Thursday Mashup (5/5/11)

(Not sure about posting for tomorrow…)

Anyone who has any familiarity with this blog knows how I feel about a certain Former President Highest Disapproval Rating In Gallup Poll History, but part of me really hopes that this post from Think Progress turns out to be wrong (citing a New York Daily News story).

I mean, I had hoped there would be something that would transcend the partisan political crap and compel Number 43 to put in an appearance at the ceremony today at the site where the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center once stood, timed after the killing of Osama bin Laden (here).

Actually, I probably would not have said anything about this had it not been for this editorial in the formerly Moonie Times, which bellowed as follows…

Unconscionable. Politicizing. A slap in the face. Those were the kinds of phrases the left deployed against President George W. Bush to suggest he was exploiting the memory of the terrorist attacks of 9/11. These same voices are now giddy with delight at the prospect of President Obama’s “mission accomplished” visit to Ground Zero on Thursday. Such hypocrisy is par for the course.

Under other circumstances the planned wreath-laying would invite less controversy. Honoring those who fell on 9/11 days after Osama bin Laden’s demise is fitting. Given the care Mr. Obama ordered be given bin Laden’s remains, it would be unseemly if the killer received more respect than his victims. Yet liberal Democrats have poisoned the well over the past decade, lending Mr. Obama’s actions the appearance of opportunistic political theater - particularly given the approach of the 2012 campaign season.

When it comes to “poison(ing) the well” on the issue of politicizing terror, I would ask that you read this post and view the video from “Countdown” titled “The Nexus of Politics and Terror,” then tell me which political party has “poisoned the well” on this issue and which one hasn’t.

Also, I came across this story in which many of the students who sat with Dubya in that Florida classroom while he read “The Pet Goat” in the midst of the 9/11 attacks recall the experience, with most seeming to be sympathetic to Number 43 given that they’re now teenagers and have had some time to reflect on the whole chain of events. I don’t begrudge them their opinions, but I still believe it was wrong from Bush to continue reading the story and not simply say to the class, “Would you please excuse me, an urgent matter has come up,” or something, and head to the nearest command and control center, where it was at the time (and I actually think it was a bit gratuitous for one of the students to take a shot at Michael Moore, who I thought offered a perfectly legitimate criticism of Bush’s actions).

We learned later, of course, that Bush acted in accordance with his “gut,” perhaps more than any other president (and just about always to the exclusion of his head), and perhaps this was just one of those times, maybe even in an effort to comfort the kids. Unhappily for us, his gut turned out to be utterly wrong so many times.

And while we’re on the subject, I came across this item, which posited the dangerous notion that, since we’ve killed bin Laden, we can just go ahead and do the same thing to Quaddafi in Libya. This is exactly the type of jingoistic, triumphalist crap that gets us into war without end and does nothing but turn people of another skin color into refugees, auger untold damage to our military, and reap more ill-gotten gain for the “pay no price, bear no burden” bunch who, according to this, are getting just about everything their way anyway.

And with that in mind, I give you this from Cal Thomas (aside from bin Laden, I suppose this is topic #1)…

The Environmental Protection Agency has prevented Shell from proceeding with its Northern Alaska (oil) drilling project after Shell reportedly invested more than $4 billion in the project. How can companies make costly investments when they are uncertain that policies allowed in one administration will still be allowed in the one that follows?

I realize this is pretty much garden variety wankery from Thomas, particularly when you consider the following as noted here…

In December, the EPA's Environmental Appeals Board ordered the EPA to revisit two permits the agency had granted to Shell Oil for oil exploration off the coast of Alaska. The board -- which was responding to an appeal from Alaska native and environmental groups -- determined that the EPA had made two errors in issuing the clean air permits and told the agency's regional office that they needed to be revised. On February 3, Shell announced that the drilling projects would be postponed until after 2011 due to the permit delays and Alaska's short (105 day) offshore drilling season.

…

Of course, even if Shell had begun its exploratory drilling in the Arctic yesterday, it wouldn't do anything to bring down the high gas prices because the wells wouldn't start producing significant amounts of oil for several years, assuming the exploration is successful.

However, I wanted to point out Thomas’ column for two reasons in particular. The first is upon the news that ExxonMobil made about $30 billion in profit here, so of course the Repug-run U.S. House voted to continue tax breaks for them and their energy-biz pals that they don’t need.

The second reason is to note the findings here of students at Hamilton College on the subject of pundit accuracy; the results are that Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd of the Times were found to be the most accurate (with liberals generally more accurate than conservatives…shocking I know, but good for the students for doing this).

And who was found to be the least accurate of the bunch? Why, Cal Thomas.

Tee, hee, hee…

Continuing, it looks like Irrational Spew Online is in high dudgeon over the recount in the Wisconsin Supreme Court contest between incumbent (and likely winner, and Walker ally) David Prosser and challenger JoAnne Kloppenburg here, criticizing the Kloppenburg campaign for contesting 18 absentee ballots from an organization of cloistered nuns because the ballots weren’t certified (with someone named Christian Schneider harrumphing because 14 of the ballots were for Prosser and 4 for Kloppenburg…I have some questions about the supposedly honest mistake that revealed, as if by magic, 7,500 votes for Prosser before the recount started from an individual in his camp with a history of funny stuff like this at voting time, as noted here).

Besides, it’s particularly humorous to read Republican criticism of the absentee ballot process when you recall the gyrations of the Norm Coleman campaign on the question of absentee ballots when he was challenged by eventual winner Al Franken in 2008 (here).

Finally, the New York Times decided to profile crackpot “historian” David Barton today here, more or less glossing over the rank distortions of this character as follows…

He is so popular that evangelical pastors travel across states to hear his rapid-fire presentations on how the United States was founded as a Christian nation and is on the road to ruin, thanks to secularists and the Supreme Court, or on the lost political power of the clergy.

Through two decades of prolific, if disputed, research and some 400 speeches a year on what he calls the forgotten Christian roots of America, Mr. Barton, 57, a former school principal and an ordained minister, has steadily built a reputation as a guiding spirit of the religious right. Keeping an exhaustive schedule, he is also immersed in the nuts and bolts of politics and maintains a network of 700 anti-abortion state legislators.

Many historians call his research flawed, but Mr. Barton’s influence appears to be greater than ever. Liberal organizations are raising the alarm over what they say are Mr. Barton’s dangerous distortions, including his claim that the nation’s founders never intended a high wall between church and state.

Yep, for my money, this article doesn’t do a whole lot of analysis of this guy, and it somehow completely forgets to mention his association with Glenn Beck (who has called Barton “the most important man in America today”), in which the two argued against the Supreme Court ruling of Stone v. Graham in 1980 while completely forgetting to note that the Court ruled as it did in respect of the “establishment” clause, which of course does not permit the federal government to make a law “respecting an establishment of religion” (here).

Oh, and did I mention that Barton is virulently anti-gay, as noted here (and once asked why we don’t “regulate” homosexuality as we do trans fats, as noted here)?

And Barton has criticized two of our founding fathers, John Adams here and Thomas Jefferson here, with (of course) crackpot renderings of actual events (Barton also once asked “Are American children poor because they only have two TVs instead of three?” here).

I will give the Times credit for linking, in the story, to this People for the American Way report on Barton and how his loopy theories have gained traction among the GOP faithful.

And I suppose it wouldn’t trouble me much if Barton continued to gain influence to the point where he emerged as the intellectual “godfather” of the wingnuts, to the point where he could lead them anywhere he wanted.

I would settle for right over the proverbial cliff.

Wednesday Stuff

Happy 70th birthday greetings hereby go out to none other than George Will (from a year ago, though the Krauthammer topic is still timely)...



