clip from the Rachel Maddow show:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#35227215
How is it that the Constitutional right to "lawyer up" gets mocked as a bad idea by the radical right? Wouldn't "true patriots" want to uphold the Constitution?
Yet despite the scare tactics and misinformation, the fact remains using legal, U.S. Constitution mandated tactics, the FBI obtained credible leads from the apprehended terror suspect -- without resorting to torture or any other illegal means. Our principles of justice, once again, withstands the test.
This is just one in a string of examples of how the radical right is trying to destroy the principles on which U.S. was founded, while blaming its demise on the those trying to uphold it.
Fear is no excuse for dismantling the very constitution on which this nation was founded. Yet, once again the radical right tries to use the public's genuine fear of terrorism for its own political gain ad as an excuse to dismantle the U.S. Constitution.
This time, Repuplican leaders play fast and loose with the facts surrounding the capture of the so-called Christmas Day bomber. And if you listen closely you'll hear the same erroneous charge made by Sarah Palin, during her address to the Tea Party Patriots.
Here's the clip from the Rachel Maddow show:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#35227215
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
How is it that the Constitutional right to "lawyer up" gets mocked as a bad idea by the radical right? Wouldn't "true patriots" want to uphold the Constitution?
Yet despite the scare tactics and misinformation, the fact remains using legal, U.S. Constitution mandated tactics, the FBI obtained credible leads from the apprehended terror suspect -- without resorting to torture or any other illegal means. Our principles of justice, once again, withstands the test.
This is just one in a string of examples of how the radical right is trying to destroy the principles on which U.S. was founded, while blaming its demise on the those trying to uphold it.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Health Care Reform Dirty Tricks
Health insurance companies are using the popular Facebook game, Mafia Wars to generate anti-health care reform letters to Congress from unsuspecting players. MSNBC's Rachel Maddow explains.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Thursday, October 29, 2009
House Announces Health Care Bill
Sigh. The House-sponsored health care bill does not include a "robust" public option. In fact, an estimated 90 percent of people won't be able to use it.
The bill does, however, mandate that everyone must carry health insurance. Since the poor already have a "public option," Medicaid, that means the Middle Class, who are already struggling.
I have to ask: Why is it I can choose not to have a credit card that charges me 30 percent interest but now I'll be forced to buy insurance that takes 30 percent off the top --- $$$ that feed the pockets of corporate executives, with no provisions to make sure those companies are kept open, honest and keep costs low.
Just like during the Iraq war, the Democracts have sold their constituents down the river, bowing to the vocal few rather than standing up for what they believe.
I believe the President sincerely wants change. I'm just not sure the rest of the party supports it.
The bill does, however, mandate that everyone must carry health insurance. Since the poor already have a "public option," Medicaid, that means the Middle Class, who are already struggling.
I have to ask: Why is it I can choose not to have a credit card that charges me 30 percent interest but now I'll be forced to buy insurance that takes 30 percent off the top --- $$$ that feed the pockets of corporate executives, with no provisions to make sure those companies are kept open, honest and keep costs low.
Just like during the Iraq war, the Democracts have sold their constituents down the river, bowing to the vocal few rather than standing up for what they believe.
I believe the President sincerely wants change. I'm just not sure the rest of the party supports it.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
A High Honor, The Nobel Peace Prize. Congratulations to the President
Congratulations to President Barack Obama for winning the Nobel Peace Prize and single-handedly returning the US to a place of admiration and respect around the world.
From the Nobel Committee: Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama’s initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting.
From the Nobel Committee: Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama’s initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting.
Monday, October 12, 2009
White House Calls Out Fox News For Lies
From Politico.com
http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/1009/Dunn_slams_Fox_opinion_journalism_masquerading_as_news.html?showall
Dunn slams Fox: 'Opinion journalism masquerading as news'
When the official White House blog recently called out “Fox lies,” I noted that it was unusual for the Obama administration to so strongly condemn a news organization.
Apparently, that's part of the new White House strategy.
Time White House correspondent Michael Scherer writes that in the face of criticism from the right, "the White House decided it would become a player, issuing biting attacks on those pundits, politicians and outlets that make what the White House believes to be misleading or simply false claims.”
White House Communications Director Anita Dunn has been leading the charge, Scherer notes, and while consuming conservative media, she's become a “fierce critic of Fox News.”
"It's opinion journalism masquerading as news," Dunn says. "They are boosting their audience. But that doesn't mean we are going to sit back." Fox News's head of news, Michael Clemente, counters that the White House criticism unfairly conflates the network's reporters and its pundits, like Glenn Beck, whom he likens to "the op-ed page of a newspaper."
http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/1009/Dunn_slams_Fox_opinion_journalism_masquerading_as_news.html?showall
Dunn slams Fox: 'Opinion journalism masquerading as news'
When the official White House blog recently called out “Fox lies,” I noted that it was unusual for the Obama administration to so strongly condemn a news organization.
Apparently, that's part of the new White House strategy.
Time White House correspondent Michael Scherer writes that in the face of criticism from the right, "the White House decided it would become a player, issuing biting attacks on those pundits, politicians and outlets that make what the White House believes to be misleading or simply false claims.”
White House Communications Director Anita Dunn has been leading the charge, Scherer notes, and while consuming conservative media, she's become a “fierce critic of Fox News.”
"It's opinion journalism masquerading as news," Dunn says. "They are boosting their audience. But that doesn't mean we are going to sit back." Fox News's head of news, Michael Clemente, counters that the White House criticism unfairly conflates the network's reporters and its pundits, like Glenn Beck, whom he likens to "the op-ed page of a newspaper."
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Keith countdowns health care debate
Keith Olbermann dedicates an entire hour discussing health care reform after disclosing his own struggles with father's illness.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
