Saturday, March 08, 2014

Newt Gingrich: always good for a yuk


This is a lightbulb, signifying a good idea --
something I have never had.

When it came time for professional sleezebag Newt Gingrich to address the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), he used part of his time to paint Hillary Clinton, the presumptive 2016 Democratic presidential nominee,  as an "obstacle to economic progress," saying that to frame her in this way was a "key to winning the White House":

If this is a fight between the future and the past and we truly represent for the average American a better future and they truly represent for the average American those forces blocking that future, we will win decisively.

As proof, Gingrich went on about how Democrats want to slow down the number of smart-phone apps we will be able to get, pointing to the fact that the Food and Drug Administration has proposed regulating health-related smart-phone apps. Oh, horrors. 

If you are wondering what is this hideous debasement of our freedom of which he speaks, this is from a Sept. 2013 FDA press release:

Mobile medical apps currently on the market can, for example, diagnose abnormal heart rhythms, transform smart phones into a mobile ultrasound device, or function as the "central command" for a glucose meter used by a person with insulin-dependent diabetes.

"Some mobile apps carry minimal risks to consumer or patients, but others can carry significant risks if they do not operate correctly. The FDA's tailored policy protects patients while encouraging innovation," said Jeffrey Shuren, M.D., J.D., director of the FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health.

This, he says, is "a fight where we can be on the side of younger Americans and the left is hopeless."

I can't say what particular bug is up Newt's ass on what seems a reasonable regulatory approach, but if he thinks the GOP is going to turn itself into the party of techno-cool by appealing to young people's concerns about mobile medical apps, good luck with that.

If Republicans really want to appeal to young people, perhaps they should get on the right side of marriage equality, legalized marijuana, an increased minimum wage, good paying jobs generally, or education affordability. 

That's a thought, although the medical app thing could work too. 

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share

Friday, March 07, 2014

Paul Ryan weeps for school lunches

By Frank Moraes


Paul Ryan was at CPAC today, and he's been getting a lot of attention for a story he told about a young man who didn't want to get a free hot meal from the school but would rather have his parents pack him a brown bag lunch. "He wanted one, he said, because he knew a kid with a brown-paper bag had someone who cared for him." To Paul Ryan, we are depriving this boy of the dignity of his parents work. Or something.

There are a couple of things that really strike me about this story. First, when I was a kid, I was one of those kids with brown bags. And I really didn't like it. I would much rather have gotten a hot lunch. It wasn't about the love that my mother was supposedly giving me; it was about the taste of food. Mom was a fine cook, but there is only so much you can do with a sandwich. It got boring.

I also know kids. What this young man is probably getting at is the fact that hisfriends have brown bag lunches. He's feels like the oddball, because he isn't like them. He would feel the same if he were the one with the brown bag when all his friends got hot lunches. Of course, it could well be that this young man doesn't have any parents close by. He might be a foster kid. Certainly the line "someone who cared for him" makes it sound like the kid is missing a whole lot more than lunch. Regardless: his complaint is not about the fact that he gets a state-paid lunch but that he isn't getting one from mom. Even as it stands, the story does not say what Ryan claims it does.

Read more »

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share

On the Hustings


(New York Times): "Trying to revive his prospects, Rubio pushes strength abroad"

(The Nation): "Bernie Sanders: 'I'm prepared to run for President of the United States"

(Public Policy Polling): "McCain least popular senator in country"

(Real Clear Politics): "Illinois governor's race showcases union fears"

(Wall Street Journal): "New York Gov. Cuomo's approval ratings drop sharply in new poll"

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

When Democrats and Republicans alike prefer protecting the Pentagon to dealing with the plague of sexual assault in the military

By Michael J.W. Stickings 

Yes, once again, the Senate has acted shamefully:

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand came up short Thursday in her yearlong campaign to overhaul military sexual-assault policies, falling five votes short of the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster.

The New York Democrat's bill, which would have removed the chain of command from prosecuting sexual assaults and other major military crimes, was derailed in the Senate on a 55-45 vote, closing out one chapter in a debate that divided the Senate but not along typical partisan lines.

Ten Republicans, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and 2016 presidential hopefuls Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Rand Paul of Kentucky, backed Gillibrand's controversial chain-of-command bill. But that wasn't enough to overcome 10 Democratic votes against her, including prominent defense hawks like Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin of Michigan and Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri. Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) also opposed the bill.

