Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 6:39 PM ET, 01/26/2011

Happy Hour Roundup

By Greg Sargent

* Ed Kilgore says Obama successfully redefined the debate over government on his own terms, and maneuvered the GOP into the role of offering no governing solutions on the economy.

Also: Kilgore notes that Obama "refused to offer Republicans the cover they crave for `entitlement reform.'"

* Robert Reich applauds Obama's call for "economic patriotism," but says he should have made clear that corporate success does not necessarily translate into America's success.

* Counter-intuitive take of the day: Jonathan Schell says Obama avoided suggesting anything that risked offending his mortal ideological enemies.

* David Axelrod tells bloggers that Obama will definitely enter the gun control debate, but specifics are few and far between at this point.

* Sam Stein explains why it matters that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is throwing its weight behind Obama's infrastructure investment push.

* Marc Ambinder says the Chamber's powerful members really want access to all that infrastructure cash.

* Takedown of the day: Paul Krugman knocks around Paul Ryan, and wonders why someone given the "awesome responsibility" of responding to the President would just make things up.

* Paul Glastris on how Obama reclaimed "American exceptionalism," which was only necessary because of a massive right-wing campaign of nonstop falsehoods.

* It's all about her: Eric Kleefeld on "The Michele Bachmann Caucus."

* John Boehner skipped her speech. Perhaps he couldn't bear to watch?

* The ACLU does not approve of Obama's "pat down" gag during his speech: "violations of the Constitution are NO JOKE!"

* Civics lesson of the day: The Associated Press patiently explains to state GOP officials across the land that efforts to roll back Obama's agenda with "nullification" are unconstitutional.

* And GOP Rep. Paul Broun explains his claim that Obama is a socialist who doesn't believe in the Constitution:

"Mr. Obama believes in central government where the federal government controls everything in our lives," he said. "That's socialism."

Wow! You'd think Obama and the federal government would have been able to stop Broun from revealing their dastardly game plan.

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  | January 26, 2011; 6:39 PM ET
Categories:  Happy Hour Roundup, House GOPers, Tea Party  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Will Tea Partyers buy the constitutional amendment con?
Next: David Axelrod: "No grand repositioning"; Obama is a "progressive"

Comments

I don't get CoC. It's not like Obama just came up with public investments yesterday. He's been trying to do it for his entire Presidency.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 26, 2011 6:46 PM | Report abuse

What else is happening?

House Budget Committee making big news:

"Medicare official doubts health care law savings"

"Two of the central promises of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law are unlikely to be fulfilled... The landmark legislation probably won't hold costs down, and it won't let everybody keep their current health insurance if they like it."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hCT4GhKaleCpy570YTLr9p7nq54Q?docId=7a1abd4a6937454f90aa34acf72c9870

"Medicare actuary more confident in Paul Ryan’s ‘Road Map’ cost controls than Obama’s health law"

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/26/medicare-actuary-more-confident-in-paul-ryans-%e2%80%98road-map%e2%80%99-cost-controls-than-obamas-health-law/#ixzz1CBkPk6qh

Posted by: sbj3 | January 26, 2011 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Updated with new links above

Posted by: sargegreg | January 26, 2011 6:53 PM | Report abuse

One thing to keep a close eye on is how the austerity program in England is working out. So fa, it's not. Their economy has stalled and contracted since their budget slashing.
------------------
"Britain’s Economy Stalls, in Setback for Cameron"

LONDON — Prime Minister David Cameron’s coalition government received a sharp political jolt on Tuesday with the release of official figures showing that Britain’s economy contracted slightly in the last three months of 2010, prompting some economists to warn that the country was at increased risk of a “double dip” recession after four consecutive quarters of modest growth.

While the economic figures are subject to revision, the 0.5 percent shrinkage fell well short of the 0.5 percent growth many economists had predicted. And the wider message seemed clear: The slowdown placed the Cameron government’s $128 billion, four-year program of spending cuts and tax increases — policies on which it has staked its survival — at sharply heightened political risk.

The net effect of the new figures was to blunt the government’s momentum and to recast — at least until economic growth resumes — the role Britain has played in the global debate about the best way back to prosperity.

Under Mr. Cameron, Britain has led the way in embracing fiscal retrenchment, while President Obama’s administration has warned Britain and other European countries that they are at risk of tipping their economies, and possibly the Western world’s, back into recession by cutting deficits too soon and too steeply.

...

The government responded by placing blame for the contraction on the economic disruptions caused by the severe snowstorms that hit Britain last month, the country’s coldest December in 100 years. That message offered little cheer to the markets, especially since the Office for National Statistics, in announcing the figures for October to December, said the economic growth in the fourth quarter would have been flat even without the storms.

But George Osborne, the chancellor of the Exchequer, said any retreat on the measures, the harshest adopted in any major Western economy, would endanger the “international credibility” the policies had earned Britain in global financial markets.

His stay-the-course approach did little to calm nerves in the markets. “This is a stunningly bad outcome,” said Howard Archer, an economist at IHS Global Insight in London. “Given that the contraction in G.D.P. in the fourth quarter occurred even before the fiscal tightening had really kicked in, it reinforces already serious concern over the economy’s ability to grow significantly in the face of the spending cuts and tax hikes.”

The immediate impact of the new figures was a fall in the pound’s value against all major currencies including the dollar, and a retreat in Britain’s leading share index."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/world/europe/26britain.html

Posted by: suekzoo1 | January 26, 2011 6:56 PM | Report abuse

Krugman (Article cited above) : So let’s see: to avoid cuts in benefits to seniors, we must … cut benefits to seniors.

Ryan (Today, in House Budget Cmtt): Let me just say a couple of things just to clear the air. Under my proposal, Medicare spending — as a percent of GDP — never goes down from where it is today. It’s actually higher at the end of the window. Point number one. Point number two: We grandfathered the existing population — at current Medicare growth rates. The short-term savings are about half of what PPACA is. This scenario [Van Hollen] is talking about applies to people 54 an below. People 55 and above grow at current rates, unlike the current law we just now went through. That’s another point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrQYANUFVUo&feature=player_embedded

Posted by: tao9 | January 26, 2011 6:58 PM | Report abuse

Another piece from Greg trying to make the case to IGNORE ELECTION RESULTS


The truth is we had an election- Liberalism and Obama have been REJECTED

Bait and Switch has been REJECTED


STOP WHINING


"seized control of the debate" Obama WORKS FOR the American People.

We had the "debate" - its called an ELECTION.

The liberals are completely out of their minds. Obama deserves what every employee gets when they don't do what they were hired to do: OBAMA DESERVES TO BE FIRED, ALONG WITH ALL THESE OTHER LIBERALS.

This entire debate took place last summer and fall - Obama and the liberals lost.

Obama LOST the election and lost the majority in the House of Representatives.

Two years from now there won't be much of a debate - the American People want Obama OUT and the American People want to TAKE BACK THE SENATE FROM THESE BAIT-AND-SWITCH CLOWNS.

The Obama Circus has been cancelled -


This American government is RUN BY THE PEOPLE, NOT THE LIBERALS. Get used to it.

The liberals are getting kicked out - at least for a generation. Soon the liberals will only have the most gerrymandered districts. Perhaps the American People can figure out a way after 2020 to take away the gerrymandered districts from the liberals as well.


THE OBAMA CIRCUS HAS BEEN CANCELLED.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 26, 2011 7:03 PM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON (AP) — Two of the central promises of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law are unlikely to be fulfilled, Medicare's independent economic expert told Congress on Wednesday.

The landmark legislation probably won't hold costs down, and it won't let everybody keep their current health insurance if they like it, Chief Actuary Richard Foster told the House Budget Committee. His office is responsible for independent long-range cost estimates.

Foster's assessment came a day after Obama in his State of the Union message told lawmakers that he's open to improvements in the law, but unwilling to rehash the health care debate of the past two years. Republicans want to repeal the landmark legislation that provides coverage to more than 30 million people now uninsured, but lack the votes.

Foster was asked by Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., for a simple true or false response on two of the main assertions made by supporters of the law: that it will bring down unsustainable medical costs and will let people keep their current health insurance if they like it.

On the costs issue, "I would say false, more so than true," Foster responded.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hCT4GhKaleCpy570YTLr9p7nq54Q?docId=7a1abd4a6937454f90aa34acf72c9870

Posted by: tao9 | January 26, 2011 7:03 PM | Report abuse

"No pat downs"...until someone tries to blow up a communter train....

There were a few things in his speech that seemed a little off-tempo (I didn't watch it, just read it).

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | January 26, 2011 7:04 PM | Report abuse

Obama successfully redefined the debate over government on his own terms, and maneuvered the GOP into the role of offering no governing solutions on the economy.

___________________


What PLANET are you on?

Obama and the liberals LOST the election.


Are you PRETENDING THE REPUBLICANS DON'T HOLD THE HOUSE ???


This statement is hogwash - "Obama the Ostrich"

/

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 26, 2011 7:05 PM | Report abuse

Oops, sbj3 got there 1st.

Well, that's what I get for using Bernie L posting techniques.

Posted by: tao9 | January 26, 2011 7:07 PM | Report abuse

BREAKING NEWS


I supposed Greg would rather leave this off

The Congressional Budget Office puts Obama's defict at 1.48 TRILLION DOLLARS NOW.

In addition, the idea that Obama's health care plan "would save money" has been DEBUNKED BY THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE.


Obama's health care deficit CHASM is already beginning to open up.


.


Posted by: RainForestRising | January 26, 2011 7:10 PM | Report abuse

Anyone noticed the silence from the frozen reaches of Wasilla?

Last facebook entry Jan 17. Not even a tweet from our girl since same day.

A google news check on "Palin" finds multiple items on Bristol before we get to anything on Sarah.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 26, 2011 7:13 PM | Report abuse

"Letting the tax cuts expire for those earning more than $250,000 would close just 5 percent of the budget deficit over the next decade. The $736 billion price tag is a fraction of the cost $21 trillion cost of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid over the decade."

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/258115/cbo-baseline-shows-staggering-debt-brian-riedl

Posted by: sbj3 | January 26, 2011 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Chuck

I thought that too.

I read the speech on the internet - much different.

Overall, the speech was flat. There was little about actually how to get the economy out of the mess.


This emphasis that Obama always seems to have that he wants to do something UNPRECENTED, or like Sputnik, or like the Gettysburg Address - this is getting ridiculous - silly and Obama is risking making a complete fool out of himself.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 26, 2011 7:15 PM | Report abuse

ZOMG. 3 hrs. And 1 mile. 27 miles 2 go.

This is clearly Obama's fault.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | January 26, 2011 7:18 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA LIED OBAMA LIED OBAMA LIED


CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS REVEAL OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE LIES

WASHINGTON – Two of the central promises of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law are unlikely to be fulfilled, Medicare's independent economic expert told Congress on Wednesday.

The landmark legislation probably won't hold costs down, and it won't let everybody keep their current health insurance if they like it, Chief Actuary Richard Foster told the House Budget Committee. His office is responsible for independent long-range cost estimates.

Foster was asked by Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., for a simple true or false response on two of the main assertions made by supporters of the law: that it will bring down unsustainable medical costs and will let people keep their current health insurance if they like it.

On the costs issue, "I would say false, more so than true," Foster responded.