...and here's a tune for the birthday boy (digging into the archives again).

Wednesday Mashup (5/4/11)

To begin, I give you the following “Foto Funny” from clownhall.com. Enjoy.

Next, leave it to former Bushie Marc Thiessen to use the occasion of bin Laden’s killing to tell President Obama to apologize to those CIA officers who were allegedly persecuted by our chief executive (here)…

In normal times, the officials who uncovered the intelligence that led us to Osama bin Laden would get a medal. In the Obama administration, they have been given subpoenas.

On his second day in office, Obama shut down the CIA’s high-value interrogation program. His Justice Department then reopened criminal investigations into the conduct of CIA interrogators — inquiries that had been closed years before by career prosecutors who concluded that there were no crimes to prosecute. In a speech at the National Archives, Obama eviscerated the men and women of the CIA, accusing them of “torture” and declaring that their work “did not advance our war and counterterrorism efforts — they undermined them.”

And in a somewhat shocking development, Thiessen actually links to a news story posted at HuffPo concerning the quite-correct decision by Obama to shut down the “high value” interrogation program. However, I’ll leave it up to you, dear reader, to find where Obama is calling out those in our intelligence services who participated in the program (which is a violation of the Geneva Convention, let’s not forget, a violation for which prosecution is mandated, though the Obama Administration has been loath to go that route, despite Thiessen’s bloviation to the contrary).

This is typical for Thiessen, though, who also said here that "America is in greater danger" than it had been during the Bush administration because of President Obama's anti-terrorism policies (which makes Thiessen look particularly silly now). And as noted here, his claims that torture made us safer under Dubya are, as usual, wrong.

Also, to invalidate Thiessen’s original argument, here and here are proof that the information that was used to hunt bin Laden was obtained through legal means, not “enhanced” methods.

Update 5/6/11: I should have noted earlier that Obama isn't going to prosecute anyone involved in waterboarding, as noted here (tells you what a rank propagandist Thiessen is that he didn't point that out).

Further, The Daily Tucker is in an uproar over the nomination of Jack McConnell to the U.S. District Court in Rhode Island (here)…

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce announced its opposition to McConnell’s nomination in May 2010, marking the first time the Chamber has ever publicly denounced a district court nominee. The Chamber points out concern with McConnell’s history as a trial lawyer. His private practice law firm represented the State of Rhode Island on two major cases, one against tobacco companies and another against lead paint companies, and benefited largely from both.

Oh yes, how awful for a law firm to actually benefit from a trial (seeing as how lawyers, you know, actually generate billable hours).

Rhode Island and many other states won their lawsuits against tobacco companies, but McConnell’s law firm procured millions of dollars from the Rhode Island lawsuit instead of passing it onto states and taxpayers.

I’m sure all judgments were awarded under the appropriate supervision of the presiding judge…give me a break!

Rhode Island lost the lawsuit against lead paint companies.

Yes…the verdict McConnell won was overturned by the state supreme court (that and a lot more is noted here).

But, before the end of the lawsuit, one paint company, DuPont, settled with McConnell’s law firm. It’s unclear the amount McConnell’s firm received in the settlement, but DuPont made a donation to a Massachusetts hospital for the law firm in an amount McConnell had previously agreed to make himself.

My gosh, can you imagine the financial reward McConnell no doubt reaped from forcing DuPont to donate to a hospital?? Appoint a special prosecutor immediately (and keep an eye out for the black helicopters!).

And of course, McConnell is also supposedly to blame for helping to draft and negotiate a $264 billion, 46-state settlement in the states' lawsuit against the tobacco industry, as noted here. From 1997 until 2000, McConnell investigated the case, filed the complaint and conducted discovery and motion in the case while representing many states, including the State of New York, through its attorneys general.

In response, I give you the following (from law.com)…

In a joint written statement, Rhode Island Sens. Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse, both Democrats, said "it is not a surprise" the Chamber would oppose McConnell "as part of their agenda."

"The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been outspoken in opposing consumer protection, campaign finance reform, the minimum wage, action on climate change, and holding polluters accountable," stated the senators. "And it is also no surprise that Rhode Islanders of all backgrounds don't agree with these outlandish claims because they know Jack McConnell to be highly qualified in every respect."

On top of that, I give you the following from Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy…

Jack McConnell has the strong support of his home state Senators, bipartisan support from those in his home state, and his nomination has been reported favorably by a bipartisan majority of the Judiciary Committee multiple times. This nomination is one of many that have been stranded on the Senate’s Executive Calendar for many months – stalled by Republican objection to proceeding to debate and vote.

...

When I came to the Senate, the President of the United States was Gerald Ford, whose statue we just unveiled in the Rotunda. We did not filibuster any of his Federal district court nominees. We did not filibuster any of President Jimmy Carter's district court nominees. We did not filibuster any of President George H. W. Bush's district court nominees.

We did not filibuster on the floor any of President Clinton's or any of President George W. Bush's nominees. Somehow the rules have changed for President Obama.

This is troubling as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, but also troubling to the Federal judiciary nationwide.

So I did a little research. Looking back over the last six decades, I found only three district court nominations—three in over 60 years—on which cloture was even filed. For two of those, the cloture petitions were withdrawn after procedural issues were resolved. For a single one, the Senate voted on cloture and it was invoked. All three of those nominations were confirmed. I trust that the nomination of Jack McConnell will also be confirmed.

From the start of President Obama’s term, Republican Senators have applied a heightened and unfair standard to President Obama’s district court nominees. Senate Republicans have chosen to depart dramatically from the long tradition of deference on district court nominees to the home state Senators who know the needs of their states best. Instead, an unprecedented number of President Obama’s highly-qualified district court nominees have been targeted for opposition and obstruction.

That approach is a serious break from the Senate’s practice of advice and consent. Since 1945, the Judiciary Committee has reported more than 2100 district court nominees to the Senate. Out of these 2100 nominees, only five have been reported by party-line votes. Only five total in the last 65 years. Four of these five party-line votes have been against President Obama’s highly-qualified district court nominees. Indeed, only 19 of those 2100 district court nominees were reported by any kind of split roll call vote at all, and five of those, more than a quarter, have been President Obama’s nominees, including Mr. McConnell.

Is the McConnell case one where a “high roller” of a particular political party is being rewarded for past services rendered? Sure it is (welcome to Politics 101).

But this time, it is supposedly different because the prerogative of a Democratic president (and an African American one at that!) is in question (and to provide some appropriate context on why this matters, I give you this; I don’t usually cite or defer to Hangin’ Judge JR, but I do when it comes to the question of the danger posed by judicial vacancies).

Finally, it seems that Mikey the Beloved found time to speak before the Newtown Business & Professional Association here (of course, nobody asked Mikey why he didn’t hold a town hall meeting during his recent congressional break to defend his atrocious vote for “Ryan Care,” or hold him to account for his “tele”-town hall, a tactic he once wrongly criticized Patrick Murphy for when the latter served in Congress…such “tele”-town halls, or something like it, are held by businesses all the time).

There’s a lot of typically ripe stuff here from Mikey The Shill, but I’ll concentrate on the following in particular…

Answering a question on energy independence, Fitzpatrick said he favors an all-in strategy that includes nuclear, oil, wind and solar.

“We need nuclear. We haven’t’ built a nuclear plant in 10 years. We haven’t built a new refinery in 30 years. We should support companies like Gamesa, but we have to do it equally. You cannot say you’re a winner and you’re a loser.

“I think Bush was wrong and I believe Obama is wrong on energy,” he said. “Bush loved the oil industry. Five years later, President Obama is in the White House. He denigrates the oil industry and all the tax rates are for wind and solar. And I’m as green as the next guy, but there’s no way to power this country on wind and solar.

