Boiling it down for the boy

My kid is a news media consumer, even at his young age. He listens to NPR in the car with me, he watches The Daily Show and Colbert- which have become media criticism programs as much as comedy shows- he asks for background and then he considers and forms opinions. And we discuss.

These discussions give me a chance to cut through the BS and clean up the points in a way that talks with adult friends often do not. There isn't a self-affirming loop, nor a descent into accusation. Instead, there's the responsibility of clarification, because I will not let him grow up parroting the talking points of either side.

So this morning, NPR's reporting something or another on the health insurance reform debate. Conversation goes, basically, like this:

Him: It's like they said on The Daily Show; Jon said "But Bush supported end-of-life counseling," and Wiley said "Yeah, but he was a guy that I voted for!"

Me: Here's the thing, boy. The debate in congress isn't about "death panels". The debate in congress is simply this: Should government dip its hand into the health insurance industry, or not? And if so, how much will it cost and should that money be spent?

The health insurance industry has a powerful voice in congress, and they do not want to tamper with the market. Fiscal conservatives do not want to spend government money, on principal.

The thing is, politically speaking, it's easier to get the people riled up if you pretend you're debating death panels and government control and who's tactics are worse and which side has more crazies.

And that is, really, all there is to it.

Are there true believers in congress who would hold their positions with or without industry lobbying? I think so, but I don't think their beliefs are grounded in anything common to our society in general.

Are there members of congress who really, on principle, think that the economic health of the country depends on freer markets and less social spending? Of course, but I'd argue that they've held sway for 20 years and the outcomes make a damn good argument for reform.

And there are those who, no matter the outcome, see this as an opportunity for political gain. That isn't part of the congressional job description, and it's a deplorable perversion of power, but again: keep screaming about death panels and maybe no one will notice.

And sure, a few may actually believe in the threat of death panels and the destruction of the constitution. But they're just really stupid.

Also not surprising

That the revising of history would start before the history was completed.

Buh bye, assholes.

Maybe Wall Street has a suitcase bomb

Via TPM:

Cheney Heads to Hill to Quell Republicans

By Kate Klonick - September 23, 2008, 12:58PM

The White House dispatched Vice President Dick Cheney to Capitol Hill Tuesday morning to help shore up support for the financial bailout of Wall Street.

Wonder what Cheney will tell them this time?

Media morning with Palin

Gloria Steinem gives one of the best rebuttals to the idea that Sarah's somehow a feminist pick over at the LA Times.

Palin's value to those patriarchs is clear: She opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality. She believes that creationism should be taught in public schools but disbelieves global warming; she opposes gun control but supports government control of women's wombs; she opposes stem cell research but approves "abstinence-only" programs, which increase unwanted births, sexually transmitted diseases and abortions; she tried to use taxpayers' millions for a state program to shoot wolves from the air but didn't spend enough money to fix a state school system with the lowest high-school graduation rate in the nation; she runs with a candidate who opposes the Fair Pay Act but supports $500 million in subsidies for a natural gas pipeline across Alaska; she supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, though even McCain has opted for the lesser evil of offshore drilling. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger.
[...]
So far, the major new McCain supporter that Palin has attracted is James Dobson of Focus on the Family. Of course, for Dobson, "women are merely waiting for their husbands to assume leadership," so he may be voting for Palin's husband.

Over at Salon, I have to disagree when Shapiro says:

Palin is unquestionably the Republican vice-presidential nominee least likely to be confused with Dick Cheney, in either a duck blind or the Situation Room. Even as an angry "hockey mom," it is impossible to imagine her browbeating CIA analysts to concoct new rationales for invading Iraq. It seems equally implausible that in a McCain-Palin administration, the vice president's office would be an outside-the-law power center running its own foreign policy. Palin is not a traditional vice-presidential nominee, but if elected she is apt to mark a return to a modest conception of the office that had been the butt of jokes for nearly two centuries.