As for people getting to keep their coverage, "not true in all cases."

____________


Where are all the people who were so concerned about the TRUTH when Bush was in office - carrying signs Bush Lied, Bush Lied Bush Lied ???


So if those people are sooooo concerned about the truth, it would be logical to see those same people carrying OBAMA LIED Obama Lied Obama Lied signs.


That would be the bipartisan, post-partisan thing to do.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 26, 2011 7:23 PM | Report abuse

You've got your "political" events and then you've got your "political" events...

"A few months ago, ThinkProgress launched a series of investigations into relationship of the right flank of the Supreme Court — Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Antonin Scalia — with corporate donors and Republican operatives. In October, we revealed, through a document obtained from Koch Industries, that Scalia and Thomas had attended secret right-wing fundraisers organized by Charles Koch to coordinate political strategy. ThinkProgress has now discovered more events attended by conservative Supreme Court justices.

The Manhattan Institute, funded by major corporations like CIGNA, Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, is a conservative think tank in New York that produces right-wing policy papers as well as sponsoring speeches for judges and Republican politicians. In 2008, Justice Thomas headlined the Manhattan Institute’s Wriston Lecture; last October, Justice Alito was the headline speaker for the same event. According to the Manhattan Institute’s website, an individual must contribute between $5,000 to $25,000 to attend the Wriston Lecture. “To be invited to the Wriston Lecture,” Debbie Ezzard, a development official at the Manhattan Institute told ThinkProgress, “you have to give $5,000.”

During the question and answer period of the Wriston Lecture, Roger Hertog, a major neoconservative donor, asked Alito if he would attend the 2011 State of the Union. Ironically, Alito — while speaking at a political fundraiser filled with powerful conservative donors — said he would avoid the event because it has “become very political”:"

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/26/alito-thomas-singer/

But we're sure that Alito would have avoided the SOTU even if it was a Republican president giving the speech, yes?

Posted by: bernielatham | January 26, 2011 7:24 PM | Report abuse

To ALL who ask for facts

CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS REVEAL OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE LIES


WASHINGTON – Two of the central promises of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law are unlikely to be fulfilled, Medicare's independent economic expert told Congress on Wednesday.

The landmark legislation probably won't hold costs down, and it won't let everybody keep their current health insurance if they like it, Chief Actuary Richard Foster told the House Budget Committee. His office is responsible for independent long-range cost estimates.

Foster was asked by Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., for a simple true or false response on two of the main assertions made by supporters of the law: that it will bring down unsustainable medical costs and will let people keep their current health insurance if they like it.

On the costs issue, "I would say false, more so than true," Foster responded.

As for people getting to keep their coverage, "not true in all cases."


____________________________

Go ask Obama for his facts.


Seems like Obama's health care plan was passed on a TRAIL OF LIES.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 26, 2011 7:34 PM | Report abuse

Anyone noticed the silence from the frozen reaches of Wasilla?

Last facebook entry Jan 17. Not even a tweet from our girl since same day.

A google news check on "Palin" finds multiple items on Bristol before we get to anything on Sarah.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 26, 2011 7:13 PM
=========================================

That's your beat, bernie; stay right on it. If there's any Palin news, we'll count on you to keep us up to date.

Posted by: Brigade | January 26, 2011 7:37 PM | Report abuse

its hard to call for a reaction like we had to sputnik, without an actual sputnik. When is China's moon shot? Would that be enough to jolt us out of complacency?

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 26, 2011 11:22 AM
===========================================

How much money did we owe the Soviet Union when it launched sputnik?

Posted by: Brigade | January 26, 2011 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Bernie

Sarah Palin is making a great deal of money with her reality show - did you forget about that?

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 26, 2011 7:43 PM | Report abuse

We hear incently about how many Americans pride themselves on hard work, innovation, integrity, all of which is true. But often Conservatives seem to be saying many, if not most, Liberals are just a government check away from giving up their job and living off of unemployment checks, welfare and food stamps. Which is it?

Posted by: ashotinthedark | January 26, 2011
=======================================

Actually, it's both---but I had to fix it for you.

Posted by: Brigade | January 26, 2011 7:44 PM | Report abuse

Taking the mantle of "simplifying the tax code" was a great move by Pres. Obama. Dems have been trying for years to close loopholes and end uneeded tax breaks, all of which get tagged by the GOP as a "tax hike". By closing all the loopholes and breaks as a way to "simplify" the tax code means less resistance - esp. if it's the way he spelled out. Close every loophole and end uneeded breaks, then lower the actual tax rate itself. You could likely bring in more revenue while still say the tax rate dropped.

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | January 26, 2011
==========================================

Even though he was responding to another post on the flat tax, RUK could just as easily have been explaining why BBQ's hopes are likely misplaced: "It's pretty simple actually. The reasons are called lobbyists and special interests."

Government controls behavior, shapes society, picks winners and losers, and extorts campaign contributions via manipulation of "the tax code." Politicians aren't likely to give up that gravy train anytime soon---unless they can find a more corrupt way to achieve the same ends.

Posted by: Brigade | January 26, 2011 7:55 PM | Report abuse

I was shocked to see some liberals take a pot shot at Pres. Obama for mentioning that the upper-rate cuts should end (since he just signed their extention)...it signaled to me that he was being sincere when he said that he intended to fight against extending them again in 2012. He's already making the case against them...getting started early as opposed to last time, where Dems let themselves get boxed in.

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | January 26, 2011
-------

It also emphasizes a difference between the two parties that distinctly favors Democrats. Polls showed voters wanted the tax cuts at the top to expire. Why wouldn't you bring that up every chance you get?

Posted by: ashotinthedark | January 26, 2011
-------

Some people are so dumb, you have to wonder how they survive in the world. Obama campaigned relentlessly against extending the tax cuts for the top bracket. The ink's not yet dry from his signature on a bill extending them, and we're already seeing liberals go back under the "hope and change" ether, babbling about how shrewd it was of Obama to do what they had demanded that he not do. By all means, get started early. Two years wasn't nearly enough time to deal with whether or not to extend the Bush tax cuts.

Posted by: Brigade | January 26, 2011 8:05 PM | Report abuse

As a furiner, this is a question I've reflected on a fair bit myself. Yglesias wonders how the American psyche will react...

"When America Is Number 2

I don’t begrudge a president making a formal speech the chance to engage in some meaningless nationalism, but something I thought was really striking about Barack Obama’s speech last night was how utterly unprepared American political culture is for the idea of a world in which we’re not Top Nation. And yet the reality is that while we’re the world’s largest economy today, and will continue to be so tomorrow, we really just won’t be forever. The Economist predicts that China will pass us in 2019. Maybe it’ll be 2018 or maybe it’ll be 2022.

But it will happen. And fairly soon. And it’ll happen whether or not we reform education or invest in high speed rail or whatever. And the country doesn’t seem prepared to deal with it."

Posted by: bernielatham | January 26, 2011 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Anyone notice that Ethan vanished?


The people who paid him may have become horrified that he participated in the smear campaign against Sarah Palin and the Tea Party - falsely accusing them of mass murder.

JUST wait until the Obama Chicago office opens, and all those Obama paid trolls start to invade this place.


YOU think this blog is a shantytown of Cillizza refugees now - just wait.

It will be non-stop Cao-sound-alikes on shifts.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 26, 2011 8:11 PM | Report abuse

Old news for a birther, the governor said he attended social functions with the Obamas having the infant Barack in tow.

Posted by: jameschirico | January 26, 2011
===================================

That's easy enough to believe. I've heard Marilyn and Elvis attended those same social functions. Of course, it's been reported that Barack's mother enrolled for classes at Washington State University a couple of weeks after he was born. But Neil Abercrombie is a liberal, and liberals don't lie---do they?

Posted by: Brigade | January 26, 2011 8:20 PM | Report abuse

Anyone like very cool pranks?

http://www.boingboing.net/2011/01/22/elaborate-televised.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+boingboing/iBag+(Boing+Boing)

Posted by: bernielatham | January 26, 2011 8:26 PM | Report abuse

Bernie:

""Last facebook entry Jan 17. Not even a tweet from our girl since same day.""

Girl? Really Bernie?

BTW, she tweets, and you attack her. She doesn't tweet, and you attack her. I think your wife should be concerned. You are a tad obsessed.

""But we're sure that Alito would have avoided the SOTU even if it was a Republican president giving the speech, yes?""

Let's hope so. And let's hope the rest of the justices follow his lead.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 26, 2011 8:27 PM | Report abuse

h/t Friedersdorft at Sully's blog

Posted by: bernielatham | January 26, 2011 8:28 PM | Report abuse

something I thought was really striking about Barack Obama’s speech last night was how utterly unprepared American political culture is for the idea of a world in which we’re not Top Nation.
------------------------------------------------------------------
This has occurred to me too. The closer China nips on our heels the less we Americans seem to feel the nips, or at least to act as if we do. The way we will stretch our lead is to do what we have always done, and that is to improve our education and renew our edge on innovation. And yet, this seems almost the last thing we are prepared to back. Instead, we seem convinced that we will either save our way to prosperity or inflate our way to prosperity, neither will have long term positive impact.

While it doesn't make sense to indiscriminately spend our way to prosperity either, wise investing pays off. The business of America has said to be business, so I think an anology based on business is in order.

Just like a business must be concerned about its competitors, it will not stay ahead of #2 by saving on rent and office supplies. The company must build an innovative edge that finally translates into revenues to keep a comfortable lead. They do that by investing in technology: engineering or production or facilities or acquisitions.

We need to transform our thinking into an investment mode, rather than just a cutting mode. There is nothing wrong with cutting expenses, but that alone will not be enough to keep America competitive in the long run. Investing is not just another word for overspending. It is the only smart thing to do.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 26, 2011 8:31 PM | Report abuse

Some of the deficit will take care of itself if we can get back to full employment. And yes, I understand that is going to take time. But in the meantime, we can't do nothing.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | January 26, 2011
======================================

If we make moves to stimulate the economy, we will spur hiring in the private sector, and the increased tax revenues from the resulting boom will more than compensate for the "expense" to government and the deficit may actually be reduced? Gee, don't let DDAWD hear you say anything like that. It sounds too Republican. Next thing you know, someone will be touting targeted tax breaks.

Posted by: Brigade | January 26, 2011 8:31 PM | Report abuse

Some people are so dumb, you have to wonder how they survive in the world.

Posted by: Brigade | January 26, 2011 8:05 PM | Report abuse

---

Must. Not. Swing. At. 3 - 0 Pitch. Down. The. Middle.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | January 26, 2011 8:32 PM | Report abuse

As an older American who has endured several hard times in our country's past, it was offensive for a guy that looks like he just got his big boy pants to address our nation and tell us that our country is doomed.

Posted by: Beeliever | January 26, 2011
=======================================

He didn't really say we're doomed---only that we have some challenges ahead. And the "big boy pants" snark is no way to talk about your President.

Posted by: Brigade | January 26, 2011 8:34 PM | Report abuse

But, for the nation, significant investment also means more jobs, greater income, and --think really hard now--increased revenue for the government to use to pay off the debt.

You teabaggers... you want to run the nation, but don't have a f'ing clue what you're doing.