Things to note here:

1) This was a procedural vote, not an actual vote on the bill. But Gillibrand still got a majority of senators to support her effort, which is admirable. If the Senate were actually a functioning legislative body instead of a stage for partisan and ideological grandstanding, where all it takes is one member to shut things down with a filibuster, that is, if democracy actually mattered, the outcome would have been different.

2) Yes, this is one area where President Obama does need to show a good deal more leadership. His active involvement, as opposed to merely supporting Gillibrand in principle and hoping for the best, could have been the difference.

3) There is indeed an argument to be made for the military to be able to mange its own affairs, but it's a stupid argument that essentially holds that the military is off-limits to civilian oversight beyond the bare minimum and that the whole culture of the military is special and different and so not subject to the normal rules of society in any regard. This was basically the Republican position.

Read more »

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share

No one likes John McCain anymore

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Remember when John McCain was a popular maverick (however faux), a celebrated independent (even if always a loyal Republican and for the most part hardcore conservative), a straight-talking renegade admired across the spectrum?

He was truly something back then, back in his pre-Palin glory days. He was a frequent guest on The Daily Show, where Jon doted on him with respect and admiration for apparently not being an insane Republican, and the Sunday-morning talk shows treated him like the voice of reason and wisdom on every issue under the sun.

Oh, but there was the seething anger then as well, the bad temper, the frequent forays into dangerous irrationality, the reckless knee-jerking that guided his views on foreign and military policy, much of it kept hidden behind his carefully manicured image, his skillfully manufactured brand. But it was all a facade, or most of it anyway, and eventually it was bound to crack. The Palin pick in '08 was the first sign many people paid attention to, though you could have seen it coming, and since then he's been a rapidly deteriorating madman who no longer gets any love from Mr. Stewart.

And while he still gets the "independent wise man" treatment from the Beltway media machine, his popularity beyond the friendly confines of Meet the Press has collapsed, including in his home state:

PPP's newest Arizona poll finds that John McCain is unpopular with Republicans, Democrats, and independents alike and has now become the least popular Senator in the country. Only 30% of Arizonans approve of the job McCain is doing to 54% who disapprove. There isn't much variability in his numbers by party -- he's at 35/55 with Republicans, 29/53 with Democrats, and 25/55 with independents, suggesting he could be vulnerable to challenges in both the primary and general elections the next time he's up.

Maybe none of this really matters. He's still enough of an institution to be able to stand firm against most challengers, and in any event it's not like anyone in Congress is all that popular at the moment. But it's interesting that the public perception of McCain is very different than the mainstream news media perception of him.

I'm not saying that one's status as a serious person with serious views ought to be determined by one's popularity with a fickle and generally ignorant public, but it does make you wonder why he continues to be held in such high esteem by the myopic morons who aim to shape public opinion from their David Broder-authorized position of privilege somewhere beyond the fray.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share

A.M. Headlines


(New York Times): "Moscow signals it will embrace Crimean move for secession"

(Washington Post): "Crimea solidifies ties with Russia ahead of referendum on leaving Ukraine"

(Politico): "President Obama, Vladimir Putin speak on Ukraine crisis"

(U-T San Diego): "Issa apologizes, skirts censure"

(Washington Post): "New health insurance marketplaces signing up few uninsured Americans, two surveys find"

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, March 06, 2014

Maybe they'll finally do something

By Carl 

The CIA searched computers intended to be used solely by the Senate Intelligence Committee in an apparent effort to determine how committee staff members gained access to a draft version of an internal agency review of its controversial interrogation program, U.S. officials said.

The action, some officials say, would mark the first time a U.S. intelligence agency has accessed congressional computers and would be an apparent violation of the constitutional principle of separation of powers.

So the CIA finally decided that senators are people, too? 

It's not the separation of powers that should concern senators. It's the fact that the CIA is directly tasked with espionage overseas, not domestically (that's the purview of the NSA, thankyewverymuch).

And it's not like this is an ambiguous situation. We've been down this road already once in recent memory.

As with many things CIA, it looks like a case of trying to intimidate and badger people looking into behaviors they would prefer be kept under wraps, no matter how sworn to secrecy that investigator(s) might be. I can understand that a spy agency might want to keep a lower profile about some of the sausage-making it has to perform – after all, imagine if someone got a whiff of Zero Dark Thirty ahead of time – but senators?