“We need an all-in strategy,” he said.

Oh yes, President Obama denigrates the oil industry; that’s why domestic oil production increased last year was at its highest level since 2003 (and I’m going to keep linking to this as long as Repugs keep lying about it).

But on the issue of Mikey supposedly being “as green as the next guy,” I give you this, telling us that he flip-flopped on drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (that remains a bad idea that would yield precious little “black crude,” not enough to make a difference at the pump, while risking truly catastrophic environmental damage) and voted against investing in cleaner energy.

Also…

Fitzpatrick voted to fundamentally rewrite our national mining policy by ending a decade-long congressional ban on the sale of public lands to mining companies. These lands, which are currently used for recreation, wildlife, fisheries or regional drinking water, could now be sold without public input or environmental review, and Americans who now enjoy them could see them privatized and closed. The lands could even be used for real estate development or other purposes (Roll Call #601).

Fitzpatrick voted against requiring federal agencies to identify the environmental impacts of their programs on minority and low-income populations and to develop policies for implementing their programs in a nondiscriminatory manner (Roll Call #130).

Fitzpatrick voted to cut discretionary spending on the environment and natural resources by $2.85 billion, more than 9 percent below the previous year's levels. By 2010, funding levels for these programs would be 21 percent below the level needed to maintain current activities. Among the hardest hit are the Land and Water Conservation Fund, as well as programs to invest in clean water infrastructure, protect oceans and coasts, and conserve agricultural lands. The resolution also allowed the Arctic Refuge to be opened up for drilling through a fast track budget reconciliation bill (Roll Call #88).

Fitzpatrick voted to waive any federal or state law in building roads, walls, fences and other barriers along U.S. borders. In addition to jeopardizing a wide array of protected federal lands, the waiver provision would deny citizens the right to appeal (Roll Call #29).

And by the way, check out in the story where Mikey says that people are paying attention to “entitlement reform,” I suppose, “for the first time in a long time”…what a snotty bastard (to say nothing of wrong).

In response, I have only this to ask:

Where are the jobs, congressman??!!

Update 5/5/11: And speaking of Mikey, he voted for this atrocity from Chris Smith also.

Tuesday Stuff

Yes, he still does Special Comments, this one about you-know-what (coming back to Current TV at 8 PM EST on 6/20, as a reminder)...



...and this has just kind of put me in the mood for something gothic, so here it is.

Tuesday Mashup (5/3/11)

I just loved the corporate media tut-tutting on display in this New York Times story from Saturday…

A group of leading Democrats, including some with close connections to the White House, are officially forming what are expected be the major outside groups to combat Republicans — and support President Obama — in the 2012 elections with help from huge donations from big money donors and corporations who will have the legal ability to stay in the shadows that Mr. Obama has previously so vocally criticized.

The groups are to be called Priorities USA and Priorities USA Action, and, as such, are modeled after the Republican groups American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS that were started with help from the strategist Karl Rove and were credited with helping greatly in the party’s takeover of the House of Representatives this year — and, it happens, with facilitating a waterfall of anonymous donations from moneyed interests in the November elections.

And of course, a quote from Jonathan Collegio of American Crossroads is provided to accuse the president of “brazen hypocrisy” (funny).

Let me ask the following questions in response, then:

Who issued that horrific ruling in the Citizens United case? That would be Supreme Court justices appointed by Republican presidents.

Who sponsored the DISCLOSE Act (which would have gone a long way towards fixing the problem created by Citizens United)? Chris Van Hollen in the U.S. House and Charles Schumer in the U.S. Senate, both Democrats.

Who opposed the DISCLOSE Act? Republicans (and the ACLU, strangely enough).

So basically, the Democrats have done a lot to try and fix the campaign finance mess created by Republicans. However, falling short of that, they are now wisely deciding to play by the same rules that had a lot to do with their midterm congressional losses last year.

Oh, and nice “analysis” by the Times to not mention Citizens United in the story (found mention in the comments) and say nothing about the DISCLOSE Act also (just another reason for humble, filthy, unkempt liberal blogger types like yours truly to exist, I suppose).

Next, before he inflicted his ultra-ridiculous blog post yesterday where he gave Obama zero credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden, J.D. Mullane propagandized as follows (here, about high gas prices and the complaints of individuals while filling up)…

I reminded several SUV drivers that President Obama, on a recent visit to Bucks County, said they had only themselves to blame for pain at the pump.

The president derided those who drive SUVs that get "8 miles a gallon," recommending they purchase more fuel efficient cars.

There’s a scant bit of truth there, but Obama didn’t blame individuals for high gas prices (just because you read it at The Heritage Foundation doesn’t make it true…usually it’s the opposite) – as noted here…

Gamesa employee Jerry Holt, who said he drives a large van to carry his big family, asked Obama if anything can be done to lower relentlessly rising gasoline prices.

Oh, the president said, we might drill for oil a bit. But lower gas prices? In a word - nope.

"(W)e can't just drill our way out of the problem," Obama said. Fuel efficient cars are the way to go, he said, which means Americans must switch to smaller cars. Some in audience applauded.

"Now, I notice some folks clapped," the president said, "but I know some of these big guys, they're all still driving their big SUVs. You know, they got their big monster trucks and everything."

Speaking directly to Holt, Obama said: "Well, now here's my point. If you're complaining about the price of gas and you're only getting eight miles a gallon, you may have a big family, but it's probably not that big. How many you have? Ten kids, you say? Ten kids. Well, you definitely need a hybrid van then."

He continued: "None of this is going to help you this week, though. So, like I said, if you're getting eight miles a gallon, you may want to think about a trade-in."

Mullane then went on to say that hybrid vans cost a minimum of 40 grand, and as I pointed out, that claim was preposterous as usual. Also, if someone particularly with even a small family is driving a vehicle that gets lousy gas mileage and they need the President of the United States to point out to them that they need to do something about that…well, I’m not sure they don’t deserve to be called out over it.

And as noted here…

“Any claim that my administration is responsible for gas prices because we've, quote/unquote, ‘shut down’ oil production -- any claim like that is simply untrue. It might make for a useful sound bite, but it doesn't track with reality.”

The president said that he will encourage offshore oil exploration and production as a way to reduce the nation’s reliance on imports, as long as it’s safe and responsible, something he said he learned from the oil disaster in the Gulf just under one year ago.

“Lately we've been hearing folks saying, well, you know, the Obama administration, they put restrictions on how oil companies operate offshore. Well, yes, because we just spent all that time, energy and money trying to clean up a big mess. And I don't know about you, but I don't have amnesia; I remember these things. And I think it was important for us to make sure that we prevent something like that from happening again.”

He added that the administration is “pushing” the oil industry to take advantage of the” tens of millions” of acres of leases where they’re not producing, by providing better incentives to promote “responsible development.”

As the national average of a gallon of gas hitting $3.58 this week, the president noted that a long line of presidents before him have promised the same things – mentioning the politics of the moment that tends to takeover when gas prices rise.

“Remember, it was just three years ago that gas prices topped $4 a gallon. I remember because I was in the middle of a presidential campaign,” the president said, “because we were at the height of political season, you had all kinds of slogans and gimmicks and outraged politicians. They were waving their three-point plans for $2 a gallon gas. You remember that, ‘drill, baby, drill,’ and we were going through all that. And none of it was really going to do anything to solve the problem. There was a lot of hue and cry, a lot of fulminating and hand-wringing, but nothing actually happened. Imagine that in Washington.”

Gas prices go up in the spring, and if we’re lucky, they go down in the fall. Year after year after year.

A concept like that is so simple that I think even J.D. can comprehend it.