Posted by: converse | January 26, 2011
========================================

Now, if we can just figure out some way to get the private sector to make the investment, instead of having the government borrow more money from China---oh, but wait, that would involve perhaps a "significant investment" in the form of tax incentives. Not liberal enough!

Posted by: Brigade | January 26, 2011 8:38 PM | Report abuse

"There were a few things in his speech that seemed a little off-tempo (I didn't watch it, just read it)."

Chuck:

I watched most of it and I thought it was flat. On both substance and rhetoric, it was less fearful than I expected but that is hardly reassuring. There are enormous openings to be filled by the President's budget proposal. For a moment last night I thought we were going to get one of Candidate Obama's inspirational barnburners but it just fizzled into a triangulated crouch. Obama still doesn't realize how much power he has available to him. By the time he does it may not be there.

Posted by: wbgonne | January 26, 2011 8:38 PM | Report abuse

ashot: "I do worry about the brain drain that has occurred here in the past several years"

YES!

Posted by: suekzoo1 | January 26, 2011
=======================================

Years hell; just in the last couple weeks. First ethan, now liam. A brain drain, but somehow the average IQ on the blog has actually increased in their absence.

Posted by: Brigade | January 26, 2011 8:41 PM | Report abuse

Where's RUK? I'm ready for my evening Jimmy Carter history class. I saw RUK today giving us the ole Dick Cheney line that the deficits really aren't all that important in the eternal scheme of things. Relax, 12Bar.

Posted by: Brigade | January 26, 2011 8:47 PM | Report abuse

@Scott - Yeah, the sudden disappearance of the three justices with a Dem president speaking is one of those odd and inexplicable coincidences. The moon travelling through the house of Aries, perhaps.

As regards Palin...attack? You're a sensitive fellow. But if it weren't obvious, the point of my post was to underline that her trajectory is precisely as I have been explaining for some months it was bound to be. She has lost the support of the Republican establishment because her utility has diminished to the point where she is an embarrassment and a certain electoral disaster if she remained with the prior profile.

The same thing is now happening with Bachmann but at light speed (Boehner didn't watch because he had better things to do, etc) as the election draws near.

But what the heck. Just because I tell you what is going to happen up the road (and then it happens) there is certainly no good reason to presume that I have some stuff right regarding your party, your movement, what drives them and what strategies they predictably utilize.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 26, 2011 8:49 PM | Report abuse

Piers Morgan, the Brit recently hired by CNN to replace the old fellow with the braces...

""And here's a fascinating parallel. Britain has been through this exact kind of conundrum a few months ago. And David Cameron's government decided that they would go the Republican route. They would slash the deficit by cutting public spending. And today, this morning, out came the figures. The economy has shrunk by 0.5 percent.

"Now, there are lots of excuses. They're even blaming the weather. The reality is if you do this you're taking a huge gamble with the strength of your economy. And you now have a clear divide between the Republicans and the Democrats. President Obama is saying freeze, invest, grow. Republicans are saying slash, don't invest, grow. One will win."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_01/027715.php

Posted by: bernielatham | January 26, 2011 8:55 PM | Report abuse

President Obama is saying freeze, invest, grow. Republicans are saying slash, don't invest, grow. One will win.
-----------------------------------------------------------
If this was a business, the answer would be glaringly obvious.

One is Oracle, the other is Polaroid.

Posted by: 12BarBluesAgain | January 26, 2011 8:58 PM | Report abuse

We have the Obama administration until 2016. The Republican shellacking of 2008 and their response leading up to November made it so.

Our problem is to bring pressure on this administration, so they do not hide behind centrism as an excuse, an excuse for not leading, as an excuse for being Bill Clinton or George Bush.

Obama knows the danger of kicking the can down the road, obviously he knows as much as I know. But he also knows something very important, America will not vote against the ruling class, no matter how rich, no matter how despotic and corrupt, no matter how vicious it gets.

Americans did not come to this stupidity unwisely.

They know how good people are treated in the oscillation between fascist and communist extremes. As small and smaller the American ruling clique becomes, they know they have to take care of a few ideas.

People have to believe they have to avoid those two bad choices, so their only choice is only the bromide spewing rich, only the free traders at Davos can transport them back into the nostalgic narcotic Hope.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 26, 2011 8:58 PM | Report abuse

Where have all the commies gone, long time passing...

This is from Harrison Schmitt, newly appointed head the state’s Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department in New Mexico...

" Number one we’ve been concerned with the misuse of science, but I think more fundamentally, this misuse of science has lead to politicians and ideologues to try to gain control of the American economy, and indeed the global economy, by scaring people….I think that there are individuals, [Obama science czar John] Holdren apparently among them, a very large number who have taken — shall we say captured the environmental movement and turned it into what was previously considered the communist movement. And that’s just something that people of common sense are going to continue to have to counter and wake up enough so that they can take control of their government again. [...]

I think the whole trend really began with the fall of the Soviet Union. Because the great champion of the opponents of liberty, namely communism, had to find some other place to go and they basically went into the environmental movement. That’s not to say there aren’t some major and significant environmental issues, particularly at the local level, but they converted environmental activism to a political movement and some would say a religious movement."

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/26/new-mexico-environment/

And Rachel Carlson was sprung from the very thighs of Satan, too.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 26, 2011 9:02 PM | Report abuse

Anyone notice that Ethan vanished?


The people who paid him may have become horrified that he participated in the smear campaign against Sarah Palin and the Tea Party - falsely accusing them of mass murder.

JUST wait until the Obama Chicago office opens, and all those Obama paid trolls start to invade this place.


YOU think this blog is a shantytown of Cillizza refugees now - just wait.

It will be non-stop Cao-sound-alikes on shifts.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 26, 2011 9:04 PM | Report abuse

MM gives a wonderful peak at the right wing media message machine at work. Clue - look for the word "flat"...

http://mediamatters.org/research/201101260027

Posted by: bernielatham | January 26, 2011 9:07 PM | Report abuse


"something I thought was really striking about Barack Obama’s speech last night was how utterly unprepared American political culture is for the idea of a world in which we’re not Top Nation. "

Kinda depends on how power is measured.  If it's by GDP, for example, we're roughly three times larger than China, and I don't see them tripling their GDP in 4 years.  I've heard this before, and I don't know what measurement is being used.  I'm guessing it's something along the lines of the value of manufactured goods, but that's not the whole of an economy, no?

Further, what nation has ever prepared their populace for not being the "Top Nation?".  What would be the point?  No nation can survive forever.  American exceptionalism ( sorry if those words offend) doesn't guarantee everlasting existence.  If anything, it makes long term survival even less likely.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2195.html

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 26, 2011 9:09 PM | Report abuse

The Arab Street is our friend.
Now they know. So do the Persians.

Parading around on Al J does not turn their crank anymore.
They know the Saudis, the oil money in geberal will **never** help them. Iranian people know too.

America, with its communications freedoms, we may have won WW.3, but only if we get out of the neo-con wars.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 26, 2011 9:10 PM | Report abuse

For those with the requisite...uh, whatever is required in this circumstance...Rush Limbaugh's radio show today on the SOTU...

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_012611/content/01125106.guest.html

Posted by: bernielatham | January 26, 2011 9:13 PM | Report abuse

Obama's speech was flat.

The liberals love to talk-up Obama all the time - however we are well past the point where that helps anyone - the nation hears a bunch of garbage about how good Obama is and the nation pretends to listen.

_______________


This reminds me of an old saying about the the Soviet Union

"we pretend to work and they pretend to pay us." Meaning, with little goods in the shops, the workers really were not paid.


_______________________________

This is where Obama is - the liberals are pretending this dude is the greatest ever. The public is pretending to listen to the liberals.


People like Greg Sargent just don't get it. They keep on shoveling the garbage, and somehow they appear to believe it.

However, repeating the same thing over and over - there is a reason Greg is doing that. Greg is STILL trying to convince people. Somehow, Greg believes that if he just repeats himself one more time, it will be true.

It's not true. It's not becoming true.


Is this what the next two years are going to be like? The liberals pretending they are relevant - talking like they have "control" of something. (this time Greg says Obama controls the debate about the size of the government.)


NO, the debate is long over. Obama and the liberals have lost.


Are we going have a whole long time in which the liberals pretend to talk, and pretend that their words "matter" now?


Is that what we have - the country PRETENDING that the words of the liberals matter now?

It would serve the liberals justly - if all their bait-and-switch amounted to some sort of kabuki theatre for two years.


This is NO WAY to run a government. It is no way to run a Superpower.

The liberals have turned into a bunch of children - and for some strange reason they are insisting that the nation treat them as children as well.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 26, 2011 9:15 PM | Report abuse

ps...even if you don't want to read Limbaugh, check the link for the illustration of the president that's been on his site for two days (that I know of)

Posted by: bernielatham | January 26, 2011 9:15 PM | Report abuse

"Where have all the commies gone, long time passing...

This is from Harrison Schmitt, newly appointed head the state’s Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department in New Mexico..."

I'm pretty sure he's referring to what the cofounder of GreenPeace said in an article from a Canadian (Canada!) newspaper, I think.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 26, 2011 9:17 PM | Report abuse

Here's the link my brother.

http://www.vancouversun.com/life/food/newsletter-signup/Confessions+Greenpeace+founder/4073767/story.html?id=4073767

Filthy Canadians. Printing this trash.

And hey, didja ever see the picture of Joe Lieberman giving President Bush a hummer?

http://countmeblue.blogspot.com/2007_07_01_archive.html

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 26, 2011 9:34 PM | Report abuse

@shrink

"America, with its communications freedoms, we may have won WW.3, but only if we get out of the neo-con wars."

Who would have thought that Mark Zuckerberg would do far more for implementing American ideals and creating "shoots" of freedom in Arab lands far, far , far more successfully than mental midget Cheney and the ultimate moron Rumsfeld.

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 26, 2011 9:44 PM | Report abuse

@Brigade

"Government controls behavior, shapes society, picks winners and losers, and extorts campaign contributions via manipulation of "the tax code." Politicians aren't likely to give up that gravy train anytime soon---unless they can find a more corrupt way to achieve the same ends."

OMG you said something I agree with. Thank heavens it's time for me to go to bed so I get to quit while I'm ahead. Remember to take it easy on 12Bar and don't leave this place a mess while I'm gone. Make nice Brigade. :-)

Posted by: rukidding7 | January 26, 2011 9:48 PM | Report abuse

ruk, this is no joke.

The battle against totalitarian governments is at a tipping point.
Suddenly Twitter is considered a wmd by despots everywhere.

We don't get to decide which dictators we tolerate, not anymore. We have taught freedom and we have lived freedom and we are leading the world to socialist freedom (we won't call it socialist, but it is).

Now, as the Obama Admin adapts to the demise of the old corrupt bargain with Egypt, America may grow to lead in the region. We don't have to ditch Israel, not at all. We could lead.

We would not have to sacrifice anything. We just have to grasp what the US Constitution means to the rest of the world.

We have to take ourselves seriously, no more double standards, no more 'realpolitik'. Now, everyone knows everything.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 26, 2011 10:03 PM | Report abuse

Bernie:

""Yeah, the sudden disappearance of the three justices with a Dem president speaking is one of those odd and inexplicable coincidences.""

