Skip to content

NPR channels Joe McCarthy

Saturday, October 22, 2011

This is why I don’t get all excited when I get fundraising emails telling me that the Republicans are threatening to destroy NPR. They already have.

Filed in Media | | Comments (0)

Friday night music

Friday, October 21, 2011

Continuing with the topical stuff, and in further tribute to the occupiers throughout the land, one song that I should have thought of earlier and one that’s not quite on point, but is close enough. Both suggested, in one way or another from things I read wandering the web. The first in an opinion piece (can’t remember where it was, so no link), which contained an allusion, the second from Hullabaloo, here, from which I’m basically stealing the video.

So far as I can see there is no Dylan version of this song on YouTube, so I chose this Springsteen version.

I don’t recall the Beatles being on the Smothers Brothers show, but apparently they were, and this appears to be live, as John adds the phrase “and in”, which I don’t believe was on the 45 version.

Filed in Music | | Comments (0)

A Plug

Friday, October 21, 2011

Friend, reader and oft times Liberal Drinker Audrey Heard art will be exhibiting at the Tsetse Gallery in New London starting next week. My wife and I have several of Audrey’s pieces. From the looks of the poster below, it looks like Audrey has moved in a slightly different direction. We have several still lifes, but the piece below looks more abstract than anything I’ve seen before, but then, what do I know about art?

If you’re in the area, stop by.

Filed in Announcements | | Comments (0)

Raising (the subject of) Cain

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Okay, I’ve largely or completely (I think) avoided even mentioning Herman Cain, but I can’t help myself now. It’s been a temptation, but I’ve resisted it, largely as penance for too frequent posting about Sarah and Michelle. It’s not that I put Herman in their league, by the way. If anything, on the continuum of crazy, he’s actually sort of toward the sane side of things. That’s relative to them, of course, which still puts him well within the borders of the Land of the Insane.

I feel I can break my self imposed silence, being as Herman is enjoying his day in the Sun as the leading not-Romney in the race. He’s the frontrunner, so he’s fair game, easy mark though he is.

I direct your attention to the latest: an actual analysis of Cain’s tax “plan”. The article to which I’ve linked above has a bar graph showing the amounts by which taxes would increase for various income brackets below $200,000.00. After that, of course, taxes decrease, as is only right and just. Matter of fact, they literally plunge.

I would submit that the graph is not telling the entire story, so I have rejiggered it. I’ve used the same figures, but instead of showing the amount of tax increase, I’ve shown the increase as a percentage of total income. This comes a bit closer to showing the true impact of the plan on the people in the various brackets. It doesn’t actually do that, of course, because a 10% hit on a total income of $10,000.00 is far more devastating than a like percentage hit on an income of $100,000.00, but it comes closer to showing the impact than merely showing absolute dollar amounts.

As you can see, Cain’s program is almost absolutely perfect given today’s prevailing memes. It doesn’t quite get there, because, the desperately poor are not hit quite as hard as the poor and nearly poor. But, if we adjust for the consideration I mentioned above, then I think that this graph proves to the discerning mind that the desperately poor are, in fact, taking the biggest hit of all. What more could you ask?

So Cain has a winner here. And make no mistake about it, if not-Romney happens to win, the not-Romney may be Cain by default, and the 9-9-9 plan may make it into law. There’s nothing the Republicans would like better than following a token black who wants them to screw the poor and middle class, with the added frisson of their actions having a disparate, negative impact on minorities.

But not everything is looking up for Cain, at least to all appearances. A new Super Pac has come into being called Americans For Herman Cain. Talking Points says the name may be illegal, as a Super Pac is not supposed to mention the candidate in the name. But there’s more to this than meets the eye, and it shows that there’s a downside to Citizens United even for the Republicans. Americans For Herman Cain is the brainchild of one Jordan Gehrke, who has made something of a living out of draining funds from the wallets of conservatives. He specialized, previously, in running direct mail campaigns for Republican long shots, preying on gullible right wingers throughout the land. The Republicans in question got a small sliver of the money, with Gehrke and affiliated scamsters pocketing the rest. His current scam seems clear. Start a Super Pac supporting some candidate, with a name as misleading as you can manage, implying that you are working on behalf of said candidate. Use a tiny percentage of the money to propagandize for the candidate, and pocket the rest. Though the article at Talking Points argues that the name of the Pac is illegal, my money’s on the courts holding that regulating the name would deny the organization’s free speech rights. In any event, probably no one will actually try to stop Gehrke, who will promptly soak up millions that might otherwise have actually gone to Cain. This, of course, will drain money away from the Cain campaign, but, given the distinct possibility that Cain isn’t really interested in winning, he may be in on the scam. In any event, it’s an interesting twist on Sarah’s scam of enriching herself through a self-promoting Pac.

Filed in Politics | | Comments (0)

Harry Belafonte on Colbert

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Nice segment with Harry Belafonte on Colbert:

Filed in American Life | | Comments (0)

Reading Sarah’s tea leaves

Monday, October 17, 2011

Sarah Palin has changed her facebook designation from Republican to Conservative, and her fans are all a-twitter.

One long-time blogger and Palin supporter wrote: ‘I suppose one could draw a multitude of conclusions regarding this status change.

‘I know that I certainly have. You can be certain that any move Sarah Palin makes has been well thought out and is with purpose.

I was going to make a snarky comment about that last sentence, given that so much of what Palin says is, if thought out at all, most poorly thought out. But what she does? I must concede that she appears to put a lot of thought into her moves. Not all have succeeded, but by and large she’s cashed in handsomely on her notoriety, and if we want to glean the meaning of this act, we must look and see where the money might be in this change of political hats.