Further, I happened to stumble across the following ripe stuff from Mona Charen at clownhall.com (here – another “Terra! Terra! Terra!” replay upon bin Laden’s death)…

In those harrowing first days and weeks after the 9/11 atrocity, Americans were traumatized -- but also bewildered. What vicious hatred was this? Who was this new and terrifying enemy? What could possibly motivate people to sacrifice their lives for the honor of killing innocent American civilians -- and cause thousands of others to cheer mass murder?

Naturally, some Americans couldn't resist the temptation to ride their own hobbyhorses. We had it coming, said the late Rev. Jerry Falwell, for tolerating abortion and gay unions. (Falwell later apologized.) On the left, a veritable chorus of "blame the victim" analysis explained that America's crimes had driven our enemies to terrorism. The Nation magazine declared that America was "the world's leading rogue state."

Noam Chomsky offered his own twist, calling the U.S. the world's chief "terrorist state." Michael Moore, who held a seat of honor at the Democratic National Convention in 2000, offered that we shouldn't be surprised by the attack because "we have orphaned so many children ... with our taxpayer-funded terrorism."

For the record, here is the full quote from Moore along with some others:

“We abhor terrorism - unless we're the ones doing the terrorizing. We paid and trained and armed a group of terrorists in Nicaragua in the 1980s who killed over 30,000 civilians. That was OUR work. You and me. Thirty thousand murdered civilians and who the hell even remembers!”

“We fund a lot of oppressive regimes that have killed a lot of innocent people, and we never let the human suffering THAT causes to interrupt our day one single bit.

We have orphaned so many children, tens of thousands around the world, with our taxpayer-funded terrorism (in Chile, in Vietnam, in Gaza, in Salvador) that I suppose we shouldn't be too surprised when those orphans grow up and are a little whacked in the head from the horror we have helped cause.”

And while OBL is turning into shark food, let’s not forget that we did a lot to make him into what he turned out to be in the end, as noted here (nice to not repeat that same mistake).

In addition, I give you the following from The Weakly Standard (here)…

The Wall Street Journal editorializes on the latest activities of Kathleen Sebelius, President Obama’s secretary of Health and Human Services. Sebelius has decided effectively to tell the elderly CEO of Forest Labs to get a new job. The Journal's editors write:

“HHS this month sent a letter to 83-year-old Forest Labs CEO Howard Solomon, announcing it would henceforth refuse to do business with him. What earned Mr. Solomon the blackball? Well, nothing that he did—as admitted even by HHS….

“This is a threat to every health CEO in America. If Forest wants to continue to sell its drugs to Medicare, Medicaid and the Veterans Administration — the biggest buyers of pharmaceuticals — it will have to change management. Losing the federal government as a customer is potentially crippling to a drug company.

Now before we shed a tear for that elderly, 83-year-old Howard Solomon, CEO of Forest Labs (and how dare that mean Kathleen Sebelius actually hold a CEO in the pharma biz accountable), consider that his company is guilty of the following, as noted here…

• 1997: The FDA declares that Forest’s Levothroid thyroid disorder product was an unapproved drug and that the company would need to seek FDA approval to continue selling it. Although the drug had been on the market for decades, no company had actually proved its safety and effectiveness to the FDA.
• 2001: The FDA gave Forest until this year to get an approval for legal sales of Levothroid. Forest continued to sell its drug.
• Jan. 11, 2002: Forest received a letter from FDA indicating that the agency will not recommend approving Forest’s drug.
• Sometime in January 2002: At a meeting with the FDA, Forest executives are warned that there would be no more warnings about sales of Levothroid and that the agency will pursue legal action.
• March 29, 2002: The FDA writes to Forest that the company’s proposed remedies for Levothroid are inadequate.
• April 18, 2002: Forest “decided internally not to comply with the Guidance’s phase-down schedule,” according to the criminal charges.
• May - July 2003: Forest “dramatically increased its manufacture of Levothroid” by offering customers special terms for bulk orders of several months’ supply of Levothroid.
• Aug. 7, 2003: The FDA sends a warning letter addressed to Solomon: “Our investigators determined that you have failed to obtain an approved application and have made a deliberate decision not to follow the agency’s gradual phase-out plan,” it states. Solomon is ordered to stop making Levothroid.
• Aug. 8 and 9, 2003: Forest directs its factory staff to work overtime until 1 a.m. filling the remaining bulk orders for Levothroid. The workers had to override the computer system to get the job done, and worked on Levothroid to the exclusion of the company’s other drug orders. The company made special arrangements for extra trucks to pick up the bulk order, according to the feds.

(And you know it was bad if Dubya and his pals actually had to do some government oversight for a change.)

This tells us more about Levothroid, the condition for which it is prescribed, and its side effects.

If Solomon truly knew nothing of what his company did in marketing the drug (which I don’t believe), then he deserves to be fired for incompetence (of course, he’ll probably end up bailing with a cushy “parachute”); in the “through the looking glass” world of The Weakly Standard and the Murdoch Street Journal (where the column today originated), however, it is nothing but a “big gumint power grab” for HHS Secretary Sebelius to look out for those who would be done harm by Solomon and his company’s negligence.

Finally, as a Roman Catholic, I know it is cause for celebration that Pope John Paul II was beatified on Sunday May 1st (not sure why Robert Mugabe was allowed to attend the festivities, though, as noted here).

However, I have a question; given that “May Day” was a source of pride for the Communist regime the pope opposed most of his adult life, couldn’t they have flipped the calendar a little more and found another more appropriate date instead?

Monday Stuff

In case anyone hasn't noticed, our corporate media is already starting to spin the story of bin Laden's killing along the lines of "well, he was just a figurehead at this point"...

And Barney Frank asks a really good question here about Obama supposedly finishing the work of Dubya, or whatever...Clinton tried to kill bin Laden in the '90s and didn't get him: does anyone seriously think that, had Dubya bagged him somehow, he and his crew would have said they were finishing the work of Clinton, or whatever? Hell no - they'd rub Clinton's face in it forever...



...and I don't know what "base" Joe Scar is referring to here, but I'm sure there were plenty of Obama supporters gathered at Ground Zero and in front of the White House last night (his comment about "ideological leanings" illustrates what Frank is talking about)...



...and let's not forget that Obama got done what he said he'd do here...



...and as all of this played out, this song kept running around in my head; there are times when I imagine still seeing Don Havlish emptying his cart and paying for groceries at McCaffrey's Supermarket.

More OBL Fallout (updates)

Some interesting (but thoroughly unsurprising) pundit reactions to the death of bin Laden…

J.D. Mullane: A good day for America, and President Obama's job approval ratings should get a ten point bump shortly -- until the national jobs report arrives on Friday (here).

Andrew Malcolm (here) creates a narrative from an anonymous “career soldier” who says that “it was that such an inherently complex military team operation was being framed by Obama aides to steer way too much credit to the spectators in the White House and away from the unidentified operatives and their vast military support network.”

And of course, former Iran-Contra criminal Elliott Abrams said here that “It is therefore unfortunate that Mr. Obama seems to want more than that fair share the American people will naturally and rightly give him. His remarks last night were far too much laced with words like “I met repeatedly,” “at my direction,” and “I determined,” trying to take personal credit for the years of painstaking work by our intelligence community. Mr. Obama might have noted that this work began under President Bush, but as usual he did not.”

Uh, I wouldn’t be too quick to give Dubya credit for much of anything on this occasion given this (though Abrams, Malcolm and Mullane are reading straight from the playbook of these jackasses also).

Even at a moment like this, they cannot give President Obama a speck of credit.

I genuinely detest these people.

And by the way, if you have American flags, today is a particularly good day to fly them.

Update: Here is more right-wing unreality on this (and by the way, of all of the praise unjustly heaped on Dubya - absolutely beyond belief - at least Rummy, of all people, "walked back" his comments a bit here).