Well, it isn't so sudden. Scalia hasn't been to one since before Bush was elected. (Bush was a Republican, wasn't he?) And not so inexplicable, either. Scalia said in 2000 that he stopped going because it has become too political. "One side will clap for this, and then the other side will clap for that, And you know, we sit there like bumps on a log."

http://www.law.com/jsp/pa/PubArticleFriendlyPA.jsp?id=900005502034&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1

Really, Bernie, you should acquaint yourself with Google.

""As regards Palin...attack?""

Of course. You can call it mocking, denigrating, whatever you want. When was the last time you tried to diminished a Democratic woman by calling her "our girl"?

""But what the heck. Just because I tell you what is going to happen up the road (and then it happens)...""

Now that is rich. You've been covering all your bases from the beginning. Whenever Palin gets exposure, you claim it is Kristol and other mysterious forces within the right giving it to her. Then when Kristol (or someone else) says something that cuts against the grain of your conspiracy theories, you simply weave it into a grander theory of how they are trying to undercut her. Really, Bernie, there is nothing that anyone on the right could say or do that would falsify your "predictions". Every conceivable contingency is explained by the theory and the mysterious forces at work. Much like a religion.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 26, 2011 10:03 PM | Report abuse

Good evening guys.

Great news, I guess, now 2.2 million get the special exemption from ObamaCare.
About 730 organizations, up from 222 in last document.

Link to latest Fed HHS document:
http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/approved_applications_for_waiver.html

Posted by: TominColorado | January 26, 2011 10:03 PM | Report abuse

@Troll - I was in Vancouver through those years and have a good familiarity with Greenpeace. I've never met Moore but am familiar with him as well. His description of the evolution of Greenpeace is accurate. But what he says here provides no support for Schmitt's claim. Neither Moore nor Hunter (another founder, now deceased) were communists. Nor was anyone else I know of who were involved with the group's formation nor functioning as activists or organizers (there probably were some but not organizationally consequential). A major shift in the activism of this group (and others) came with the rise of free trade dynamics and it's there where we see the beginnings of the sort of extremism which moved Moore away from the group.

But the fall of the Soviet Union had absolutely zero to do with anything in either case. And, obviously, the environmental movement long pre-dated that event (that's Carlson or even earlier - the first course in "ecology" was concurrent with the writing of "Grapes of Wrath" and a student in that class became a long-time friend and influence on Steinbeck) Schmitt just doesn't know what he's talking about and apparently finds it comfortable to imagine a commie source to environmentalism (a notion which a lot of business interests were and are more than happy to promote).

Posted by: bernielatham | January 26, 2011 10:12 PM | Report abuse

Interesting how that document I link to at 10:03 got released the day after the SOTU speech. Just a coincidence, I'm sure.

Posted by: TominColorado | January 26, 2011 10:14 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for the info, Tom. Too bad that Rep. Bachmann (R-MN) had the outdated 222 figure last night.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 26, 2011 10:17 PM | Report abuse

Deadline for filing for the exemption was Dec 30, looks like the word got out and waivers more than tripled right at the end of the year.

I wonder what applications were rejected and for what reason. Sounds like a good subject for House subcommittee hearings.

Posted by: TominColorado | January 26, 2011 10:26 PM | Report abuse

Bernie:

""Schmitt just doesn't know what he's talking about and apparently finds it comfortable to imagine a commie source to environmentalism...""

You should probably read your own links. Schmitt didn't say anything about a commie "source" to environmentalism, and indeed he specifically said that the environmental movement had been "captured", dating the capture explicitly to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Which is also pretty much exactly what Moore was saying when he said:

"The collapse of world communism and the fall of the Berlin Wall during the 1980s added to the trend toward extremism. The Cold War was over and the peace movement was largely disbanded. The peace movement had been mainly Western-based and anti-American in its leanings. Many of its members moved into the environmental movement, bringing with them their neo-Marxist, far-left agendas. To a considerable extent the environmental movement was hijacked by political and social activists who learned to use green language to cloak agendas that had more to do with anti-capitalism and anti-globalization than with science or ecology."

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 26, 2011 10:29 PM | Report abuse

@Scott - I wasn't sure about Scalia, thus the caveat in what I wrote. Thanks for the clarification. But as regards the other two, sorry, I have no reason to buy your presumption particularly given their connections to extremist elements in the movement.

Re your other comments re Palin, Kristol did promote her, kept promoting her, then stopped promoting her as previously as her utility diminished as of November. That's easily traceable. I've continued to document it here. And, her fall from grace was both necessary and predictable. It's precisely what I said would happen. Many others here have read what I've written.

Now let's speak to your tone. I suppose you feel insulted or something that I generally dismiss you from conversation so you've decided to get huffy. As I've said before, if I met you I'd probably like you. But in the context of a blog like this, I just don't have time nor interest in playing the games you get up to. You've got others to talk with. Help yourself.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 26, 2011 10:29 PM | Report abuse

"But the fall of the Soviet Union had absolutely zero to do with anything in either case. And, obviously, the environmental movement long pre-dated that event (that's Carlson or even earlier - the first course in "ecology" was concurrent with the writing of "Grapes of Wrath" and a student in that class became a long-time friend and influence on Steinbeck) Schmitt just doesn't know what he's talking about and apparently finds it comfortable to imagine a commie source to environmentalism (a notion which a lot of business interests were and are more than happy to promote)."

I guess this threw me: "The collapse of world communism and the fall of the Berlin Wall during the 1980s added to the trend toward extremism. The Cold War was over and the peace movement was largely disbanded. The peace movement had been mainly Western-based and anti-American in its leanings. Many of its members moved into the environmental movement, bringing with them their neo-Marxist, far-left agendas. To a considerable extent the environmental movement was hijacked by political and social activists who learned to use green language to cloak agendas that had more to do with anti-capitalism and anti-globalization than with science or ecology. I remember visiting our Toronto office in 1985 and being surprised at how many of the new recruits were sporting army fatigues and red berets in support of the Sandinistas."

I don't know Schmitt, don't care how far up the ladder he is in your Grand Conspiracy to leave Decent People Utterly Powerless and Unable to Form a Liberal Consensus, but I'm sure that the above paragraph means what it means.

Which is worse, I wonder, apostasy or or betrayal? Probably the rampant and statistically provable increase in so called rightwing violence. ;-)

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 26, 2011 10:30 PM | Report abuse

Obama's health care:

Tax the Republicans

- exempt the democrats


Somewhere there is an Equal Protection issue here.


The faster we get Obama and his band of thugs out of government the better for everyone.

.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 26, 2011 10:31 PM | Report abuse

Some lunatic writes:

The Arab Street is our friend.
Now they know. So do the Persians.

Parading around on Al J does not turn their crank anymore.
They know the Saudis, the oil money in geberal will **never** help them. Iranian people know too.

America, with its communications freedoms, we may have won WW.3, but only if we get out of the neo-con wars.


______________________________


The Arab Street is our friend???


You do realize they have been attacking and killing Christians. The do not believe in Freedom of Religion.


This Arab Street - have you spoken to them about this idea of yours???


As soon as they have their revolution, they intend to send suicide bombers over here.


What is wrong with you? These people are not our friends, and they don't want to be YOUR friend. They want to attack Americans. They want Israel destroyed - and they won't stop until Israel is gone.
What is wrong with you?


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 26, 2011 10:35 PM | Report abuse

China has it's own economic crosses to bear; big financial and real estate sector bubbles.

Yglesias' speculation of a "USA #2" is due to the fact that he longs for that to be our status.

That's the "Progress" part of the Center for American Progress. They absolutely crackjones for this nation's decline.

Sound familiar?

B?

Posted by: tao9 | January 26, 2011 10:35 PM | Report abuse

"Now let's speak to your tone. I suppose you feel insulted or something that I generally dismiss you from conversation so you've decided to get huffy. As I've said before, if I met you I'd probably like you. But in the context of a blog like this, I just don't have time nor interest in playing the games you get up to. You've got others to talk with. Help yourself."

Oh Bernie, this is just priceless.

Is Scott also the type of troll (Troll!) that inhibits the Glorious Work of Building the Liberal Consensus? You want to know what would make me jealous? If you didn't consider me an enemy of the Great Leap Forward in Liberal Consensus Building!

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 26, 2011 10:39 PM | Report abuse

Tao

We are not number two. We will always be number one.


Simple.


See Obama deep down hates America - he hates America for slavery and Jim Crow - and he wants to lash out at the nation for that.

However, getting rid of slavery and Jim Crow proves how great this nation is.


Obama is a COMMUNIST - he stands in the Capitol and praises China and Russia.


This is a joke - this dude is a joke. The democrats are betraying this country by not speaking out against Obama.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 26, 2011 10:42 PM | Report abuse

Not really sure what the Kristol discussion is about, but he was definitely one of the most vocal Palin supporters.

As for Scott's tone, can you really blame him? Can't you just let him say Conservative Things without belittling him???

He painted himself into a corner the other day when he cited some study about charitable donations or something. This kind of suggests that studies have some validity. This is problematic since studies pretty much refute every Conservative Thing.

If I had to choose between belonging to an organization I would kill my own mother to belong to and not being laughed out of every conversation I enter, I would be snarky as hell too.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 26, 2011 10:46 PM | Report abuse

Did Obama or Pelosi or any democrat bother to TELL anyone that in the health care bill, Obama would have the power to exempt people ??


2,189,636 people

There are about 100 million on Medicare and Mediaid - and 50 million uninsured


So that leaves 150 million on private insurance. And Obama is exempting 2 million from his bill

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 26, 2011 10:46 PM | Report abuse

I just sent an email to my Colorado congressmen asking to hold hearings investigating how HHS evaluates who gets these exemptions from Obamacare:

http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/approved_applications_for_waiver.html

Here is a handy website for finding your congressmen's email addresses if you are so inclined:

http://www.contactingthecongress.org/

Posted by: TominColorado | January 26, 2011 10:50 PM | Report abuse

"...imagine a commie source to environmentalism..."

Carol Browner, Member, Socialist International
http://www.socialistinternational.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticleID=1915&ArticleImageID=1743&ModuleID=18

hEh

Posted by: tao9 | January 26, 2011 10:51 PM | Report abuse

Next Obama will be accused of supporting the FMLN.

Fortunately, the world has moved on. The old version of the cold war seems immediate to its winners, makes 'em feel good. The people who care about the future are working a lot harder than America's conservatives and you know what that means.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 26, 2011 10:53 PM | Report abuse

shrink,

Any thoughts on this issue?

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/12/ff_dsmv/all/1

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 26, 2011 11:01 PM | Report abuse

"China has it's own economic crosses to bear; big financial and real estate sector bubbles."

I ♥ a mixed metaphor. They are the stock in trade of cartoon artists.
You have seen the caption contests. What about the reverse? A Chinese worker with a cross shaped like a...no, how about, a crown of thorns on a Chinese worker whose cross is freighted with skyscrapers. I'll have to do better...

Posted by: shrink2 | January 26, 2011 11:06 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD,

Conservatives, particularly religious cons, do contribute more to charity, and donate their time free of charge to the community than libs.

Is your problem with that fact, or with Scott citing studies? It's unclear.

