Friday Mashup (9/23/11)

(By the way, the "Bringing The Pain" posts got sidetracked a bit this week...I'll try to return to that next week.)

Let’s begin with the perpetually wrong bloviation of former Bushie Marc Thiessen (here)…

Last week’s CNN/Tea Party Express debate devoted nine minutes to foreign policy and national security. Last night’s Fox News/Google debate devoted precisely … ten minutes (from 10:02 to 10:12 pm).

While the time devoted to national security did not improve much, the quality of the questions and discussion was better—and showed glimpses of what a robust debate devoted to foreign policy could offer.

Wait for it…

Rick Perry got the toughest question: what would he do if Pakistan lost control of its nuclear weapons at the hands of the Taliban? Perry responded by saying that before you got to that point you had to develop relationships in the region—and cited Admiral Mullen’s testimony that Pakistan was supporting the Haqqani network which was behind the attack on the U.S. embassy in Kabul. He said he would strengthen our relationship with India to make sure they knew that they are an ally of America—criticizing the Obama administration for turning down an opportunity to sell upgraded F-16s to India (and Taiwan too).

As noted here from last April…

India has decided not to buy American F-16's or F/A-18's for the biggest defense tender in its history -- a pending $10 billion-plus contract for 126 multi-role combat aircraft. Following field trials, it has instead shortlisted the Rafale, made by France's Dassault, and the Typhoon, produced by a European consortium. Skeptics of Indo-U.S. strategic partnership view this as yet another Indian snub to the United States, arguing that the promise of Indo-American entente that was to follow from the historic civilian-nuclear agreement of 2008 has proven hollow.

And this tells us the following from a week ago…

WASHINGTON--The Obama administration was expected to tell the U.S. Congress on Friday it plans to upgrade Taiwan's existing fleet of F-16 fighter jets, said sources involved in a deal likely to anger China while disappointing a Taiwan government that was seeking more advanced aircraft.

U.S.-Taiwan Business Council President Rupert Hammond-Chambers, whose group lobbied for the sale of more advanced F-16 planes, said announcement of the upgrade was "imminent." Congressional sources said consultations with senior lawmakers' staff were expected on Friday.

Lather, rinse, repeat (sigh)…

Next, I give you the following from The Daily Tucker…

Ever heard of a group called the “Breast Cancer Fund”? No? You’re not alone. BCF is a friendly sounding advocacy group that “works to connect the dots between breast cancer and exposures to chemicals and radiation in our everyday environments.” The “connect the dots” part is key. BCF has taken it upon itself to replace science with conjecture and draw conclusions based on a desire to rid the world of chemicals that actually keep us safe and healthy.

BCF is very concerned with the environment. The “About Us” section of its website says, “We find practical solutions so that our children, grandchildren and planet can thrive.” Is our planet not thriving? Did I miss a memo?

Like most left-wing, pro-regulatory organizations, BCF claims to be “helping the children.” But what it is advocating now, without evidence to back its claim, will harm children, grandchildren and adults.

The post goes on to say that the “EPA would like to regulate and phase out BPA under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), but the law requires that the agency employ sound science to illustrate that a product is actually dangerous before banning it — something EPA has not been able to show for BPA” (the quote is attributed to someone from something called the Competitive Enterprise Institute).

In response, this tells us the following (from March last year)…

Cal Dooley, president and CEO of the American Chemistry Council, an industry association, said, "It is important to recognize that EPA is not proposing any regulatory action regarding human health. In fact, HHS [Health and Human Services] and FDA recently reaffirmed that BPA has not been proven to cause harm to infants or adults, and other regulatory bodies around the world have determined that the science supports the safety of BPA."

And from the EPA’s own web site (here)…

EPA does not intend to initiate regulatory action under (the Toxic Substances Control Act) at this time on the basis of risks to human health. EPA remains committed to protecting human health and will continue to consult and coordinate closely with FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) to better determine and evaluate the potential health consequences of BPA.

I realize that Tucker Carlson has a tough job running his little blog masquerading as a news site that, in fact, does nothing else except propagate right-wing talking points, and he’s bound to slip up at times. However, with some actual research on his part, he would have learned that he has to put out more effort to wrap up this piece of wingnut lore in a cocoon of lies of evasions as per usual.