Update 5/4/11: And of course, Rummy has now "walked back" his original "walk back" here (still hard to comprehend that we were actually ruled by these fools and frauds for eight miserable years).

Rot In Peace, OBL

Years ago, I said that I didn't want to see this character's face again unless he was dead. Now, thank God, that day has arrived (here).

Congratulations to everyone in our military and intelligence services, particularly for those who carried out the raid that killed him, as well as any overseas partners who may have provided intelligence.

Now, May 1st will be remembered as "Mission Accomplished" for real.

Update 5/2/11: I think this provides some important context.

Sunday Stuff

Oh, and happy eighth "Mission Accomplished" day (as noted here)...



(And in response to this, I have only to say the following...well done, if it turns out to be true. Now, let's get the hell out of Afghanistan!)

...and Obama is trying to "deactivate" weapons? What, is he in possession of a Klingon death ray or something? (here)...



...also, for what it's worth, Citizen Kane premiered 70 years ago today (for the benefit of you old movie buffs)...



...and I suppose that makes this tune appropriate (have to crank the volume a bit).

Friday PM Stuff

(Not sure about posting early next week, by the way...)

Five years ago, Stephen Colbert hosted the White House Press Club Dinner and gave that ballsy performance in front of the utterly soused Dubya and his pals - nice to see he hasn't lost his touch...

The Colbert Report
Tags: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

...and democracy is a "problem," Governor "Used-To-Make-Lousy-Gateway-Computers" (here)? Anyone who still thinks the Repugs care about government (good government, anyway) is a goddamn idiot...



...and I'm a little behind on this, but it bears repeating; nice touch to scroll the names of the Repug reps, including Mikey The Beloved, who voted for "Ryan Care" at the end...



...and here's a nice, reserved, unassuming little video to begin the weekend - hope it's a good one.

Friday Mashup (4/29/11)

A lot of times, I link to a story or a post and try to refute it with another link or commentary, or both (for the benefit of anyone who hasn’t grasped that by now). However, I’m not going to do that for this story, which tells us the following…

EDINBORO — Some Pennsylvania universities should consider drilling for natural gas below campus to help solve their financial problems, Gov. Tom Corbett said today.

The Erie Times-News reported that Corbett made the suggestion during an appearance at a meeting of the Pennsylvania Association of Councils of Trustees at Edinboro University.

Corbett said six of the 14 campuses in the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education are located on the Marcellus Shale formation, part of a vast region of underground natural gas deposits that are currently being explored and extracted.

The Republican governor’s proposed budget for the fiscal year that starts in July would cut $2 billion from education and reduce aid to colleges and universities by 50 percent. The newspaper said Corbett emphasized the cuts are only proposals and that funding for education could change as he negotiates the budget with state lawmakers.

I’m not going to provide another link because I think the pig-headed ignorance of PA governor “Space Cadet” Tom’s remarks are damning enough on their own (What’s next, I wonder? A return to workhouses where the college students pressed into drilling will be served cold gruel at least twice a shift? Somewhere, I’m sure Charles Dickens is saying to himself, “They’ll never learn, will they?”).

Further (and keeping with the theme of energy, I came across this mess from someone named Steven Hayward at Power Line (so much stoo-pid here, but I’ll focus on a couple of items in particular).

Hayward’s argument, such as it is, is that The Sainted Ronnie R released the price controls on the oil industry in the ‘80s, and oil prices fell. However, what he fails to point out (as noted here) is that the price controls were already being removed in phases, a process that had begun under Reagan’s predecessor Jimmy Carter (and the price controls had been instituted to begin with under another Republican president, Richard Nixon). And prices fell in large part because demand had been reduced due to Carter’s energy policies.

Hayward also decries “infinite liberal stupidity” on this issue, ending his screed with “Keep this in mind the next time a liberal says more oil production in the U.S. won't do any good.”

Well, I don’t know if the CNN Money writer here is a “stupid liberal” or not, but I’ll believe him over Hayward any day of the week (and here is something else to keep in mind about Number 44 and energy).

Next, it seems that The Orange One and his pals are continuing to play chicken with our economy (here)…

House Republicans are considering a plan to grant only incremental increases to the federal debt limit in a bid to extract more concessions on spending cuts and budgetary reform from the Obama administration.

The idea has a champion in Grover Norquist, the conservative activist and president of Americans for Tax Reform, who says he is “building allies” in the House Republican Conference to push for extending the debt limit every two months.

“My argument is, you give them two months at a time, because each time you could get something reasonable,” Norquist told The Hill in an interview this week at his downtown offices.

And just remember that our elite corporate media will forever consider Mr. “Drown Government In A Bathtub” to be “serious.”

I already got into this here (second bullet), so I won’t repeat myself. However, I would say only this to Obama and the Senate Dems: give Boehner and his pals nothing – tell them to stop screwing around and raise the damn debt ceiling already!

And by the way, Mr. Speaker (and Mikey The Beloved), where are the bleeping jobs??!!

Update 5/16/11: Even from the grave, he still bites his party in the ass (here).

And tied to that a bit, it seems that actress Patricia Arquette lobbied Repug lawmakers in favor of more funding for the arts (here)…

“I had an amazing meeting today with the RAMS,” Arquette said, referring to the Republicans Associated for Mutual Support (RAMS), a group of current and former GOP chiefs of staff. “Obviously, [Republicans] aren’t considered the party that typically supports public arts funding, but we talked about the economic impact of creative work and intellectual property, and we were all reasonable adults, so there was a lot of mutual understanding in the room.

“As the country moves beyond a manufacturing economy, one of the areas we’re going to need to stay on top of the world is the creative economy: film, movies, music and technology. After all, isn’t the iPod a work of art?”

Well, I don’t know about that, but I’ll give Arquette points for trying anyway.

Also, as noted here...

"For that billion dollars that is put into the funding of arts and culture around this country, $29 billion comes back into the Treasury. … There is no other issue, no other area of the budget, that has that kind of return on its investment," (actor and director Kevin) Spacey said. "Countries may go to war, but it's culture that unites us and teaches and makes us better as citizens."

(I know Alec Baldwin also had something to say, but on balance, I think he’s a guy who gives Democrats a bad name.)

Concluding, filmmaker Miles Mogulescu tells us the following here…

When people attend a performance or go to a museum, they often spend additional money on restaurants, nearby shopping or parking. Artists are often the pioneers of urban revitalization. First artists move into lofts in a rundown neighborhood. Then cafes and galleries start to open. Soon middle class professionals are flocking to the area, first as consumers and then to rent and buy real estate, generating tax revenue which supports city and state governments and helps pay for things like schools and police.

It’s all about ripples, people. And funding the arts is one of the ways to create them.

Continuing, some humanoid at The Daily Tucker tells us the following here…

The left-leaning Center for American Progress published a blog post Thursday blaming Republicans for the tornadoes that devastated the South earlier this week.

“The congressional delegations of these states – Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi, Georgia, Virginia, and Kentucky – overwhelmingly voted to reject the science that polluting the climate is dangerous,” wrote CAP’s Brad Johnson. “They are deliberately ignoring the warning from scientists.”

I don’t know what is more ridiculous – the fact that the genius complaining here apparently can’t tell the difference between the blog Think Progress and the Center for American Progress (though the contributors to each frequently overlap I believe) or the fact that there is no place wherever that Johnson states point blank that the Repugs are responsible for the tornadoes (I’ll let you, dear reader, check out the linked post from the DC to see what I’m talking about…an update is here).

Is the overall denial of climate change in the region impacted by these disasters something to consider for the future? Perhaps, but that is a discussion for another day – in the meantime, to help out, click here.