I can easily imagine Palin bullying people into line. Less capable women have been very successful bullies over the past 8 years- Monica Goodling, anyone?

D. Aristophanes gets serious for a moment with a straight-up assessment at Sadly, No! And while I'm not sure the majority of voters appreciate the nuance, he makes a good point:

- They overplayed the ‘community organizer’ slam. The party that wants to shrink government says service outside of government is worthless? The only service worth anything is as an agent of the state? The Dems need to start talking up community work, church work, charity work, volunteering to coach youth sports, etc. Palin and McCain say Little League coaches and scout leaders and food drive volunteers aren’t doing anything useful?

Meyerson on the golden oldie theme of the evening, at the WaPo blog:

This is Republican Chestnut Night. The speakers’ attacks on the Democratic Party thus far are the very same that Ronald Reagan made 28 years ago, or Richard Nixon 40 years ago. “It’s time to stop the spread of government dependency!” Mitt Romney just vowed -- as if welfare reform had yet to happen. Romney chastised the government in Washington -- even the Supreme Court -- for charting a liberal course, seemingly forgetting who’s on the Court and which president put them there. A more partisan view of history hasn’t been heard from since Stalin wrote Trotsky out of the history of the Russian Revolution.

Over at the local paper, I ventured into the comments thread where people are IN LOVE with Palin's support for abstinence-only sex ed, because it's THE PARENT'S RESPONSIBILITY! And unwilling to question whether Sarah failed in her responsibility to teach her own daughter about birth control and the wisdom of waiting until you're an actual adult to become a parent.
Spoiler alert: if you support comprehensive sex-ed, you're obviously a nazi.

More than one webizen is wondering when teen pregnancy got so popular with the conservative base, by the way.

Told you so

Rick Davis, campaign manager for John McCain's presidential bid, insisted that the presidential race will be decided more over personalities than issues during an interview with Post editors this morning.
"This election is not about issues," said Davis. "This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates."

They won't run on issues because they can't run on issues: all of their positions are proven failures. So they're hoping you'll like their outfits.

Rick Davis is on my teevee right now, reminding me how mavericky John McCain is. And if by "mavericky" you mean stubborn and irresponsible, sure. I'll give him that.

McCain Campaign Issues Lying Ad?

So says (moderately brain damaged, usually) Jake Tapper:

From the Fact Check Desk: Did Obama Say Iran Is a 'Tiny' Country That 'Doesn't Pose a Serious Threat'?

August 27, 2008 11:13 AM

We, in the media, have given a lot of airtime to the TV ads of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., this week, starring, as they do, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.
There's been evidence emerging that McCain's campaign isn't really running these ads anywhere, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group.
"These were basically video press releases," CMAG’s Evan Tracey tells the Wall Street Journal.
OK, so that's kind of dishonest of the McCain campaign.
Today's new McCain ad -- "Tiny," [...] crosses a new line into dishonesty, however, beyond whether or not it's actually airing anywhere.
The script reads: "Iran. Radical Islamic government. Known sponsors of terrorism. Developing nuclear capabilities to 'generate power' but threatening to eliminate Israel.
"Obama says Iran is a 'tiny' country, 'doesn't pose a serious threat,'" the ad continues. "Terrorism, destroying Israel, those aren't 'serious threats'? Obama -- dangerously unprepared to be president."
This is a dishonest representation of Obama's words.

If Jake Tapper is willing to call you out, your slip is definitely showing.

The coveted D&D bloc

I had to send my teens a recap on the campaign D&D war. Most of them are too young to vote. All of them are deeply thoughtful. Some of them enjoy a regular D&D date, while others roll their eyes and beg for a different activity.

Pretty much all of them will think this is hysterical, and the GOP better hope they don't harbor deep resentments over petty, stupid things when they are old enough to register. Might not be good for the future of the party.

But in their new role as bloggers, the paper’s editors seem to have all the intelligence and reason of the average Daily Kos diarist sitting at home in his mother’s basement and ranting into the ether between games of dungeons and dragons.