I would like to think, to echo Jesse Jackson, that this helps us “keep hope alive”. My hopes, though I think they’re likely to be dashed, is that this is Sarah subtly signaling a third party run. There would be lots of cash in that. But I’m dubious. My guess is that she’s positioning herself to become the spokesmodel for all those folks out there who are fed up with today’s liberal Republican party, and are looking for pure fascism conservatism. You just can’t please some people, but maybe Sarah’s going to try. Unfortunately for Sarah I think she’s past her sell-by date, though she’s still great fun for those of us on this side of the divide.

Filed in Sarah Palin | | Comments (0)

Yet more on the filibuster

Saturday, October 15, 2011

Good discussion here about the fact that Republicans, should they take the Senate next year, could repeal the Health Care Act using reconciliation. Should they take the White House that would mean the act would be repealed. Should Obama be reelected, he would veto the repeal, after which the Republicans would no doubt refuse to fund it, which would effectively kill it. In fact, no one’s talking about the fact that even controlling one house (and they actually control two) they can kill it that way. Under the split government scenario the Republicans might go the reconciliation route, but should they take the White House, my own belief is that they won’t need to, because the Democrats won’t stand in the way of a repeal. They don’t have the guts. When Republicans get beat, they insist that it was because they weren’t conservative enough. When Democrats get beat, they say the same thing, and move right.

But I think this article misses the larger point. Should the Republicans take both houses and the presidency, they will not countenance the filibuster. They will be in a position to repeal the 20th century, and that’s just what they’ll do, and they won’t let Senate rules stand in their way. Assisted by a media that will suddenly realize how undemocratic the filibuster is (right now, the press doesn’t even use the term, preferring to say that a bill has been “blocked”, thereby implying that it lacks majority support, while also blaming both sides for Senate inaction despite the unprecedented number of filibusters), they will either pressure the Democrats to back down, like they did under Bush, or repeal the rule.

The question is: How much harm can they do in two years before a sickened public throws them out. It is a price we may have to pay to get rid of the filibuster for good, so the Democrats, as timid as they are, can finally, possibly, maybe accomplish something when they get back in.

Filed in Republicans | | Comments (0)

Friday Night Music

Friday, October 14, 2011

Trying to keep these somewhat topical, as well as avoiding repeats.

It’s not always possible. I wanted to dedicate something to Rick and Anita Perry. Anita says that her husband is being brutalized for his faith by his fellow Republicans. You can’t deny he’s a good Christian. How else explain his relish for the death penalty? If it was good enough for Jesus, it should be good enough for the rest of us. As to those Republicans, well, maybe they just can’t stop themselves. They’ve been brutalizing the rest of us for the past 10 years or more. Anyway, this is dedicated to the poor misunderstood couple from Texas:

Speaking of Christ, here’s a song that has a bit of application to the doings in New York. Written by Woody Guthrie and performed here by Ronny Elliott. Woody was okay, even in religion. “Jesus was a man…”

And, speaking of Woody and Wall Street, I like the last few lines of this song. Who, after all, are the biggest criminals among us? Roger McGuinn singing Pretty Boy Floyd:

Filed in Music | | Comments (0)

Mitt Romney, the Republican’s Dr. Fell

Friday, October 14, 2011

Is there anyone who didn’t see this coming. In fact, hasn’t it been here all along?

The teabaggers aren’t happy with Mitt, and some of them are saying that his now seemingly inevitable coronation as their candidate will turn them off. Mitt is, at heart, not a tea party man. He’s Wall Street pure and simple, and makes Obama look like an anti-oligarch of the highest order, which, unfortunately, he actually is not.

Something not considered in this article is that Mitt’s inevitable tack (lurch, lunge?) left (or centerward, depending on your preference) once the nomination is secure, will have a further depressing effect on these whackjobs, particularly if Rush Limbaugh doesn’t fall in line. And he might not. From Rush’s perspective, Obama has been pure gold. Rush would be far better off having another four years of bashing Obama than four years of defending Mitt Romney. As a matter of fact, Republicans in Congress generally would be better off with Obama in office. After all, they have no interest in actually accomplishing anything. Their own offices would be more secure. Imagine the state of this country after two years of solid Republican rule. The poor whipsawed voters of this nation would have no choice but to give a huge percentage of the Republicans the old heave-ho.

Note: For those who are interested, Dr. Fell is a person who otherwise would be lost to history had he not been immortalized in rhyme:

I do not like you Dr. Fell
The reason why, I cannot tell
But this I know, and know full well
I do not like you, Dr. Fell

Filed in Republicans | | Comments (0)

Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Yesterday, Krugman did a little gloating on his blog. Seems a year ago, Business Week ran an article about a guy named John Paulson, a hedge fund manager who was betting big on a a major uptick in the housing market. The article contrasted the obviously right Paulson (since he was rich and a hedge fund manager) to the gloom and doom Krugman, who clearly had his head up his ass.

Well, Paulson’s bet didn’t pay off, as even I could have told him.In fact, according to today’s Times, pretty much everything he has touched lately has turned to shit.

This may be because Paulson has had to confine himself lately to trying to predict the market instead of gaming it. The Times article states that Paulson previously “made billions during the financial downturn betting against the subprime mortgage market”, but that’s putting it kindly. The word “betting” implies you have a chance to lose, but Paulson didn’t. He designed securities that would fail, got Goldman Sachs to market them to suckers, and then made a pile betting against them. Oddly enough, though the facts are clear, and the government has actually seen its way clear to bringing a civil action against Goldman, they have not pursued any charges, civil or criminal, against Paulson. Ahh, the rich really are different than you and me, aren’t they?

Anyway, it’s nice to see that Paulson is on the ropes, and we can only hope he’s down for the count. It couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.

Filed in Corporate Crime | | Comments (0)