Finally, I must admit that I really don’t have much of a rooting interest in the whole “Kate and ‘Wills’” show that began earlier today – very early, in this time zone – but the following from Irrational Spew Online caught my attention (the writer reflects on another wedding in Britain’s royal family)…

We watched as Charles and Diana were married in St. Paul’s Cathedral. And we were struck by the beautiful wedding sermon preached by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Every couple is a king and a queen on their wedding day, said His Grace on that memorable occasion. And, he said, a marriage is strongest when it works for others.

We loved that sermon. It has shaped our own marriage. We clipped it out of the Christian Science Monitor and taped it inside our kitchen cabinet. That yellowing copy of his Lordship’s sermon made it through two or three house moves with us. Thirty years later, undimmed by fading memories, it still motivates us. We felt like a king and queen on that day, too. No amount of tragedy for those star-struck royals diminished our gratitude for that gracious wedding message.

Bill Bennett likes to quote Chekhov: “He and she is the engine that makes fiction work.” Thirty years after Charles and Diana’s wedding, he and she still has a powerful appeal. Some 2 million people lined the route of the wedding party through London’s ancient, narrow streets, and billions more watched on television.

Of course, monarchy itself is endangered in a world they constantly tell us is flat. Her Majesty’s Government — those who actually rule Britain while the royals only reign — announced this month they are giving serious thought to changing the order of succession. Henceforth, the eldest child of a royal couple — he or she — might ascend the throne.

They might also drop the 300-year ban on any Catholic becoming a king or queen of England. My late friend Joe Barrett was forever reminding anyone who would listen that the English monarchy was legally a bigoted institution, constitutionally anti-Catholic. I always reminded him of the luck of the Irish. They at least had an alibi when the London tabloids splashed stories of yet another royal scandal.

As for Bennett, I wouldn’t trust him unless he were providing a quote about “riding a hard eight” based on this (and even that much would be problematic). And for anyone who thinks Catholicism gets a bad rap in the UK, I would suggest that they familiarize themselves with the story of Queen Mary Tudor (see page 2 here), who preceded Elizabeth I to the British throne (there was a reason why she was called “Bloody Mary,” people, and it wasn’t because of the drink…hat tip to Mrs. Doomsy, a true Anglophile, for that one).

As I say, the whole “royal wedding” show really isn’t my thing, but I still wish the two of them well. The world needs all the love it can get.

Update 4/30/11: Concerning the royals and the "birther" B.S., Dan Rather is pretty much a lone voice calling out in the media wilderness, but he's absolutely right here.

Friday AM Stuff

OWWWWW!!!! TEH STUPID!!!! IT BURNS US!!!!! (here)...



...and anyone who voted for this misogynist asshat should lose his or her right to the universal franchise.

Thursday Stuff

Ladies and gentlemen, I now give you Repug U.S. House Rep from PA Lou Barletta here, ultra supreme jag off ("oooh, you filthy unkempt liberal blogger, you're not supposed to call people names.").

Well then, what would YOU call a U.S. Congressman or woman who laughs at his constituents (and yes, I realize the guy who spoke most of the time was strident, but he happened to be absolutely right). And isn't it disgusting to watch Barletta shine those pearly whites when someone speaks with whom he disagrees (and shuffles papers disinterestedly), but can suddenly try calling the crowd to order when he hears a sympathetic question (while the Fix Noise automatons try to hush the guy who actually makes sense)...



Update 5/20/11: Wow, Barletta sure is one smiling coward based on this.

…and Dem Gov. Pete Shumlin of Vermont is my new hero; Rachel Maddow explains why…



…and happy 85th birthday to Harper Lee, one of the greatest writers of all time…



…and I know Lawrence O’Donnell teed off on Orly Taitz, and good for him, but sorry, I want to deal with stuff here that’s actually important – that said, though, as long as we’re dealing with the supposed controversy over the place our president was born, let’s not forget about this also (h/t Atrios), which brings to mind this tune.

(Yes I know, Kiss last night and Van Halen tonight – I’ll return to more normal fare tomorrow.)

Thursday Mashup (4/28/11)

With all of the attention paid to the utterly ridiculous non-issue of President Obama’s birth certificate (which the Bucks County Courier Times thought merited a 72-point, all caps and bolded headline on the front page this morning), another wingnut attack on Number 44 occurred recently that was pretty much pushed out of the spotlight, and that came from Pat “Uber Alles” Buchanan of MSNBC where he said that Obama was “affirmative action all the way” regarding his education (here – to be honest, I think that’s worse than all of this “birther” crap).

As noted here, President Obama “graduat(ed) with a Juris Doctor (J.D.) magna cum laude[36] from Harvard in 1991.” Which, of course, proves that he received an “affirmative action” education.

Sure he did.

So, what of “Take Our Country Back” Pat, then? Well, as noted here…

Buchanan was born into a Catholic family, and attended Catholic schools, including the Jesuit-run Gonzaga College High School. As a student at Georgetown University, he was in ROTC, but did not complete the program.

OK, then…

He received a master's degree in journalism from Columbia in 1962, writing his thesis on the expanding trade between Canada and Cuba.

Commendable. Oh, and by the way…

He received his draft notice after he graduated in 1960. However, the District of Columbia draft board exempted Buchanan from military service due to reactive arthritis, classifying him as 4-F. It should be noted, however, that this has come under scrutiny. Buchanan has been an avid jogger since and there are those that have questioned the validity of his exemption from military service.

I realize this doesn’t pertain directly to educational issues, but I thought it should be noted anyway.

One final note about Obama – as noted here by his former professor Lawrence Tribe, Obama was “the most impressive all-around student I’d seen in decades.”

If that means that Obama is “affirmative action,” then the program must be working wonders.

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

When Congress was debating Obamacare, the left needed cover against those who pointed out that the bill, in many places, would lead to health care rationing. The media happily provided that cover.

Liberals needed cover because the law created the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), which will be comprised of 15 “experts” who will basically decide which treatments seniors on Medicare will be allowed to get.

Oy – as noted here…

With regard to IPAB's recommendations, the law says "The proposal shall not include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums under section 1818, 1818A, or 1839, increase Medicare beneficiary cost sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and co-payments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria."

By the way, though I respect Cynthia Tucker, it aggravates me to no end when I see a media person generally sympathetic to Democrats using Republican code language when they write or broadcast something, referring to “death panels” of course.

One more note for Derek Hunter of Carlson’s Crayon Scribble Page – the writer for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution is Jay Bookman, not Booker, as referred to in the link.

Further, it looks like Sen. Mr. Elaine Chao doesn’t want the political contributions of contractors to be revealed (here).

Which is really funny when you remember that McConnell’s wife, the “Dragon Lady” herself, made it one of her missions in life when she ran the DOL (in addition to perpetuating wage theft and discriminating against workers generally) to find out everything she possibly could about union political organizing and fundraising, as noted here (more on Chao is here).

Continuing, I give you the following from Irrational Spew Online (here)…

In my experience, there are some subjects liberals don’t want to talk about very much. One is abortion. They’re happy to talk about the rights of women (as they understand those rights). But they don’t want to talk about abortion: what it is, what it does.

They don’t want to talk about Vietnam either. The war, yes; the aftermath, no. Liberals, many of them, longed for an American withdrawal, and then for a cutting off of the Saigon government. Those things came to pass. And then, hell.

I could be snarky and say that the reason most liberals supposedly don’t want to talk about Vietnam is because more of us were off fighting the war than conservatives generally (and by the way, a review of Nordlinger’s bio on Wikipedia showed no military service).

Of course, that’s if I wanted to be snarky.