- McCain campaign in-house blogger Michael Goldfarb on 8/1, responding to criticism of a campaign commercial by the NYT editorial blog.

If my comments caused any harm or hurt to the hard working Americans who play Dungeons & Dragons, I apologize. This campaign is committed to increasing the strength, constitution, dexterity, intelligence, wisdom, and charisma scores of every American.

- Goldfarb responding to criticism on the internet, which may or may not have been raised by actual D&D players

It may be typical of the pro-Obama Dungeons & Dragons crowd to disparage a fellow countryman's memory of war from the comfort of mom's basement, but most Americans have the humility and gratitude to respect and learn from the memories of men who suffered on behalf of others.

- Goldfarb on 8/18, responding to questions about the candidate's veracity

It’s official. Thanks to some initiative-taking readers (or perhaps someone totally unrelated to this blog… I’m still not sure), the “Pro-Obama Dungeons and Dragons Crowd” group has been created at MyBarackObama.com. [snip] We even have not one, but two completely awesome logos, made by McE and Beth, respectively… w00t!

- candleboy.com

Dear editors

I know: the 'Opinion' page is made up of opinion, not reporting. I know that it's an important journalistic tradition, and that the free press demands a free opinion page.

I'm cool with that.

I do wish, though, that the Star and every other news paper in the country would just ask their columnists- at the very least- not to lie. That would seem to be a pretty minimal standard, asking opinion writers to opine on fact, rather than calculated partisan fiction.

Take, for example, Terry Paulson.

In his column this week (Energy Independence Now), he makes some pretty dubious claims:

While politicians demand more oil from overseas, we sit on oil reserves that are the envy of the world.

Really? The envy of Saudi Arabia? Of Iraq? Of Canada? Venezuela? US oil production reached peak in the '70s, and while we certainly have more reserves, even untapped reserves, there isn't much evidence indicating that tapping them now would lead us to energy independence.

What would lead us there is getting off our addiction to a finite resource. But since people like Terry must support the line of the current administration ("Conservation is a personal virtue" and "So long from the world's biggest polluter"), even when giving alternate energy resources a nod, they must press the delusion that the oil is there, and it is ours for the taking.

All of that is just opinionating, though, so of course it has a place in the editorial pages. What I really have a problem with is this:

When Hurricanes Katrina and Rita roared through the Gulf's 3,000 offshore oil and gas platforms, no major spills were recorded.

Now, if you're going to let someone write something that easily disproved (in fact, the oil spill could be seen from space), maybe just a note from the news bureau at the bottom of the column?

It just tears my hide when lies are published without challenge on the pages of a newspaper.

Oh, and although this isn't a lie, I can't pass up commenting on

France generates 80 percent of its energy needs through nuclear power and safely handles the waste; so can we!

France has a significant regulatory structure. And as this government can't seem to figure out how to keep e coli out of my food, and refuses to address weaknesses is chemical manufacturing and transport, I'd prefer not to complicate their to-do list with enforcement and protection of nuclear power plants.

Racing to the bottom....

This just pisses me off:

Accounting Plan Would Allow Use of Foreign Rules
WASHINGTON — Federal officials say they are preparing to propose a series of regulatory changes to enhance American competitiveness overseas, attract foreign investment and give American investors a broader selection of foreign stocks.

But critics say the changes appear to be a last-ditch push by appointees of President Bush to dilute securities rules passed after the collapse of Enron and other large companies — measures that were meant to forestall accounting gimmicks and corrupt practices that led to those corporate failures.

Legal experts, some regulators and Democratic lawmakers are concerned that the changes would put American investors at the mercy of overseas regulators who enforce weaker rules and may treat investment losses as a low priority.

When all else fails, deregulate? Because over the last 30 years, that has worked so bloody fucking well for us?

I am so very, very tired of the idea that we need to lower our standards on every fucking issue in order to be "competitive" in the "global economy".