And even allowing for the grandstanding many of them, who really ought to know better, engage in, it might be a good idea to rein in the hounds.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share

On the Hustings


(Washington Post): "Poll finds Republicans resistant to Chris Christie presidential candidacy"

(U.S. News): "Chris Christie's big moment at CPAC"

(CNN): "Poll: Wide divide on abortion"

(NBC News): "Rand Paul as Howard Dean?"

(Reuters): "Obama budget: a boon midterm narrative for Democrats?"

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

A.M. Headlines


(Washington Post): "Senate rejects Obama appointment of Debo Adegbile to top civil rights post"

(The Hill): "Senate vote a stinging defeat for Obama"

(New York Times): "Cuomo burnishes his political brand, using de Blasio as his foil"

(Bloomberg News): "Putin says no immediate need to invade eastern Ukraine, leaves threat dangling"

(Roll Call): "Would McConnell have a governing majority?"

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, March 05, 2014

Debo Adegbile deserved full Democratic support and Senate confirmation to top civil rights post

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Debo Adegbile is supremely qualified to lead the Justice Department's civil rights division. He was, after all, the director of litigation for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, working for that organization in different legal capacities from 2001 to now. He has argued cases before the Supreme Court and is, needless to say, an expert in a wide range of civil rights matters.

But as director of litigation at the NAACP he worked -- among many other things -- on the defense team for Mumia Abu-Jamal, who had been sentenced to death for killing a Philadelphia policeman. And not in the original trial phase but only in the death penalty phase, where -- as I'll get to shortly -- there were serious constitutional problems that needed addressing. But no matter. Apparently it's not appropriate to do such things -- to defend a black man facing death on a civil rights violation (just as apparently certain people don't deserve their constitutional rights to defend themselves in court, and those who defend them are somehow doing something wrong) -- and that was enough to turn enough Democrats against him to join with the anti-Obama Republican mob to block his nomination in the Senate. He was rejected 52-47.

One expects Republicans to oppose a supremely qualified Obama nominee for the top civil rights job in the federal government, especially a black man from the NAACP, but what's up with Dems voting against him? Well, they're the barely Democratic, Republican-leaning Democrats from purple and red states you might expect them to be -- Bob Casey (PA), Chris Coons (DE), Joe Donnelly (IN), Heidi Heitkamp (ND), Joe Manchin (WV), Mark Pryor (AR) and John Walsh (MT). All that was needed was a simple majority, but these cowards stood with the Republican obstructionists, and worse, to vote down a great nominee.

Read more »

Labels: , , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share

On the Hustings


(ABC News): "KSTP/SurveyUSA poll: Franken leads GOP challengers"

(New York Times): "Texas G.O.P. beats back challengers from right"

(Politico): "George P. Bush wins statewide race"

(Real Clear Politics): "Harry Reid: Republicans are "addicted to Koch"

(Washington Times): "Rand Paul seeks Kentucky law to run for president, Senate at same time"

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

EITC doesn't replace minimum wage

By Frank Moraes

Jonathan Chait has a good article about Obama's new budget plan, Obama To Republicans: You're Right, Let's Expand The Earned Income Tax Credit. After Obama started talking about raising the minimum wage, the whole Republican movement went around crying, "Raising the minimum wage is a bad idea; let's increase the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) instead!" Chait notes that this is just Obama's way of calling their bluff.

What Chait doesn't mention is that the whole Republican EITC offer is just their usual bait and switch. It reminds me very much of the whole individual mandate. When the Republicans were afraid of single payer healthcare reform or even HillaryCare, the Republicans were all for the "free market healthcare reform" that was Obamacare. But the moment that Obamacare became the Democratic plan, it was, "Socialism! Socialism I tell you!"

The same thing is going on with the EITC. As long as the Republicans are afraid that the Democrats might raise the minimum wage, then the EITC is a great talking point. It implies that they actually care about the poor, but just disagree about tactics. But the moment that the Democrats start talking about the EITC, the Republicans will turn against it. Many of them will go back to their usual "moochers" narrative that far from getting money from the government, low wage workers should be paying. Otherwise, they will support the welfare state. Blah blah blah.