Maybe you gotta broaden your circle. Folks, even lefties, definitely listen to me w/out laughing, and my Mom's (& Dad) still going strong up in Glens Falls, where she just helped chase out Dem ex-Congressman Scott Murphy for GOP Chris Gibson.

{{{ The Irish have a lock up there either way ;>) }}}

Posted by: tao9 | January 26, 2011 11:06 PM | Report abuse

shrink,

My sister, when little, used to get it backwards and say, "It's our bear to cross."

Which, if you grow up near the Adirondacks isn't too far off the mark.

We all still use it today, family inside-yoke.

Posted by: tao9 | January 26, 2011 11:11 PM | Report abuse

shrink,

Howabout the Shanghai Composite down 14% since 1/2010? Mix da Meta.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=SHCOMP:IND

Posted by: tao9 | January 26, 2011 11:20 PM | Report abuse

“there is no definition of a mental disorder. It’s bullshוt. I mean, you just can’t define it.”

This almost made me stop, it is just too stupid to say that...but just for you Troll, I soldiered on through one penetrating glimpse into the obvious after another.

Then near the end...

"...psychiatrists [are not] ready to lose the authority they derive from seeming to possess scientific certainty about the diseases they treat."

Well this is true! Sure there are the diseases we treat. After that, the words are only about money and how it flows.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 26, 2011 11:21 PM | Report abuse

RainForestRising, at least Ethan is gone for now. Count your blessings while they last.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 26, 2011 11:23 PM | Report abuse

"Is your problem with that fact, or with Scott citing studies?"

It's with the fact that he cites study (singular) while ignoring every other study on every other subject. Even if that book were to unquestionably support his premise, it's pretty disingenuous of him to point to a study when he shuts his eyes, covers his ears, and starts screaming "BLAH BLAH BLAH" every time a study is pointed in his direction.

I could talk about the issues or at least questions that could be raised by the book, but I'm too tired to spend energy to try and have an intelligent discussion when you will just respond with a nonsensical battery of Conservative Things.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 26, 2011 11:25 PM | Report abuse

Of course the environmentalists try to push their socialist ideas


Look what happened with global warming

The environmentalists conned the third world that they would get massive infusions of cash.

Those countries said yes.

And the next thing we heard was that 100 countries of the Earth were in favor of Global warming -


ONLY BECAUSE the environmentalists had PROMISED THEM YOUR MONEY.

They never reviewed any data or anything.

_____


Sounds like Obama's health care plan, right?


Bribe one group of people WITH someone else's money


AND claim there is a consensus, right?

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 26, 2011 11:29 PM | Report abuse

Bernie:

""But as regards the other two, sorry, I have no reason to buy your presumption...""

Well, Thomas said, when asked about it in 2010, “I don’t go because it has become so partisan and it’s very uncomfortable for a judge to sit there...there’s a lot that you don’t hear on TV — the catcalls, the whooping and hollering and under-the-breath comments.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/us/politics/04scotus.html?_r=1

And of course Alito did go to Obama's first SOTU, at which you may recall an incident that might have turned him sour on the whole experience.

But hey, you are probably right. Thier "connections" to "extremist" elements in the party is the more likely explanation.

""Now let's speak to your tone.""

Let's not.

""I suppose you feel insulted or something that I generally dismiss you...""

Nope. Sorry if that disappoints you.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 26, 2011 11:32 PM | Report abuse

"Howabout the Shanghai Composite down 14% since 1/2010?"

We won Cold War 2.0? Thanks man, I was worried there for awhile about American competitiveness. But seriously, what do you think matters?

Posted by: shrink2 | January 26, 2011 11:33 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD

OK bro, I was just asking?

Studies are like a box-a-chocolates...

Posted by: tao9 | January 26, 2011 11:35 PM | Report abuse

clawrence

I am just pointing out Ethan. He could be on vacation.

Or he could have been a paid troll.

I believe Greg is plotting a massacre of all the Conservatives on this blog.

The annihilation attempt is coming.

Funny how Greg started all this talk when the Arizona shooting happened - the smear campaign was not enough for him.

The liberals refuse to admit that we even had an election. They still want to push through their liberal agenda - and claim they "control" the debate.


They control nothing. The Republicans are in control of the House.

Obama would be wise to have stated that clearly in his speech - and start to lay the groundwork for COMPROMISE - and Obama should have been talking with the Republicans today - instead of campaigning in Wisconsin and getting stuck in snowstorms.


This is almost a comedy - if it wasn't a Superpower governing itself in the middle of an Economic crisis.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 26, 2011 11:36 PM | Report abuse

Shrink,

I got the vibe from that article, and from one at the Washington Examiner, that the DSM-5 was going to be rather broad, diagnostically, and that any mental discomfort, for lack of a better phrase, might now become a diagnosis, and therefore code-able/ billable. That the DSM-5 is less about improving on DSM-IV with really good science, and more on taking advantage of the new legislated parity. The shrinks I liked best we're the one's who worked with the SMI's at the County run clinic, yellowed linoleum and patients standing outside chain smoking. For them, the DSM-III was just fine.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 26, 2011 11:36 PM | Report abuse

"...matters?"

Well, for one, I don't find China as much of a imposing bugaboo as both parties are making it out to be (for diverging purposes).

Posted by: tao9 | January 26, 2011 11:41 PM | Report abuse

clawrence

Then Greg last weekend said he was joking when he started talking about "eliministic" rhetoric

Eliminatory rhetoric


Greg wants to have ONLY liberal voices here.


Is the the role of a major US daily - to start to eliminate voices which they don't like?

It's bad enough that the Journolist scandal has not been treated as a criminal fraud.


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 26, 2011 11:47 PM | Report abuse

Tao, that's my problem with Conservatives in general. That they have to do such back bending to reach their conclusions. It's pretty ridiculous that we are still having discussions on whether trickle down economics works despite 30 years of on and off failure. It's ridiculous that you guys tout Republicans as the party of balanced budgets when it's clear that Democrats are far better at it. You people even go so far as to say that they are responsible for Clinton's balanced budget which is 1) not true. They shut down the government to prevent said budget from being implemented. And 2) is an argument that completely falls apart when these same Republicans cause the deficit to explode during the Bush years.

You guys are so invested in your Conservative Things despite all the evidence that these Things are wrong, that it really rings hollow when you guys point to a study of your own. Yeah, it's cute that Scott linked to some book featured on Bill O'Reilly's show, but when the CBO blames the Bush tax cuts for a far greater portion of the deficit than the stimulus, it's just ignored.

That's why I don't try and have an intelligent discussion with Conservatives. If you people just turn a blind eye to any evidence that contradicts your beliefs, it's pretty pointless.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 26, 2011 11:50 PM | Report abuse

Query for all Epistemically Closed @ PL:

Anyone ever seen Bernie and Ted Baxter in the same seminar?

Posted by: tao9 | January 26, 2011 11:50 PM | Report abuse

DSM V is a laughingstock. Yes, it posits (billable!) Dx that are so absurd you will see comedy routines based on them.

Here is my current favorite:

Temper Dysregulation Disorder with Dysphoria

Well it is a good thing they added the part about dysphoria. If the kids lost their tempers all the time and were not even feeling bad, they'd have to be called liars, or rotten little kids, or kids with parents who don't know about parenting.

So what drugs will soon be billable for TDDD?

Yes, the DSM III was, well, ok, I could gab for hours about that. The IV is a little better and a lot worse, the V should not be published.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 26, 2011 11:53 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD,

What CBO report are you talking about?

Yesterdays?

Posted by: tao9 | January 26, 2011 11:54 PM | Report abuse

The House Republicans are going to refuse to fund Obama's health care bill -

Now, in order to spend any money AT ALL, Congress has to agree to spend that money.

I think Obama has until March. If the Republicans do not agree, the spending on health care implementation has to stop.


That is where the negotiationing will begin.

The Senate democrats are the first line of negotiations.

However, what will Obama do IF the Senate democrats agree - and then send the budget to Obama ???

Is Obama going to be agreeing - or FIGHTING BOTH HOUSES???


The Senate democrats - at least 14 of them - appear to hold a real sway here.


The 14 Senate democrats in states which are swing states, or states in which Republicans recently won - ARE going to feel a good amount of pressure to go along with the House Republicans.


WHO IS IN CONTROL OF THIS DEBATE???


.

Posted by: RainForestRising | January 26, 2011 11:56 PM | Report abuse

"Temper Dysregulation Disorder with Dysphoria"

I have that! With a twist of lemon.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 27, 2011 12:05 AM | Report abuse

"Temper Dysregulation Disorder with Dysphoria"

Perhaps controlled Physical Education Therapy and Isolation might be in order?

And by "physical education" and "isolation" I mean a couple of quick swats on the butt and sent to your room with no TV. Seems to have worked on me.

Posted by: TominColorado | January 27, 2011 12:16 AM | Report abuse

TMcWN,
China has terrible problems, that isn't the issue. The issue is, we don't get to Welsh* on the debt we are running up. All that money our kids make goes to them. What if they figure out what to do with it, you know, like American bankers. Pretty soon, people might actually think they earned it.

*Sorry for sounding insensitive to anyone from
Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch
Welsh is just a figure of speech.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 27, 2011 12:23 AM | Report abuse

tao, it was a few months ago. Or a bunch of months ago. I'm not interested in looking up something that you'll ignore. You're going to conclude someone is a liar, so why don't we save ourselves some effort and say that it's me.

Shrink, I think a lot of the problem is that there is this elasticity with a lot of these diagnoses. Like for TDD, I believe part of the DSM is that the anger response has to be inappropriate for the stressor. This is pretty difficult to define with a massive gray area. There are examples that we can all agree are psychologically debilitating, but that's not where the debate lies. I've noticed this same sort of problem with a lot of the Axis II d/os. What is APD and what is just shyness? When does OCPD become a psychological disorder and when is it just being somewhat anal? Granted there's no drug market for the Axis IIs, but this same problem is all over the DSM and no matter how specific the manual gets in terms of minimum number of criteria and cutoff dates for acute and chronic d/os and soforth, the elasticity will always be there.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 27, 2011 12:24 AM | Report abuse

I do like the sentiment though, my kid's not a brat... their mentally ill!

No more terrible two's, just Temporary Juvenile Hypo Self Actualization Syndrome.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 27, 2011 12:28 AM | Report abuse

"Granted there's no drug market for the Axis IIs, but...the elasticity will always be there."

No it won't, the drug market is the driving force.

Pseudobulbar Palsy is a beauty. A drug in Beta is pushing an obscure Dx into the mainstream, marketing "awareness" before the treatment exists. Priming the cash pump.

How old are you?

Posted by: shrink2 | January 27, 2011 12:36 AM | Report abuse

Shrink,

Agreed, we'll end up paying off the foreign debt, and dance to their tune, some.  The so-called Welching will come on domestic bond holders.  There's an easy 2.4 trillion bunch sitting over at SS HQ.  
Hopefullly, that will be a lasting lesson in trusting our government, any government really, with excess cash.  Now we get to pay SS tax again!  