We need to set our standards to be more in line with countries that have appalling human rights standards, no environmental standards, and, apparently, skewed and dishonest accounting standards.

Say that once, without a trace of dismay in your voice, if you can. And then tell me how that equates to American Leadership.

Bush and the GOP do not want this country to lead. They want this country to be a playground bully with wealthy parents.

Bonus reason to work to keep McCain out of the White House: Phil Gramm would most certainly set economic policy under a McCain presidency.

Unbelievably stupid "journalists"

Of course the McCain campaign would take the opportunity to twist Wesley Clarke's words. They are a political campaign. That's what they do.

But the "journalists" of Washington didn't even need a nudge from the McCain camp. They just heard what they wanted to hear, got their man panties all in a bunch, and went bonkers. And not just the Fox News team and Joe Klein, either. Pretty much every moron on every network and every news outlet have made asses of themselves over this total non-issue.

Fucking idiots. How do any of them have jobs? How are we supposed to take any of them seriously?

Columbia Journalism Review:

Appearing as a surrogate for Barack Obama on CBS’s “Face the Nation”, Clark, in reference to John McCain, said:

"I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war…But he hasn’t held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded—that wasn’t a wartime squadron. He hasn’t been there and ordered the bombs to fall.
When moderator Bob Schieffer interjected that “Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences, either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down”, Clark responded: “Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.”

The McCain camp, sensing an opportunity, complained that Clark had “attacked John McCain’s military service record.” Of course, Clark had done nothing of the kind. He had questioned the relevance of McCain’s combat experience as a qualification to be president of the United States. This is a distinction that you’d expect any reasonably intelligent nine-year old to be able to grasp.

The "Civility Scam"

My crazy-ass friend sent me an email this week (which was nice, thank you). One of the things he said sort of cracked me up,

I had actually never seen your website before that day and I was a bit shocked by the tone of it. I suppose I shouldn't have been, as it is typical of tone found at most Leftwing blogs.

Ah. The tone thing.

I responded that I figured I'd seem mild to someone who hangs out at LGF and links to Malkin, but there you go. No accounting for subjective preception.

Anyway, FDL has a bit on the "Civility Scam" this morning, a short one, but still rings close to home.

And everyone will greet us as liberators...

John "the meanest mustache in the world" Bolton, this morning:

I don’t think you’d hear the Arab states say this publicly, but they would be delighted if the United States or Israel destroyed the Iranian nuclear weapons capability.

What a fucking asshole.

Things are getting exciting around here...

So Mittens came to Thousand Oaks yesterday, to raise money for Tony Strickland's campaign.

I may have mentioned that I'm not a Strickland fan.

Because he wasn't getting enough attention from the Green Wave Energy BS, I suppose, he decided to accept a bunch of money from big tobacco, further exciting the passions of local liberals, democrats, and at least one republican, according to the local paper.

But tobacco money isn't nearly enough to buy yourself a seat so you can peddle your influence and reap in cash, so Romney came to town to tell the folks that Tony has the solutions to California's budget crisis, among other things.

A couple of years ago, I doubt this would have brought more than a few people out of doors, but yesterday, apparently Audra's chief of staff and some suited young republicans clashed with protesters in front of the Hyatt on Westlake Blvd.

The Star's story is here. Ok story, amusing comments thread. (Note to commenter Dmeeks: When you wrote: "The Strickland supporters had been at their location with no problems and it was the protesters and anti-Strickland crowd who caused the "tussle". How sad." the words "how sad" out you. You're a concern troll, and probably lying.)

Better coverage is at Brian Dennert's blog, here. Great photos, some video, first person witnesses, etc. The police may or may not bring charges against Audra's chief of staff for assault.

I continue to question Tony's conflicts of interest (Green Wave and tobacco money being the most obvious), and I also question whether Audra's staff, paid by our taxes, is properly employed as an anti-first amendment campaign thug. As a commenter there said:

Joel Angeles was stupid for getting caught strongarming people and holding a sign. He's a chief of staff for crying out loud and certainly knows better. His office works for all of Audra's constituents - not just the Republican ones that vote for her or her husband. He should resign before anymore political damage is inflicted.