Read more »

Bookmark and Share

Texas primary

By Mustang Bobby

Wendy Davis is the Democratic candidate for governor.
The Fort Worth state senator formally clinched her party’s nomination Tuesday night. She headlines a Democratic ticket that in November will seek the party’s first statewide victory since 1994, which was also Richards’ last year in office.

She’ll be running against Greg Abbott, and the GOP has already shown that they’ll make it a knock-down/drag-out bar brawl.

George P. Bush, son of former Florida governor Jeb Bush, is on the ballot as Land Commissioner. The technical term is “legacy hire.”

Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) completely cratered in his attempt to unseat Sen. John Cornyn in the primary. Mr. Stockman gave up his seat to run, so he’s not only out of the Senate race, he’s out of a job. Aww.

Oh, and Kinky Friedman is running as Agriculture Commissioner on a platform that includes legalizing marijuana. Whoa, dude!

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Bookmark and Share

A.M. Headlines


(BuzzFeed): "Hillary Clinton compares Russia moves to Nazi aggression"

(Politico): "Ukraine: Why didn’t the U.S. know sooner?"

(USA Today): "Obama's budget eyes $1 trillion hike in tax revenue"

(Real Clear Politics): "Deficit hawks pan Obama's $3.9 trillion budget"

(Washington Post): "Support for same-sex marriage hits new high; half say Constitution guarantees right"

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, March 04, 2014

Today in slanted news

By Carl

The diplomatic crisis in Ukraine is bad enough and the America government struggles to find a path to work this out are harsh and complex, but see if you can guess where this article was posted:
Is Russian President Vladimir Putin crazy or crazy like a fox?

In remarks quoted by "The New York Times," German Chancellor Angela Merkel reportedly wondered aloud whether the Kremlin leader was "living in another world." And despite the fact that the German government later denied Merkel's comments, an increasing number of analysts have been suggesting that, with his military intervention in Ukraine, Putin may have indeed taken leave of his senses.

Stanislav Belkovsky, an influential Moscow-based political commentator, says "the poor guy's brain isn't working."

And Andrei Zubov, a professor at the prestigious Moscow State Institute of International Relations, agrees.

"We always make prognoses based on the assumption that the politician, even if selfish and cruel, is intelligent and rational. But what we see now is the behavior of a politician who has lost his mind," Zubov says.

Rumors of Putin's supposed madness have become so prevalent in recent days that one can't help but recall the "madman theory" of former U.S. President Richard Nixon, whose administration tried to plant the suspicion that he was unbalanced in order to scare geopolitical opponents into concessions.

Any guesses? OK, let me give you some clues: Surprisingly, it’s not Fox News.

In fact, it’s not any of the usual right-wing bellicose megaphones.

It is, in truth, our own fucking Congress. I thought politics ended at the shore?

I guess not.

You’re looking at a very dangerous game being played by a highly partisan Republican party trying desperately to make something, anything, stick to Obama.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Bookmark and Share

On the Hustings


(Washington Post): "Poll: Democrats’ advantage on key issues is not translating to a midterm-election edge"

(Monmouth University): "Booker in 2014 NJ Senate pole position"

(New York Times): "Democrats try wooing ones who got away: White men"

(Real Clear Politics): "Rubio, Paul highlight GOP's foreign policy divide"

(Roll Call): "Texas: What to watch in the first primaries of 2014"

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

President Obama's cautious, restrained, responsible leadership on the Ukraine situation

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The usual warmongering idiots on the right, from John McCain and Lindsey Graham to Krazy Bill Kristol and anyone else who likes to play partisanism with international relations and world affairs, not to mention many in the "mainstream" media who buy into American hegemonic militarism and dick-wagging, are training their sights as much on the American president as the Russian one, as if somehow the person to blame now is not the guy waving his dick around Crimea but the guy in the Oval Office who apparently isn't waving his dick enough to satisfy domestic American bloodlust.