So work smarter, not harder, next time, OK? (removing my tongue from my cheek…)

Continuing, I give you last week’s Area Votes in Congress (here)…

House

National Labor Relations Act. Voting 238-186, the House on Thursday passed a bill (HR 2587) to amend the National Labor Relations Act in a way that would curb union rights while making it easier for companies to move operations to nonunion states. The NLRA was enacted in 1935 to establish and protect the rights of workers to form unions and bargain collectively over pay, benefits, and working conditions.

This bill would give employers standing to shift facilities to right-to-work states or overseas despite the law's stipulation that such moves cannot be a retaliation against legitimate union activity and can be subjected to collective bargaining. Robert E. Andrews (D., N.J.) called the measure "the outsourcers' bill of rights. It says to an employer, if you want to use as an excuse the collective and union activities of your employees and you want to pick up and move to Central or South America or Asia, here's the way to do it."

A yes vote was to pass the bill.

Voting yes: Charles W. Dent (R., Pa.), Jim Gerlach (R., Pa.), Frank A. LoBiondo (R., N.J.), Joseph R. Pitts (R., Pa.), Jon Runyan (R., N.J.), and Christopher H. Smith (R., N.J.).

Voting no: Robert E. Andrews (D., N.J.), Robert A. Brady (D., Pa.), John Carney (D., Del.), Chaka Fattah (D., Pa.), Michael Fitzpatrick (R., Pa.), Tim Holden (D., Pa.), Pat Meehan (R., Pa.), and Allyson Y. Schwartz (D., Pa.).

You know, I really hate it when Mikey the Beloved (and Pat Meehan) cast some actually decent votes so I can’t pick on them…seriously, as much as I hate to admit it, they did the right thing, thought I know these were “safe” since the majority of the crazed Repug U.S. House delegation went for this garbage (which I posted about previously here – last bullet).

Charter schools funding. Voting 365-54, the House on Tuesday passed a bill (HR 2218) to fund charter schools at $300 million annually through fiscal 2018. The bill would provide grants for operating expenses and to leverage private loans for building or renovating classroom space. The nation's 5,000 charter schools, which educate about 5 percent of K-12 students, receive public funding but are freed of many of the rules that bind traditional public schools.

A yes vote was to pass the bill.

Voting yes: Andrews, Brady, Carney, Dent, Fattah, Fitzpatrick, Gerlach, LoBiondo, Meehan, Pitts, Runyan, Schwartz, and Smith.

Voting no: Holden.

Yeah, I know, how can anyone be against charter schools, right? Well, if funding them comes at the expense of money for public schools, hell yeah I can be against it (and Ian Millhiser of the Center for American Progress tells us here, that, yep, if God forbid the Teahadists took over our government, we would be looking at exactly that).

By the way, in all the years I’ve been doing this, this might be the first time Tim Holden has actually cast a good vote while everyone else missed the proverbial boat. Good for him for a change.

Green school construction. Voting 195-220, the House on Tuesday refused to promote green practices and materials in the building and renovating of charter schools. The nonbinding amendment to HR 2218 (above) would have called upon the Department of Education to give preference to applications from states that use tax incentives and other policies to encourage green construction in school systems.

A yes vote backed the amendment.

Voting yes: Andrews, Brady, Dent, Carney, Fattah, Fitzpatrick, Gerlach, Holden, Meehan, and Schwartz.

Voting no: LoBiondo, Pitts, Runyan, and Smith.

I give you another good, safe vote for Mikey and the “Moderates” (sounds like a singing group…by the way, has anyone else besides me noticed that, while Joe Pitts continues to cast awful votes, Jon “How Much Tax Can I Get Out Of Paying For My Farm?” Runyan is giving Pancake Joe a run for his money in that department?).

Debt limit revisited. By a tally of 232-186, members on Wednesday voted to rescind some of the new U.S. borrowing authority that Congress and President Obama enacted in August as the government neared default. The vote on HJ Res 77 was only symbolic because the Senate already had refused to go along.

A yes vote was to pass the bill.

Voting yes: Dent, Fitzpatrick, Gerlach, LoBiondo, Meehan, Pitts, Runyan, and Smith.

