Tuesday Mashup Part Two (8/31/10)

(Part One is here.)

This is one of the nuttiest opinion columns I’ve seen in a long, long time; basically, the author, Anton Wahlman, says that Net Neutrality is “akin to socialism” (I guess a remark like that was inevitable).

And, doubling down, he actually invokes a comparison to “Cambodia's ‘Killing Fields’ and of every other socialist utopia attempted over the last 100 years or so.”

Wow, FCC Chair Julius Genachowski as Pol Pot?

Is this guy out of his freaking mind (Wahlman, I mean)?

And just for the record, Wahlman says here that "Medicare and Medicaid in particular, are hugely inefficient and unnecessarily bureaucratic ways to induce people to over-consume health care services"...says you, but if Obama were to cut anything, as they're thinking about with Avastin here (second item), then the "death panels" outcry would begin in force anew.

Meanwhile, for the reality point of view, I attempted to bring us all up to date on what is happening with Net Neutrality and the latest Google/Verizon antics here.

Next, I give you Sheryl Gay Stolberg of the New York Times today (here)…

The president also said he and his team were “hard at work in identifying additional measures,” including extending tax cuts for the middle class that are scheduled to expire this year, increasing government investment in clean energy and rebuilding more infrastructure.

None of those steps, however, will come close to the $787 billion stimulus measure that Democrats passed at the outset of the Obama presidency. With voters angry about government spending, and economists divided about just what approach is the correct one, such aggressive steps are by now out of the question.

Really? As noted here…

The actual views of the American people are at odds with the corporate media’s portrayal of a nation of deficit hawks. According to a June 11-13 USA Today/Gallup Poll, 60 percent of Americans favor "additional government spending to create jobs and stimulate the economy." Only 38 percent of the respondents opposed the proposal, while 2 percent had no opinion.

Yep, those “bond vigilantes” sure are saddling up, making ready to enslave us all in debt forever unless we bow down before the “catfood commission” and privatize Social Security.

Memo to Stolberg – next time, try reporting.

And sticking with the Times, I came across this great letter on Sunday…

I always find it amusing that politicians who seem to be the most vociferous in their complaints about high taxes and wastefulness in the federal government so very often represent states that, like Alaska, take back significantly more in federal dollars than they provide to the Treasury.

I might actually find some of these politicians credible in their statements if they weren’t so often at the front of the pack feeding at the federal trough.

How about it, fiscal conservatives — why don’t you begin balancing our federal budget by accepting only the same amount in federal dollars that your state sends to the Treasury?

Any takers? Didn’t think so.

Kevin Beauchamp
New York, Aug. 22, 2010

And with that in mind, Ezra Klein tells us here about the states that get the largest proportion of federal dollars and which ones don’t (he compares the map of largesse versus the map of the last election, and there are some eerie similarities).

It should also be noted that this lends itself to some rather humorous story lines, including this one.

Finally, it looks like The Orange One made a funny (here)…

WASHINGTON (AFP) – Hours before President Barack Obama marked a symbolically important US draw-down in Iraq on Tuesday, his Republican foes acidly noted he had opposed the "surge" strategy that helped make it possible.

House Republican Minority Leader John Boehner charged that Obama and other senior Democrats who opposed that military escalation, announced in January 2007, are now trying to "claim credit" for the results.

"Today we mark not the defeat those voices anticipated -- but progress," Boehner said in a speech to be delivered to the American Legion veterans group ahead of Obama's own remarks on the matter from the White House.

"Some leaders who opposed, criticized, and fought tooth-and-nail to stop the surge strategy now proudly claim credit for the results," said the lawmaker, who underlined that credit for a more stable Iraq "belongs to our troops."

Obama initially sharply assailed former president George W. Bush's "surge" approach, warning it would fail to stabilize Iraq and could even make things worse, before ultimately saying it had succeeded beyond anyone's expectations.

I’m not going to dignify Boehner’s idiotic remark about the men and women of our military who served bravely when told to execute the war of choice in Mesopotamia upon the orders of Former President Highest Disapproval Rating In Gallup Poll History.

Instead, I’ll merely point out that, in addition to then-Senator Obama, the surge was opposed by fellow Repug Senators Richard Lugar, John Warner and “Errrr, Errrr” Voinovich, who of course do not merit a mention from Boehner (here).

(Seriously, people, this guy could be House Majority Leader. And why that prospect doesn’t motivate anyone into action is something I utterly cannot fathom.)