Yes, all this is somehow Obama's fault, or at least made worse by Obama's supposed inaction, or by his supposed lack of leadership, or by his something, it's not entirely clear. You can find yourselves McCain's spittle-spewing rants, or Kristol's seemingly reasonable but actually utterly insane views, but let's turn here to the non-liberal editorial board of the non-liberal Washington Post, which alone proves that the "liberal media" is anything but, which on Sunday took the liberty of attacking Obama for somehow making the Ukraine/Crimea crisis worse, or enabling Putin, or not being tough enough, or something:

FOR FIVE YEARS, President Obama has led a foreign policy based more on how he thinks the world should operate than on reality. It was a world in which "the tide of war is receding" and the United States could, without much risk, radically reduce the size of its armed forces. Other leaders, in this vision, would behave rationally and in the interest of their people and the world. Invasions, brute force, great-power games and shifting alliances — these were things of the past.

*****

The urge to pull back — to concentrate on what Mr. Obama calls "nation-building at home" — is nothing new, as former ambassador Stephen Sestanovich recounts in his illuminating history of U.S. foreign policy, "Maximalist." There were similar retrenchments after the Korea and Vietnam wars and when the Soviet Union crumbled. But the United States discovered each time that the world became a more dangerous place without its leadership and that disorder in the world could threaten U.S. prosperity. Each period of retrenchment was followed by more active (though not always wiser) policy. Today Mr. Obama has plenty of company in his impulse, within both parties and as reflected by public opinion. But he's also in part responsible for the national mood: If a president doesn't make the case for global engagement, no one else effectively can.

*****

Military strength, trustworthiness as an ally, staying power in difficult corners of the world such as Afghanistan — these still matter, much as we might wish they did not. While the United States has been retrenching, the tide of democracy in the world, which once seemed inexorable, has been receding. In the long run, that's harmful to U.S. national security, too.  

So... what? Obama is supposed to... ramp up military spending with reckless fiscal abandon, like it's the 1980s all over again and the key is to bankrupt the Soviet Union through a renewed arms race? Or... send toops to Crimea to engage the Russians who are unofficially there? Or... well... just wag his dick around like he owns the fucking world?

Read more »

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share

A.M. Headlines


(The Guardian): "Don't listen to Obama's Ukraine critics: he's not 'losing' – and it's not his fight"

(Dana Milbank): "Obama, the feckless tyrant"

(Reuters): "German foreign minister against excluding Russia from G8"

(New York Times): "McConnell vows a Senate in working order, if he is given control"

(The Hill): "Boehner: I'll run for Speaker again"

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

Monday, March 03, 2014

Reflections on the 2014 Oscars

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I live-tweeted the Oscars like mad last night, maybe because I was quite mad myself, but it was a way to get through the 3 1/2-hour slog while trying to retain a sense of humor about the whole damn thing unfolding before us. It's over now, and it hardly matters whether the show itself was any good, but I'll repeat what I wrote last night, namely, that it wasn't, that even more than usual it was a shallow show characterized by the shameless narcissism of self-congratulating Hollywood superstars, even if that's what it always is, that it was a terrible show saved by a generally strong year in film, chanelled into a long list of worthy nominees and winners, from Best Picture on down through the "lesser" categories, and some genuinely likeable stars, young and not-so-young alike, that it was an insular, self-absorbed show that seemed to take place in a vacuum completely cut off from everything else going on in the world, as if Hollywood was content to engage in self-aggrandizement without reference to real life.

But whatever. It was what it was. Ellen was occasionally amusing, but that's about it. She offered up a few biting lines, but she's nothing if not a gleeful cheerleader for Hollywood's glorification, a warm, generally non-threatening enabler of the Cult of Celebrity that characterizes her show and the world of Oscar.

In the end, though, it's the movies that matter, and while the Oscars are never perfect, far from it, it's always something of a relief to see Hollywood reward it's generally better elements rather than offer up the latest stupid sequel as mindless fodder for the multiplex hordes. And while I still have to catch up with all of the nominees, waiting to catch them on video instead of frequenting the silver screen as I once did, I certainly think the Academy got it right this year. That doesn't mean you can't argue over this or that, or that the Oscars truly capture the best in film, as the Academy rarely veers far from the mainstream for any number of reasons, but basically 2013 was a really good year for American film, at least as far as quality mainstream movies are concerned, and a lot of really good films got at least a nod. Honestly, can you argue all that convincingly against 12 Years a Slave, Cuaron, McConaughey, Blanchett, Leto, Nyong'o, and Jonze, not to mention all the other worthy nominees in category after category, or even those films that walked away with nothing but are still excellent examples of what the American film industry can accomplish, movies like Captain Phillips, American Hustle, Inside Llewyn Davis, and Nebraska?