The reason I’m pointing this out, though, is because Nordlinger uses this as an excuse to try and perpetuate another zombie right-wing lie; namely, that our withdrawal from Vietnam led to the rise of Pol Pot (and it tells you how disingenuous Nordlinger is that he mentions Sydney Schanberg of the New York Times in passing without giving him credit for his landmark reporting of Cambodia, aided greatly by the late photojournalist Dith Pran of course).

As noted here…

…some historians have cited the U.S. intervention and bombing campaign (spanning 1965–1973) as a significant factor leading to increased support of the Khmer Rouge among the Cambodian peasantry. Historian Ben Kiernan and Taylor Owen have used a combination of sophisticated satellite mapping, recently unclassified data about the extent of bombing activities, and peasant testimony, to argue that there was a correlation between villages targeted by U.S. bombing and recruitment of peasants by the Khmer Rouge.[15]

In his 1996 study of Pol Pot's rise to power, Kiernan argued that foreign intervention "was probably the most significant factor in Pol Pot's rise."[16]

If anyone wants to make Nordlinger’s feeble argument, then it's their right to do so, I know. But maybe the reason no Democrat/liberal/progressive/whatever wants to discuss these matters (assuming you buy Nordlinger’s argument) is because we are focused on trying to resolve our present difficulties as opposed to rearguing settled history.

Finally (speaking of protesting American foreign policy), it looks like The Man of Steel is getting ready to fly the proverbial coop (here)…

Superman is no longer an American.

In "Action Comics’" new record-breaking 900th issue, the fictional iconic super hero renounces his U.S citizenship following a clash with the federal government.

The Man of Steel, created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster in 1938, has always been recognized as a devoted American warrior who constantly fought evil, but as of Thursday, he is no longer the country's own to claim.

No word yet if Superman will change his red and blue suit, or his longtime motto "truth, justice and the American way" -- but the landmark issue is certainly sparking controversy.

You knew that, with Obama speaking out about the “birther” nonsense, we were overdue for some new “values” issue, right?

Well, with all this in mind, I thought of the following based on this…

Woke up in the morning from a bad, bad dream
Looked in the mirror and wanted to scream
Figured some coffee would put me right
While I looked out for green Kryptonite
Then I saw the paper and the headline read
The unemployed might as well drop dead
Turned on the TV news to hear the sports
They said China’s job rate is strong of course
Cornering the industry of IT
As well as “green” technology

Why’d America fluff the rich
But for all else, do not a thing
I’ll save the planet from the U.S. and oil
So watch me fly straight to Beijing

Superman, Superman, just immigrate like Superman
Superman, Superman, just an “expat” like Superman

Yeah, I know – I’ll work on it :-).

Wednesday Stuff

Hopefully back to posting tomorrow - in the meantime, here is some big news from yesterday (he also said something about improving the quality of the show's online content - it would be hard for it to be worse than what is offered by MSNBC)...



...and I would say that "Shout It Out Loud" is something you want to do in response to K.O.'s return...a guilty pleasure, I know (and by the way, Ace Frehley is 60, believe it or not).

Tuesday Stuff

Looks like that dastardly Kenyan Marxist socialist has struck again, as a segue to The Donald (here - joke)...

The Colbert Report
Tags: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

…and gosh, methinks it’s getting a little uncomfortable for those Repug life forms recently elected to the U.S. House here (my kingdom for a clip like this starring Mikey The Beloved)…



…and so how about those early presidential poll numbers anyway, huh?...

The Daily Show - Indecision 2012 - Premature Ecalculation
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

…and RIP Phoebe Snow.

Tuesday Mashup (4/26/11)

Somebody named Katie Gage over at The Hill opined as follows here…

“S.C. political leaders used words such as ‘frivolous,’ ‘shameful’ and ‘ludicrous’ Thursday to describe a National Labor Relations Board complaint against Boeing, which is building a $750 million aircraft assembly plant in the state.” This was the lead in the Associated Press story from North Charleston.

If there was any doubt whether or not the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) under the Obama administration had declared war on job creators, it was answered the other day when the “independent,” taxpayer-funded agency decided a company did not have the right to build a facility in a right-to-work state.

As noted at the bottom of her column, Gage represents the Workforce Fairness Institute, and if you can smell the Astroturf here as well as I can, then you’re “too cool for school” or you’ve been reading this blog for a little while (if the latter is true, then you have my thanks).

As SourceWatch tells us, "The (website of the Workforce Fairness Institute) lists among its 'allied groups' the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, Rick Berman's Center for Union Facts, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business." So yes, they very definitely have an axe to grind here, as it were.

Boeing basically admitted in this story that this move to South Carolina is to prevent future strikes at its plants in Washington State; as noted here, “We have two notebooks about seven inches thick of public statements by Boeing executives that were threatening our workforce and actually also threatening the workforce in South Carolina,” according to International Association of Machinists spokesperson Connie Kelliher.

And I would say that this is a reversal on the part of Boeing management, since, as noted here (upon resolution of the 2008 strike, which cost the union members an average of $7000.00 in base pay and cost the company $100 million per day in revenue and penalties with a postponement of the delivery of aircraft)...

Scott Carson, president and CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes, said “This is an outstanding offer that rewards employees for their contributions to our success while preserving our ability to compete…I thank both negotiating teams and the federal mediator for their hard work and commitment in reaching this agreement. We recognize the hardship a strike creates for everyone – our customers, suppliers, employees, community and our company – and we look forward to having our entire team back.”

Gage’s partisan hackery is the typical noise you would expect from a right-wing advocacy group that, given all that has transpired in Wisconsin under Hosni Mubarak Walker and elsewhere in this country, is trying to stab at the heart of the rights of working men and women and families just a little deeper.

Next, I happened to come across this item in BoBo’s typical mess in the New York Times today (basically, if I did nothing but gaze at my navel for an hour or so, I could probably come up with something comparable), and I thought I should say something…

Sixty-three percent of Americans oppose raising the debt ceiling; similar majorities oppose measures to make that sort of thing unnecessary.

Of course, far be it for the esteemed pundit of the Old Gray Lady to tell us that opposition to raising the debt ceiling is utter madness, as noted here (to say nothing of hypocritical as well given this...more info is here).

I suppose I should also note the cynical paradox of the “U.S.” Chamber of Commerce, which has done its part to cross-pollinate with those zany teabaggers (who of course profess to hate government spending) now calling for raising the debt ceiling here, which of course is anathema to the racist-sign-carrying-and-funny-hat-wearing bunch.

Oh, and for good measure, this tells us who is cheering on this would-be catastrophe (of course, most of them are well-kept by their corporate media puppet masters and wouldn’t feel quite the same impact of this country’s fiscal ruin as the rest of us).

In addition, I found this item at the AEI blog by someone named Kenneth P. Green (can't link directly to the post without subscribing to the AEI feed, which I do not intend to do)…

The president points to the national highway system as proof that the government can create great infrastructure, and employ people, and it did. Of course, the highway system also caused much of what vexes environmentalists and leftists today: dispersed housing; carved-up ecosystems; long-distance trucking of goods to market; greater access to what would have been land-locked natural resources; and an emphasis on driving huge RVs, or truck-towed trailers hundreds of miles for vacations. It also led to the higher rates of water pollution, soil pollution, conventional air pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions that are so despised by the environmentalists today.

Aside from pointing out once more the Pavlovian antagonism of anything pertaining to any level of the public sector by conservatives generally, I wanted to highlight this web site; yes, there are some topics listed where I have disagreement, but it’s heartening to see that there are actually some sane Republicans still out there (“non-leftists” dwindling by the minute, I’m sure) who, if nothing else, get the whole “stewards of the earth” thing, as opposed to the “fear and smear” delusional bipeds in that crowd who act as if they barely have a handful of brain cells between them.