But China is interesting in it's inherent instability.  They still have a billion of, essentially, the poorest people on earth and their government is spending it's money on... American bonds?  I'm sure the parents of the school kids killed in their most recent earthquake can appreciate that "investment.". I mean, what's quality building material compared to, say, making sure the Grand Canyon National Park can stay open 12 hours a day versus 11.  Dunno, I think maybe we're more fearful of China than we should be.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 27, 2011 12:43 AM | Report abuse

29

Another disease that comes to mind is ODD. Another one of those bratty kid disorders, but there's no drug market behind that either.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 27, 2011 12:44 AM | Report abuse

Troll, we have defined our terms, except that Welching is drinking grape juice.

China's ability to shove austerity up the dirt roads of its working people is the envy of American Republicans and Democrats alike. I hope you don't think China is a socialist country. Do you think the GDR was democratic?

"They still have a billion of, essentially, the poorest people on earth and their government is spending it's money on... American bonds?"

Yes. Everyone knows that. If we are borrowing 40% of every dollar our government spends from Chinese (poor country) workers. What do you think that means? You think that means they are in trouble?

Posted by: shrink2 | January 27, 2011 12:58 AM | Report abuse

" I hope you don't think China is a socialist country. Do you think the GDR was democratic?". 

Nope, just hilariously committed to central planning.

"Yes. Everyone knows that. If we are borrowing 40% of every dollar our government spends from Chinese (poor country) workers. What do you think that means? You think that means they are in trouble?"

Well, I think it means we both are.  But what would make you risk your life in opposition, means testing SS or watching your children succumb to starvation so that Americans can chase the fantasy of Green Jobs?  

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 27, 2011 1:08 AM | Report abuse

"ODD. Another one of those bratty kid disorders, but there's no drug market behind that either."

That is why it is vanishing. Don't be passé
Nowadays kids get drugable disorders.
For rotten little kids, Bipolar is de rigueur.

My throwaway journal says TDDwithD needs to be in the DSMV because all the bad kids dragged in to see shrinks are getting the Bipolar Dx (enabling ($$) the Rx of Seroquel, Abilify and Zyprexa). Those are nasty drugs. Ritalin was a scandal but antipsychotics...the industry has to police itself.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 27, 2011 1:10 AM | Report abuse

yeah, I suppose my viewpoint is skewed from all my psych experience coming from within the Charity system.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 27, 2011 1:22 AM | Report abuse

"But what would make you risk your life in opposition, means testing SS or watching your children succumb to starvation so that Americans can chase the fantasy of Green Jobs?"

What do you mean by, "risking your life?"

I'm not playing the latest word game, that was so last month, pretending to feel threatened. Obama fixed that with his speech anyway. I really wonder what you mean.

What do you mean by my children starving? You think there are only two choices? Borrow into more bubbles or watch my kids starve?

Say, you are not one of those people who thinks the world is going to end in our lifetime so you have to go to the leader's hill three years two months seventeen days ten hours and twenty minutes from now...to greet the (ooops I know it is a secret) are you?

Posted by: shrink2 | January 27, 2011 1:31 AM | Report abuse

What I mean is that Chinese peasants, still at risk for famine, are only going to tolerate watching their government send hundreds of billions of $'s to the US for so long before they object, perhaps forcefully.  Further, those same peasants have more reason to defy their government and Protest (and risk their life by protesting) then an American who's going to be forced to take a haircut on their SS payout.  Ultimately, starving peasants will not allow endless Chinese lending.

Thunderdome comes much, much later. After the zombie apocalypse.  See, I'm noy crazy, per se.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | January 27, 2011 1:48 AM | Report abuse

Many existing laws and regulations apply specifically to pregnant women. Several provisions of the Affordable Care Act offer new benefits for expecting mothers. Search online for "Wise Health Insurance" if you need affordable insurance for yourself or your wife.

Posted by: buddypaul | January 27, 2011 3:59 AM | Report abuse

shrink:

""I'm not playing the latest word game, that was so last month...""

Actually it was earlier today. Remember "socialist" freedom?

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 27, 2011 6:06 AM | Report abuse

Very interesting piece on Egypt/Tunisia in the Times this morning...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/27/world/middleeast/27opposition.html?hp

ElBaradei has returned to Egypt to join the uprising and he (along with others) describe what is happening as a "youth revolt" facilitated by social media but not initiated or led by any political party. Along with the earlier events in Iran, this seems to point to a significant pattern.


Posted by: bernielatham | January 27, 2011 6:14 AM | Report abuse

Now, as the Obama Admin adapts to the demise of the old corrupt bargain with Egypt, America may grow to lead in the region. We don't have to ditch Israel, not at all. We could lead.

Posted by: shrink2 | January 26, 2011 10:03 PM
========================================

You forgot Lebanon. Yes, things are happening in the Middle East. Corrupt bargains? No doubt those are the bargains that are in U.S. interest. Here's hoping Islamic radicals don't take over these countries. Oh, wait ... who's coming to power in Lebanon? The only thing we can be sure of: Obama hasn't a clue what to do or how to react. He's good at empty rhetoric about hypothetical situations, but when a genuine uprising occurs, as it did in Iran some months ago, not a peep. Don't what to offend those radical Muslims. We might do something that would cause them to hate us.

Posted by: Brigade | January 27, 2011 6:36 AM | Report abuse

The biggest, fattest, most self-serving and self-perpetuating conglomeration of bureaucrats is, of course, the Pentagon. And they, along with their partners in the lobbying industry and corporate entities who just loves conflict are getting rattled at the "military isn't sacred" position of some new Republican members...

"The discordant Republican voices on military spending have bred confusion on Capitol Hill, among military contractors and within the military itself, where no one is exactly sure what the members backed by the Tea Party will do. It also shows why taking on the military budget will be so hard, even though a widening deficit has led the president and the leaders of both parties to say this time they are serious."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/27/us/politics/27pentagon.html?hp

Posted by: bernielatham | January 27, 2011 6:38 AM | Report abuse

Great news, I guess, now 2.2 million get the special exemption from ObamaCare.
About 730 organizations, up from 222 in last document.

Posted by: TominColorado | January 26, 2011 10:03 PM
======================================

ObamaCare must be sort of like taxes. No sooner is it implemented than the special interests line up for exemptions. Big government at work.

Posted by: Brigade | January 27, 2011 6:43 AM | Report abuse

Schmitt just doesn't know what he's talking about and apparently finds it comfortable to imagine a commie source to environmentalism (a notion which a lot of business interests were and are more than happy to promote).

Posted by: bernielatham | January 26, 2011 10:12 PM
=======================================

Nothing but vodka for me. They're not going to destroy any of my precious bodily fluids.

Posted by: Brigade | January 27, 2011 6:45 AM | Report abuse

But in the context of a blog like this, I just don't have time nor interest in playing the games you get up to. You've got others to talk with. Help yourself.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 26, 2011 10:29 PM
=======================================

Shorter: well, Scott, you got me again.

Posted by: Brigade | January 27, 2011 6:48 AM | Report abuse

Yet another ex-BBC employee comes clean on the Beeb's political bias:

"Left-wing bias? It's written through the BBC's very DNA, says Peter Sissons"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1349506/Left-wing-bias-Its-written-BBCs-DNA-says-Peter-Sissons.html

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 27, 2011 6:53 AM | Report abuse

DDAWD wrote:
"Not really sure what the Kristol discussion is about . . ."

That obviously never stops him from opining.
---

"As for Scott's tone, can you really blame him? Can't you just let him say Conservative Things without belittling him???"

An example of DDAWD's opining. Very relevant to the subject at hand.
---


"He painted himself into a corner the other day when he cited some study about charitable donations or something. This kind of suggests that studies have some validity. This is problematic since studies pretty much refute every Conservative Thing."

Ah, but no links or supporting evidence.
---

"If I had to choose between belonging to an organization I would kill my own mother to belong to and not being laughed out of every conversation I enter, I would be snarky as hell too."

Shorter: I'm a gibbering idiot.

Posted by: Brigade | January 27, 2011 6:54 AM | Report abuse

I could talk about the issues or at least questions that could be raised by the book, but I'm too tired to spend energy to try and have an intelligent discussion when you will just respond with a nonsensical battery of Conservative Things.

Posted by: DDAWD | January 26, 2011 11:25 PM
=======================================

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Posted by: Brigade | January 27, 2011 6:57 AM | Report abuse

More from the BBC's Sissons:

"The BBC became a propaganda machine for climate change zealots, says Peter Sissons... and I was treated as a lunatic for daring to dissent"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1350206/BBC-propaganda-machine-climate-change-says-Peter-Sissons.html

I particularly like this bit:

"The error here, of course, was that the BBC never at any stage gave equal space to the opponents of the consensus.

But the Trust continued its ­pretence that climate change ­dissenters had been, and still would be, heard on its airwaves. ‘Impartiality,’ it said, ‘always requires a breadth of view, for as long as minority ­opinions are coherently and honestly expressed, the BBC must give them appropriate space.’

In reality, the ‘appropriate space’ given to minority views on climate change was practically zero.
Moreover, we were allowed to know practically nothing about that top-level seminar mentioned by the BBC Trust at which such momentous conclusions were reached. Despite a Freedom of Information request, they wouldn’t even make the guest list public.

There is one brief account of the ­proceedings, written by a conservative commentator who was there. He wrote subsequently that he was far from impressed with the 30 key BBC staff who attended. None of them, he said, showed ‘even a modicum of professional journalistic ­curiosity on the subject’. None appeared to read anything on the subject other than the Guardian."

Sounds like Bernie's kind of place.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 27, 2011 7:05 AM | Report abuse

Thanks Scott. Want to fill the locals in on DM?

Posted by: bernielatham | January 27, 2011 7:22 AM | Report abuse

"tao, it was a few months ago. Or a bunch of months ago. I'm not interested in looking up something that you'll ignore. You're going to conclude someone is a liar, so why don't we save ourselves some effort and say that it's me."

DD,

Not my intention at all, you're confusing me with some obverseOlbermann. Policy differences are POV, not lies.

But I didn't invent the gotcha-baby, that's your boy Alinsky's #4.

Posted by: tao9 | January 27, 2011 7:24 AM | Report abuse

Don't have time to read this piece this morning but thought folks might want to know of it... Bill Keller on Wikileaks and Assange and the Times...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/magazine/30Wikileaks-t.html?hp

Posted by: bernielatham | January 27, 2011 7:32 AM | Report abuse

"None appeared to read anything on the subject other than the Guardian."

Shocking!!!

Apparently the Beebs didn't even read the Guardian. That august Trotskyite publication lead all media in coverage of the ClimateGate e-mails.

Editorally, the Guardian ripped the East Anglia/CRU a new anglia.

Posted by: tao9 | January 27, 2011 7:35 AM | Report abuse

No doubt the BBC should give equal time to the 2 + 2 = 5 crowd. That's what we need to raise the level of discourse.

Posted by: pragmaticagain | January 27, 2011 7:42 AM | Report abuse

Propaganda @ the Beeb!

hmmmm?

I wonder if there could be anyone at PL who could shed some light on how the main (often only) news source in a nation might go about that kind of shameful nefariousnessness's.

nah...

{{{giggle-ania Rules the Waves}}}

Posted by: tao9 | January 27, 2011 7:43 AM | Report abuse

The rise in the CBO estimate of the 2011 deficit equals the extension of the revenue loss from the GWB tax cuts. I want the Bowles-Simpson approach of somewhat leaner budgets and somewhat higher taxes. No Rs and no Ds want it, apparently.