Another interesting note: the comments thread is great, lots of first person accounting, etc. But note the commenters who write that "Union thugs" were harrassing Strickland supporters. Really? Because I have never once encountered a "Union thug" at any political event in Thousand Oaks.

Kind of like the "How sad" commenting. If you think thugs and paid protesters were there to stir up shit with Strickland supporters, you have taken the jump into dark fantasyland.

Note

About the posts below:

No, I don't want to spend the next few months looking backward. Yes, I am thrilled at the feeling of opportunity and transformation that the presidential race is inspiring.

I'm all about celebrating, this week.

But unpunished crimes of this magnitude upset me. And being lied to by a guy whose salary I pay and who obviously holds our concrens, our fears, our morals, our opinions in total comtempt really pisses me off.

Fraud

Although phase 2 of the Senate Intel committee's report on the handling of pre-war intel is 5 years late, it is finally done. TPM provides links to download the entire report here.

A quick and not at all thorough glance tells me that (like Scott McMoonface's confession) there isn't much new stuff there. The fact that the Bush administration committed fraud on this country is easily documented by available public record statements and documents, and has been for years.

What is significant is that it came out of the senate, and that Olympia Snowe and Chuck Hagel approved it. Just as Scottie's book is significant because he's the first of the Texas loyalists to confirm pretty much everything every former administration member has said over the last 7 years.

I really think the only way to drive home the point that fucking Bush and Rummy and Cheney and Wolfie have killed tens of thousands of people because they WANTED TO, and not due to any actual threat against this country, would be full-on impeachment hearings for Bush and Cheney, and fraud prosecutions for the others.

Not going to happen though.

From around the intertubes:

Balloon Juice:

“Shorter Phase II Intelligence Report- the dirty fucking hippies were right about everything.”

Think Progress notes that Bush's claim of credibility on this issue is somewhat undermined by the report:

Q: Can you explain why you believe you’re still a credible messenger on the war?

BUSH: I’m credible because I read the intelligence, David.

To which Atrios responds:

Also undermines claim that he's not a sociopath who lied to bring the country into a war which has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.

Just sayin'.

More memories

Lots of Katrina talk this week, including John McCain completely lying about supporting any review of what went wrong and why.
Over at Salon , more on what was going on in the White House while New Orleans drowned.

On Monday, August 29, 2005, at about 6:00 a.m., Hurricane Katrina slammed into the coasts of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. A category 5 hurricane until just before landfall, it was one of the worst storms ever to hit the Gulf Coast. Kathleen Blanco, the governor of Louisiana, had been briefed extensively about what to expect when the storm hit, which was why, on the Friday night before the storm reached the coast, she signed papers declaring Louisiana to be in a state of emergency.

Returning that week from camping in a ditch in Crawford, Texas, I watched the tragedy unfold on TV and wrote:

Let’s just take a moment to reflect: Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi were being slammed by a category five storm, with much loss of life anticipated. A couple hundred people were camped in ditches next to war memorials, begging for recognition of their pain.

The president was going golfing in AZ, and then on to San Diego to stay at Hotel del Coronado. Unlike, say, the Teri Schiavo craziness, which saw him zooming back from Crawford and signing “emergency” legislation in his pajamas, he was flying as far away from death and reminders of death as he could. And while the papers would cover his irrelevant speeches on Medicare or whatever, Camp Casey was mobilizing to address grief and pain once again.

I remember Buddy saying, when he first told us the news on Katrina, “People are going to die.” Maybe lawyers have better forecasting skills than fake cowboys? Is that why Bush didn’t seem to get it?

Strickland

I think the decision to call himself an "alternative energy executive" is going to haunt Tony.

At least, I hope so.

BTW: Strickland and Gallegly have both worked consistantly against higher fuel standards and alternative fuels research and funding.