Voting no: Andrews, Brady, Carney, Fattah, Holden, and Schwartz.

Another complete and utter waste of time from these miscreants…

Senate

Federal disaster aid. Voting 62-37, the Senate on Thursday passed a bill (HJ Res 66) to provide the Federal Emergency Management Agency with $6.9 billion in deficit spending to help communities and individuals recover from recent natural disasters such as Hurricane Irene, the earthquake centered in Virginia, wildfires, and Tropical Storm Lee. The legislation also would ensure the continued flow of FEMA aid to victims of tornadoes in cities such as Joplin, Mo., and Tuscaloosa, Ala. The bill awaits House action.

A yes vote was to pass the bill.

Voting yes: Thomas Carper (D., Del.), Bob Casey (D., Pa.), Chris Coons (D., Del.), Frank Lautenberg (D., N.J.), Robert Menendez (D., N.J.), and Pat Toomey (R., Pa.).

Foreign aid vs. disaster aid. Voting 20-78, the Senate on Thursday defeated an amendment to offset $6.9 billion in disaster aid (HJ Res 66, above) by cutting foreign aid and other overseas programs by that amount. Foreign aid accounts for about 1 percent of the federal budget.

A yes vote backed the amendment.

Voting yes: Toomey.

Voting no: Carper, Casey, Coons, Lautenberg, and Menendez.

So just remember, all you flood victims and those trying to put your lives back together following a natural calamity, “No Corporate Tax” Pat Toomey say those funds must be offset.

He is proving to be every bit as wretched and awful as I feared he would be last year.

Aviation, highway funding. Voting 92-6, the Senate on Thursday sent Obama a bill (HR 2887) to fund federal aviation programs though January at a $5.4 billion level and highway and transit programs through March at $20 billion. The stopgap measure is designed to buy time for settling several major disagreements over aviation and highway programs.

A yes vote was to pass the bill.

Voting yes: Carper, Casey, Coons, Lautenberg, and Menendez.

Voting no: Toomey.

Guess Toomey doesn’t have to worry about the safety of our roads, planes or mass transit. Lucky him.

Pat yourselves on the back, all you lower live forms in PA who voted for this reptile.

This week, the House took up a bill to track the economic impact of environmental laws and a continuing resolution to fund the government when fiscal 2012 begins on Oct. 1. The Senate debated 2012 appropriations bills.

Finally, David Brooks felt the urge to journey into the world of athletics today, with predictable results (here, enamored with the 1910s and 1920s, apparently)…

Today’s left-leaning historians generally excoriate the amateur ideal for its snobbery and the hypocrisy it engendered. The movie “Chariots of Fire” popularized their critique. In the film, the upholders of the amateur ideal are snobbish, anti-Semitic reactionaries. The heroes are unabashedly commercial and practical. Modern and free-thinking, they pay people so they can win.

Thus did the left-wing critique welcome the corporate domination of sport.

In reponse, I give you this (here)…

Here's what Brooks says is the effect of the amateur ideal:

It forces athletes, seduced by Michael Jordan fantasies, to at least think of themselves partially as students. It forces coaches, an obsessively competitive group, to pay homage to academic pursuits. College basketball is more thrilling than pro basketball because the game is still animated by amateur passions, not coldly calculating professional interests.

That's just false.

Big-time athletes don't think of themselves as students. Coaches only care about academics inasmuch as they will be penalized if they don't meet certain standards. And even if you agree that college hoops is better than pro hoops, why should the relative thrilling-ness of March Madness have any effect on whether or not we ought to pay college athletes?

I know there are some out there who will immediately take note of college coaches such as Joe Paterno of Penn State, who put academic achievement first before athletics. Duly noted.

And I suppose that validates Brooks’ argument somewhat, but only slightly as far as I’m concerned. However, here is my question.

BoBo tells us about “Chariots of Fire,” the 1981 film depicting the struggles of the runners Eric Liddell (played by Ian Charleson) and Harold Abrahams (played by Ben Cross). In BoBo’s equation, Liddell, the “amateur ideal” is a member of the “snobbish, Anti-Semitic reactionaries” and Abrahams is “unabashedly commercial and practical.”

So if the movie is supposed to be so “anti-amateur,” how come, when the two of them actually compete in a race, Liddell wins?