Both Scott and Bernie will argue against that position. I do not know that I am correct in thinking the budget cannot be shrunk enough and that taxes should not be increased so much that the burden of balance is all on one or the other, but that seems to be what historical patterns since WW2 reflect.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 27, 2011 7:49 AM | Report abuse

prags,

That's exactly what the CRU e-mails revealed: Hanson and the boys, via their computer models can actually make 2+2=5, almost every time!

Amazing...a computer model can also make the data from the Little Ice Age go away.
Just.Like.That.Priscilla!

They also kinda killed the PARTAY! @ Copenhagen. Bummer.

Posted by: tao9 | January 27, 2011 7:51 AM | Report abuse

Except, tao, the subsequent investigation of those smoking emails concluded that this right wing talking point is simply not true. The emails showed no such thing but the 2 + 2 = 5 crowd never let the truth get in the way of your good story.

Do you still believe in death panels?

Posted by: pragmaticagain | January 27, 2011 7:57 AM | Report abuse

It will be interesting to see what, if anything, comes of this...

"A coalition of rabbis wants Fox News chief Roger Ailes and conservative host Glenn Beck to cut out all their talk about Nazis and the Holocaust, and it's making its views known in an unusual place.

The rabbis have called on Fox News's owner, Rupert Murdoch, to sanction his two famous employees via a full-page ad in Thursday's editions of the Wall Street Journal - one of many other media properties controlled by Murdoch's News Corp."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/26/AR2011012607540.html?hpid=topnews

This gets dicey for the establishment right, both the neoconservative camp and the other chaps whose interests lie more directly in electoral success.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 27, 2011 8:02 AM | Report abuse

When the liberals crow about Krugman's supposedly knocking someone around, it seldom fails to pay dividends to take a close look. So it is here. He slams Ryan for this statement:

"Just take a look at what’s happening to Greece, Ireland, the United Kingdom and other nations in Europe. They didn’t act soon enough; and now their governments have been forced to impose painful austerity measures: large benefit cuts to seniors and huge tax increases on everybody."

Wrong! says Krug:

"I suspect that Ryan is honestly unaware that Ireland, far from being a spendthrift, was seen as a fiscal role model before the crisis."

That might be an opinion shared by Krug and big government Euros he admires, but it doesn't change the fact that Ireland is in the midst of financial and public debt crisis, trying to find its way through "austerity" measures.

Worse, though, K complains:

"And I also suspect that Ryan is honestly unaware that the UK has not, in fact, experienced a debt crisis."

Of course, Ryan did not say the UK is in a debt crisis. He said they failed to act soon enough -- after years of profligate spending -- and are now faced with painful austerity measures. Which is absolutely true.

It's no wonder Krugman is so loved at PL. He's the the king of straw man arguments, mischarerization, and non sequiturs. Krugman's way: if your enemies didn't say something wrong, just put words in their mouths and pretend they did.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 27, 2011 8:02 AM | Report abuse

mark,

Actually $105Bil this year (admittedly not insignificant) of the added $500Bil totted up to BooshTax extensions.

Page 9 here:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/01-26_FY2011Outlook.pdf

Posted by: tao9 | January 27, 2011 8:06 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

""Want to fill the locals in on DM?""

Sure. The Daily Mirror is a middle market UK tabloid with a conservative editorial bent. It has been a particularly harsh critic of the BBC in the past.

But I'm not quite sure why that matters. The articles I linked to were simply excerpts from Sissons' memiors, so even if one was inclined to dismiss the journalism of the DM out of hand, these are not a product of that journalism. They are a product of an employee (well, former employee) of that august and reputable source of worldwide news, the BBC.

But your desire to deflect from the substance of what Sissons is telling us is noted and understandable.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 27, 2011 8:07 AM | Report abuse

Of course, Ryan did not say the UK is in a debt crisis. He said they failed to act soon enough -- after years of profligate spending -- and are now faced with painful austerity measures. Which is absolutely true.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 27, 2011 8:02 AM

Another member of the 2 + 2 = 5 crowd heard from.

The point of the Krugman piece re UK is that despite the fact that the UK was not in a debt crisis, the Conservative government imposed austerity measures that have halted any growth and in fact resulted in a GDP contraction.

Posted by: pragmaticagain | January 27, 2011 8:09 AM | Report abuse

There was no sign of a crisis of confidence in the UK budget before the May election; the Conservative government chose to embark on austerity, it wasn’t forced into it.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/25/the-ryan-response/

Posted by: pragmaticagain | January 27, 2011 8:11 AM | Report abuse

Jeez. Fine for Scott to post that DM piece here. But everyone ought to get familiar with the DM. Google around and you'll get a clear picture of the tabloids stance on GW, BBC etc. Here's another DM piece... Will Britain One Day Be Muslim?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-452815/Will-Britain-day-Muslim.html

Here's another... "Britain has 85 sharia courts: The astonishing spread of the Islamic justice behind closed doors"

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196165/Britain-85-sharia-courts-The-astonishing-spread-Islamic-justice-closed-doors.html#ixzz1CF0JcjPH

You get the idea.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 27, 2011 8:14 AM | Report abuse

For those interested (and you wouldn't be, why?) of all the stuff Murdoch owns. It is a long list. You may want to bookmark it for future reference...

http://ketupa.net/murdoch1.htm

Posted by: bernielatham | January 27, 2011 8:16 AM | Report abuse

"...The emails showed no such thing."

Uhh, prags you need to tighten that up a little:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3802.htm

The Guardian (the freakin' Guardian, man) was all over this.

Where U been?

Posted by: tao9 | January 27, 2011 8:17 AM | Report abuse

Nearly all of the difference between the August deficit estimate for 2011
and the current one is attributable to the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-312, hereafter
referred to as the 2010 tax act) enacted in December.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/01-26_FY2011Outlook.pdf

Posted by: pragmaticagain | January 27, 2011 8:19 AM | Report abuse

So Krugs proves we're not in a debt crisis.

Cool.

But why were we, according to Krugs, in a debt crisis from Jan 2001 until Jan 2009?

Majick.

Posted by: tao9 | January 27, 2011 8:22 AM | Report abuse

mark said:
"Both Scott and Bernie will argue against that position."

I don't argue economics. I don't know enough about it.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 27, 2011 8:24 AM | Report abuse

The Science and Technology Select Committee inquiry reported on 31 March 2010 that it had found that "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact". The emails and claims raised in the controversy did not challenge the scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity". The MPs had seen no evidence to support claims that Jones had tampered with data or interfered with the peer-review process.

The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia". House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. Parliament of the United Kingdom. 31 March 2010. pp. 52–54. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387i.pdf. "The committee's report was not unanimous; Labour MP Graham Stringer voted against several of its recommendations including an amendment by Evan Harris declaring that Dr Jones' scientific reputation remained intact."

A New York Times editorial, after the July 2010 reports, referred to Climategate as a "manufactured controversy," and expressed the hope that reports clearing the scientists "will receive as much circulation as the original, diversionary controversies,".[113] In June 2010 Newsweek called the controversy a "highly orchestrated, manufactured scandal."[114]

A July 2010 Boston Herald editorial said that while the scientists were "given a not-quite-full exoneration ... echoes of the uproar still prompt needed skepticism."[115] A Wall Street Journal editorial criticized the Muir Russell study as "a 160-page evasion of the real issues." The newspaper said that "the review assumes the validity of the global warming 'consensus' while purporting to reaffirm that consensus. Since a statement cannot prove itself, the review merely demonstrates a weakness for circular logic."[116]

Senior editor Clive Crook at The Atlantic wrote that, judging by the various inquiries carried out into Climategate, "the climate-science establishment ... seems entirely incapable of understanding, let alone repairing, the harm it has done to its own cause."[117] Roger Harrabin of the BBC said that the reviews examined behaviour but not science, thus not satisfying sceptics that their findings were definitive. He identified what he described as inconsistencies and said, "Critics suspect a whitewash to hide flaws in climate science, but my own lengthy investigations into the background to the inquiries have found no smoking gun."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident#cite_note-ST-101

Posted by: pragmaticagain | January 27, 2011 8:26 AM | Report abuse

re climate "scandal"

"Scientific organizations
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group I issued statements that the assessment process, involving hundreds of scientists worldwide, is designed to be transparent and to prevent any individual or small group from manipulating the process. The statement said that the "internal consistency from multiple lines of evidence strongly supports the work of the scientific community, including those individuals singled out in these email exchanges".[66][67]
The American Meteorological Society stated that the incident did not affect the society's position on climate change. They pointed to the breadth of evidence for human influence on climate, stating "For climate change research, the body of research in the literature is very large and the dependence on any one set of research results to the comprehensive understanding of the climate system is very, very small. Even if some of the charges of improper behavior in this particular case turn out to be true—which is not yet clearly the case—the impact on the science of climate change would be very limited."[68]
The American Geophysical Union issued a statement that they found "it offensive that these emails were obtained by illegal cyber attacks and they are being exploited to distort the scientific debate about the urgent issue of climate change." They reaffirmed their 2007 position statement on climate change "based on the large body of scientific evidence that Earth's climate is warming and that human activity is a contributing factor. Nothing in the University of East Anglia hacked e-mails represents a significant challenge to that body of scientific evidence."[69]
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) reaffirmed its position on global warming and "expressed grave concerns that the illegal release of private emails stolen from the University of East Anglia should not cause policy-makers and the public to become confused about the scientific basis of global climate change. Scientific integrity demands robust, independent peer review, however, and AAAS therefore emphasized that investigations are appropriate whenever significant questions are raised regarding the transparency and rigor of the scientific method, the peer-review process, or the responsibility of individual scientists. The responsible institutions are mounting such investigations." Alan I. Leshner, CEO of the AAAS and executive publisher of the journal Science, said "AAAS takes issues of scientific integrity very seriously. It is fair and appropriate to pursue answers to any allegations of impropriety. It’s important to remember, though, that the reality of climate change is based on a century of robust and well-validated science."[70]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

Posted by: bernielatham | January 27, 2011 8:27 AM | Report abuse

"The point of the Krugman piece re UK is that despite the fact that the UK was not in a debt crisis, the Conservative government imposed austerity measures that have halted any growth and in fact resulted in a GDP contraction."

"There was no sign of a crisis of confidence in the UK budget before the May election; the Conservative government chose to embark on austerity, it wasn’t forced into it."

Yes, that is the non sequitur that he is propounding, since it is his opinion -- not fact -- that ever-ballooning public spending and expansion of the welfare state is never a problem in itself. Apparently there was enough of a "crisis of confidence" to cause a change of government -- bringing in namby-pamby "conservatives" who are no more than socialist-lites, whom Krugman chooses to argue are imposing austerity by choice rather than necessity or prudence.

The "point" of his piece is to distort what Ryan said to charge him with having misrepresented the situation in UK. Ryan said the UK is forced into painful austerity; Krugman's contrary OPINION isn't a fact and doesn't support his charge that Ryan misrepresented anything.

What is it that one poster likes to say -- F- (miserable failure).