Finally, I can’t help but laugh over the criticism aimed at President Obama for his supposed antagonism towards the religious holiday we recently celebrated (here).

In response, I thought the following words were sublime (here)…

Using the kind of personal religious language that he had once shied away from in public, Obama spoke of “the pain and the scorn and the shame of the cross” in an Easter prayer breakfast for about 150 guests and staff.

“And we’re reminded that in that moment, (Jesus) took on the sins of the world — past, present and future — and he extended to us that unfathomable gift of grace and salvation through his death and resurrection,” Obama said.

However, if you prefer something ridiculous for Easter instead, I give you the following (here).

Monday Stuff

Regarding the earlier post and that disgusting National Review cover, we didn't have to Photoshop Number 43 to communicate the message that he was a clueless idiot - as Paul Krugman says, most outside the Beltway don't consider Ryan to be "serious," but inside the Beltway...



...and yeah, I may "run out and get me some of these" too.

Monday Mashup (4/25/11)

Once more unto the breach, dear friends – to begin, I give you Former Laura Bush employee Andrew Malcolm (here – shocking that he’s actually taking a break from bashing President Obama for now)…

If the conventional mantra about California being on the forefront of the nation's political trends holds true, it's really bad news for America's taxpayers.

According to a new L.A. Times / USC Dornsife poll, a majority of Californians -- 52% to 38% -- are just fine with Democrat Jerry Brown's plan to fill the state's chronic budget deficit with $14 billion in new or renewed taxes along with cuts, as long as they get to vote on it.

This despite the recent history of waste, corruption and spending abuses in the most populous state's vast government.

This despite the state's continuing 12% unemployment rate, second-highest in the country.

This despite the weak 44% job approval rating for Gov. Brown.

Oh blah blah freaking blah, Malcolm (and by the way, Former President Highest Disapproval Rating In Gallup Poll History…your former boss’s old man…would have unilaterally invaded someone or something else for a 44 percent job approval rating).

And isn’t Malcolm’s framing here absolutely hilarious? Namely, that a tax increases poses “ominous implications” for U.S. taxpayers? And this, given the fact that, in addition to taxpayers of the Golden State who are fine with a tax increase, about 64 percent of those polled here have no problem with a tax increase on our country’s higher earners?

So, if voters favor development of clean energy, I guess that poses “ominous implications” for ExxonMobil. Or if voters think the “birther” argument is BS, that poses “ominous implications” for Donald Trump.

I’ll tell you what – as opposed to more hectoring of the L.A. Times’ journalistic mistake, I’ll merely link here once more to Professor Krugman, who rebuts Malcolm’s idiocy better than I could.

Next, Kevin Ferris of The Philadelphia Inquirer weighed in on the recent Republican candidates’ debate for the Philadelphia mayoral and city council elections (here)…

One candidate, former Democrat Karen Brown, was a no-show. Organizers said she had promised to attend but had a last-minute scheduling conflict. Given that the debate was sponsored by the Loyal Opposition, the GOP radicals who believe that political parties should try to win elections, it's not surprising that the party's candidate wouldn't show for the upstarts' event.

Ordinarily I could care less about intra-party GOP hissy fits, but it turns out that, as noted here, the so-called “Loyal Opposition” wing of the GOP is run by someone whose name should live in infamy when it comes to Repug local-area politics…

It’s a little after 8pm and Kevin Kelly is not happy. The Philadelphia Loyal Opposition leader is at the podium of last night’s Republican debate inside the German Society at 6th and Spring Garden. He says Republican City Committee-endorsed mayoral candidate Karen Brown won’t be making it, even though “she agreed to be here.” The word “cowardice” is thrown around more than once.

Kelly says he’s exchanged several phone calls and text messages with Brown. She even allegedly sent a head shot for the occasion and Kelly openly mocks someone from her campaign in attendance, sitting in a folding chair amongst the audience. “I think you got the phone information wrong,” says the Brown staffer who would leave before he could be identified.

“Don’t piss in my ear and tell me it’s raining out,” says Kelly, still from the podium. “It’s very disrespectful what you’re doing here.”

Hmmm…”cowardice,” “disrespectful”? Kind of amusing to hear this from Kelly who, as noted here, once maligned Patrick Murphy’s military service in Iraq, saying that Patrick’s claim that he risked life and limb with many, many others in our services was a “mischaracterization” (Kelly served in the Air Force in 2006, which makes his claim even more ridiculous given that Murphy served in the Army from 2003-2004).

But then again, when it comes to handicapping a political contest, it’s pretty typical of Ferris to cast his lot with a character who is almost as disreputable as he is.

That leads us to Ferris’ pundit playmate at the Inky, Smerky himself (here – the subject is the air traffic controllers nodding off)…

…what's essential is that air traffic controllers not alternate between a normal schedule and an overnight shift. Their bodies can't adjust. Better to have a dedicated night shift whose bodies can adapt to the unusual schedule.

Great idea, actually. Of course, as noted here…

The FAA budget is about to be cut again, but the only question is by how much. House Republicans have passed a bill rolling back funding to 2008 levels, while Senate Democrats have pushed through a bill that would keep funding stagnant. If recent short-term budget negotiations are an indication, the final bill will hew much more closely to Republican demands.

Like everything else in the US, air safety is subordinated to cost. That dozens of major airports across the US rely on a single air traffic controller for overnight “graveyard” shifts raises deeply troubling questions. What if this lone controller becomes physically incapacitated? What happens if an emergency arises in which one airplane must receive the full attention of the lone air traffic controller?

There is abundant evidence to suggest that sleeping on the job is the inevitable outcome of working conditions imposed on air traffic controllers.

So, Smerky, would you care to stand up to those zany teabaggers, more than a few of whom listen to your radio program and read your column I would imagine, and call for more FAA funding?

I don’t know the answer to that question of course, but the fact that our intrepid little pundit ended his column with a hosanna to The Sainted Ronnie R and what happened to the controllers under the watch of our 40th president is more than a bit of a giveaway as far as I’m concerned.

Returning to Bucks County, I wanted to highlight this recent story in the Courier Times about the negotiations between the Pennsbury School Board and the teachers in that district…

A state appointed mediator overseeing talks between the Pennsbury school board and the teachers union ended a negotiation session Thursday after two board members who had not attended previous meetings entered the room, according to district officials and a union spokesperson.

Board president Gene Dolnick called the unannounced arrival of board members Allan Weisel and Simon Campbell - who are not a part of the board's negotiation team - "disrespectful to the negotiating process and to the entire Pennsbury community."

Dolnick added "a chance to reach a settlement was derailed" by their appearance.

Campbell said that he and Weisel attended the meeting only to observe the talks and informed both parties of this intention when they arrived.

According to Lucy Walter, spokesperson for the Pennsbury Education Association, when Campbell and Weisel arrived, school board representatives asked for a caucus. At this point, she added, the PEA negotiating team left the room to accommodate the request for a caucus.

"Mr. Dolnick then asked us to leave," Campbell said Thursday. "I told him he has no legal right to ask a fellow elected official to leave the room and stop observing the process."

After meeting separately with both sides, mediator John Cairns, according PEA and district officials, announced that he was adjourning the meeting as the "structure of the bargaining session had been changed."

And timed no doubt with this result in mind, a member of Campbell’s little peanut gallery just happened to chime in with this letter to the Courier Times a day or two after the story was published.

Simon wants a strike, people. End of discussion.

Finally, I really don’t have much to say about this…

…except to note in response that it should be no surprise that I generally detest conservatives.

Happy Easter 2011

May you all have a happy and blessed Easter. If you don't observe anything, may you have a happy and blessed long weekend.