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 27, 2011 8:27 AM | Report abuse

re climate "scandal"

"Scientific organizations
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group I issued statements that the assessment process, involving hundreds of scientists worldwide, is designed to be transparent and to prevent any individual or small group from manipulating the process. The statement said that the "internal consistency from multiple lines of evidence strongly supports the work of the scientific community, including those individuals singled out in these email exchanges".[66][67]
The American Meteorological Society stated that the incident did not affect the society's position on climate change. They pointed to the breadth of evidence for human influence on climate, stating "For climate change research, the body of research in the literature is very large and the dependence on any one set of research results to the comprehensive understanding of the climate system is very, very small. Even if some of the charges of improper behavior in this particular case turn out to be true—which is not yet clearly the case—the impact on the science of climate change would be very limited."[68]
The American Geophysical Union issued a statement that they found "it offensive that these emails were obtained by illegal cyber attacks and they are being exploited to distort the scientific debate about the urgent issue of climate change." They reaffirmed their 2007 position statement on climate change "based on the large body of scientific evidence that Earth's climate is warming and that human activity is a contributing factor. Nothing in the University of East Anglia hacked e-mails represents a significant challenge to that body of scientific evidence."[69]
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) reaffirmed its position on global warming and "expressed grave concerns that the illegal release of private emails stolen from the University of East Anglia should not cause policy-makers and the public to become confused about the scientific basis of global climate change. Scientific integrity demands robust, independent peer review, however, and AAAS therefore emphasized that investigations are appropriate whenever significant questions are raised regarding the transparency and rigor of the scientific method, the peer-review process, or the responsibility of individual scientists. The responsible institutions are mounting such investigations." Alan I. Leshner, CEO of the AAAS and executive publisher of the journal Science, said "AAAS takes issues of scientific integrity very seriously. It is fair and appropriate to pursue answers to any allegations of impropriety. It’s important to remember, though, that the reality of climate change is based on a century of robust and well-validated science."[70]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

Posted by: bernielatham | January 27, 2011 8:29 AM | Report abuse

"Citigroup bailout to make US taxpayers $12.3bn profit"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jan/26/citigroup-stake-sold-by-us-government

Likely the story that will head up FOX news today.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 27, 2011 8:31 AM | Report abuse

Bernie:

""Fine for Scott to post that DM piece here.""

As I said, it wasn't a "DM piece". It was an excerpt from the memoirs of a former employee of the BBC.

If I linked to a transcript of Obama's SOTU speech in the NYT, would you call it a NYT piece? Well, yes, I suppose you would if doing so suited your desire to deflect from what the speech said.

""You get the idea.""

Yes, I think we do.

Posted by: ScottC3 | January 27, 2011 8:32 AM | Report abuse

This SotU address is Obama's lowest rated.

It was flat and lifeless.

Same old, same old stuff.

Like a funeral for liberalism in America.

Maybe it was and the ones left are the walking dead.

Kinda scarey!

Posted by: battleground51 | January 27, 2011 8:33 AM | Report abuse

The "point" of his piece is to distort what Ryan said to charge him with having misrepresented the situation in UK. Ryan said the UK is forced into painful austerity; Krugman's contrary OPINION isn't a fact and doesn't support his charge that Ryan misrepresented anything.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 27, 2011 8:27 AM

What is your definition of "forced" in this context?

Posted by: pragmaticagain | January 27, 2011 8:33 AM | Report abuse

Ooo, bernie cites no less than Wikipedia! to settle this business of climate change fraud. Amusing. Wiki becomes more laughable all the time.


Re the CBO, does it still assume that tax changes do not affect economic performance?

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 27, 2011 8:33 AM | Report abuse

Looks like things are astir in Yemen too...

http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/thousands-rally-in-yemen-joining-tunisia-and-egypt-in-anti-government-protests-1.339517

The neocons are going to do their propaganda thing and claim the war on Iraq was the impetus for these events. There won't be any evidence proffered to support this source of causation but that won't stop them from the faith-based assertion.

It looks to me like the structures of modern communication systems and social media are facilitating a "freedom to congregate and communicate" digitally and that this is allowing previously disconnected individuals and groups to build new types of consensus outside of the normal regimes (with all the controls they had previously found successful).

This could be really important.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 27, 2011 8:41 AM | Report abuse

So all of the sources cited in the wikipedia article are not accurate? All of those investigations did not occur?

Is CBO again the unbiased arbiter?

Posted by: pragmaticagain | January 27, 2011 8:43 AM | Report abuse

"What is your definition of "forced" in this context?"

What difference does it make to the point? Krugman's false logic is: austerity is only justified by an existing public debt crisis, thus Ryan is a liar. UK officials apparently concluded that the burgeoning welfare state and budget itself has begun to stifle the economy.

Krugman of course can't address that reality and, more importantly to him, it doesn't work, being a matter of judgment, to accuse Ryan of falsehood. So he mischaracterizes what Ryan said. It's just easier for Krugman to construct non sequiturs than engage issues honestly.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 27, 2011 8:44 AM | Report abuse

Unimproved cliche of the day (from Fred Thompson writing at NRO)...

"Fixing Bathroom Tiles on the Titanic"

Posted by: bernielatham | January 27, 2011 8:46 AM | Report abuse

It's a Climategate WiKi Blast(!!11!1!) saying:

"IPPC, STSC, AAAS, EACRU, PENNST, SUNY/ALBANY, AMS, AGU, and 1000's of other agencies with capital letters; Hereby find nothing scientifically untoward happened at all, anywhere, at any time at the following institutions: IPPC, STSC, AAAS, EA/CRU, PENNST, SUNY/ALBANY, AMS, AGU."
[69][13][111][2+2][5][5-27][5-27][hut][hut]

IOW: Ford pardons Nixon. Shockaah!

{{{ever notice tao almost never, ever uses WiKi?}}}

Posted by: tao9 | January 27, 2011 8:46 AM | Report abuse

So you think it was accurate for Ryan to conclude that the UK was "forced" to impose its austerity plan?

What was the cause of this force?

Posted by: pragmaticagain | January 27, 2011 8:47 AM | Report abuse

bernielatham, that "profit" does not factor interest paid by us nor how much more would have been saved in debt servicing if the Citigroup bailout amount had been used instead to actually pay off our most expensive debt.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 27, 2011 8:49 AM | Report abuse

& no, I don't believe in Death Panels.

I do believe in Transubstantiation...it's how I rollz, suckaz.

Posted by: tao9 | January 27, 2011 8:53 AM | Report abuse

@tao - I'm right with ya, man. The very last people you want to be listening to as regards matters of scientific research and writing based on that research would be scientists.

Otherwise...going through the NRO and Weekly Standard this morning, I can't find any mention at all of the Tea Party response to the SOTU (other than a link to Matthews going after the TPE guy).

That strikes me as being verging on the unthankful.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 27, 2011 8:56 AM | Report abuse

Of all the people in all the world to walk into this joint she has to walk into...

nope, wrong movie ref...

Anyway, Bernie, I'd think you, given your, uh, proclivities, would at least entertain a slight notion of the remote possibility of a whitewash.

It must have been awesome to move all those Chinese weather stations around, especially making 20 or so freakin' vaporize with a mouse click. That's alot of bricks and mortar.

And the fudged tree rings. Talk about Green!

Posted by: tao9 | January 27, 2011 9:05 AM | Report abuse

One good thing from the TARP fiasco, though, is the investigation (which Issa may need to follow up on) by Leaked extracts from the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission's definitive findings:

• President Bill Clinton's administration "forced" derivatives onto the market with terrible consequences.
• Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan's championing of derivatives for low-income homeowners who should never have qualified for loans was a "pivotal failure to stem the flow of toxic mortgages" and a "prime example" of government negligence.
• Timothy Geithner, US treasury secretary, could have done more to clamp down on excesses at Citigroup while he was president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and failed to understand Lehman's problems until it was too late.

Posted by: clawrence12 | January 27, 2011 9:09 AM | Report abuse

All, check out David Axelrod's long, impassioned and very interesting response to those who say Obama is repositioning himself:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/01/david_axelrod_no_grand_reposit.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | January 27, 2011 9:14 AM | Report abuse

bernie said:

"The very last people you want to be listening to as regards matters of scientific research and writing based on that research would be scientists."

Er, the very last parties we'd want to declare the foxes innocent in regards the chicken coop are . . . ?

"So you think it was accurate for Ryan to conclude that the UK was "forced" to impose its austerity plan?

What was the cause of this force?"

How would you measure such accuracy? Do you consider it a matter of fact? Do you agree with Krugman ballooning public spending and state dependency can never be detrimental to economic growth? Do you agree with him that there is never a need to restrain spending or taxes, so long as the latter keeps up with the former? Do agree with him that this makes Ryan a liar?

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 27, 2011 9:29 AM | Report abuse

Oops the second quotation/response were of/for prag.

Posted by: quarterback1 | January 27, 2011 9:31 AM | Report abuse

Republicans are on the right track, it seems. Gallup has Republican approval much improved over last year. Obamacare repeal must be a good thing.

PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans' opinions of the Republican Party have improved to the point where now more have a more favorable than unfavorable opinion of the party. The last time more Americans viewed the GOP more positively than negatively was in 2005.

In March, just after President Obama signed the healthcare reform bill into law, 41% of Americans had a favorable view and 54% an unfavorable view of the Democratic Party, the worst Gallup has ever measured. Three other 2010 measurements showed similar scores.

The Democrat media knows all this. That is why the Obama, media bobbleheads are furiously hyping everything Obama, including Obama's tepid, lifeless SotU speech.

The propaganda war has been declared. The Obamacrat media has but one goal now. That is to destroy the opposition and get their DEAR LEADER re-elected in 2012.

The Obama mediaites are like soldiers and the keys on their boards are like the triggers of guns, the words like a blizzard of bullets.

Sarge Greg is up for the RED STAR for duty above and beyond. That guy is officer material.

Posted by: battleground51 | January 27, 2011 9:33 AM | Report abuse

@tao - why the hell would other groups of scientists unconnected to the emailers risk damage to their scientific standing and careers through engaging in a whitewash or supporting a whitewash? Is your opinion of this group of professionals so low as to imagine that would be the case? It makes no sense. The incentives go in the other direction.

What does make sense is the utilization of a seemingly fraudulent activity (or at least an activity that could be portrayed that way) by front groups funded by the relevant industry bodies in order to cast doubt on the global warming scientific conclusions so as to continue operations without regulation. The incentives for them point precisely that way.

Corporations have as their duty return to shareholders. Scientists have as their duty the careful analysis of information so as to understand the world correctly. If you are looking for truth, it isn't the first of these that is going to be dependable in giving it to you because that isn't their duty nor their concern. Truth disseminated is often at direct odds to their interests (tobacco companies and cancer etc etc).

Further, we know that casting doubt on science and scientific findings is a key strategy in place, promoted by highly paid and expert PR companies engaged by industry, because there are leaked memos which explicitly state that.

So, don't expect me to buy into the narrative.

Posted by: bernielatham | January 27, 2011 9:37 AM | Report abuse

QB1 posted:

"Re the CBO, does it still assume that tax changes do not affect economic performance?"

I was under the impression from 15 sec. I heard on TV that CBO does factor in an economic performance effect, based on the most recent past experiences.

Trouble is, I may not have heard correctly, and I never followed up. I too, would be interested in a definitive response.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 27, 2011 9:42 AM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company