Don't get me wrong, the truly best and historic films of 2013 might include any number of foreign films or non-mainstream American films that didn't register at the Oscars, but this year the Oscars proved to be an embarrassment of riches, of sorts, with many great films getting some recognition, statuette or no.

Read more »

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share

12 Years a Slave

By Carl

It’s rare that Oscar sees things my way:
“12 Years A Slave” won best picture at the 86th Academy Awards on Sunday night, a poignant victory for the harrowing look at slavery in the United States.
Brad Pitt, one of the producers and stars, accepted the honor and then handed off accepting duties to director and fellow producer Steve McQueen.

“Everyone deserves not just to survive but to live,” said the British filmmaker. “I dedicate this award to all the people who have endured slavery” and to those who still suffer in slavery today. Besides best picture, the film received Oscars for John Ridley for adapted screenplay and newcomer Lupita Nyong’o for supporting actress.

It got my vote, and hands down, I might add. If it hadn’t been for 12 Years, I likely would have voted for American Hustle.

And kudos to McQueen for pointing out that this is not a dim memory of American history, but a tragic stain on our conscience, and a current dilemma for so many people.

Even in America. Even. In. America.

It is not a movie for the faint of heart, but let’s face facts: if you’re faint of heart, you probably don’t read this blog, are not a liberal, and would prefer to think of America as this place where anything is possible rather than deal with reality.

Read more »

Bookmark and Share

On the Hustings


(The Hill): "Waiting for Jeb"

(Washington Post): "How Rand Paul is winning"

(New York Times): "Big-money donors demand larger say in campaign strategy"

(Washington Post): "Senate primaries test GOP establishment, insurgent wings"

(Roll Call): "The top 5 House race rematches… are gone"

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

Crimean War II?

By Capt. Fogg

I admit, that my eyes rolled a bit when I noticed Wikipedia just entered some lines of disambiguation to their page on the Crimean War so that the flood of inquiries into just what and where the Crimea is would be directed elsewhere. Yes America, there was another Crimean War and it's beginnings involved Russia claiming the right to "protect" Orthodox Christians in the peninsula as they apparently claim to be doing now by "protecting" ethnic Russians. Should we say Welcome to CW II?
I wonder how many of us will be prompted to recall how Hitler claimed to be protecting ethnic Germans in Poland. There's not a hell of a lot new here and that's scary. Weary and broke after years and years of ongoing and unnecessary war with no end apparent, we hardly need to get involved in yet another unwinnable contest with a major nuclear power.

That doesn't stop the Goddamned Republican Party from using the opportunity to accuse Obama of weakness, perhaps for not ramping up the chest pounding anthropoid display of bellicose bravado those self-destructive bastards are so fond of. Of course even though he's a chickenshit coward, a wimp and a trembling little girl, he's still a tyrant, right? No, a real man, a real American hero like John Wayne would already have his finger on the button and the red phone in hand threatening Putin with annihilation just like Reagan would do. No I don't think they want a nuclear war any more than you and I do, but they do want the humiliation of Barack Obama at any cost and at any risk -- all else be damned. 

Read more »

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

Flashback

By Mustang Bobby

Gary Trudeau is going on a bit of a sabbatical, as Doonesbury is going back to the beginning.


Those of you under 40 are in for a treat.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Bookmark and Share

Republicans support war not troops

By Frank Moraes


I haven't given any attention to Bernie Sanders' veterans benefits bill (S.1982), even though my Google+ account was flooded with information about it last week. I knew it wouldn't go anywhere. But what ultimately happened says a lot about the modern Republican Party.

It was a simple bill: it allocated $21 billion over the next ten years to enhance veterans benefits, which is needed, given the huge increase in demand caused by our two recent very long wars. But it's

hard to get too excited about such things given that the Republicans are against doing anything out of principle. They wouldn't want the president to have a "win."

So I figured that like most widely supported bills, it would make it through the Senate and go to die in the House. After all, the Senate is filled with people like John McCain and Lindsey Graham, men who have never seen a war they didn't like. Certainly these men who love talking about our brave heroes in uniform would be for supporting the former troops. But no. They both filibustered the bill. So it didn't even get the chance to go to the House to die.

Of course, the Republicans who filibustered the bill would never admit to being against the bill. They claim to be all for extending these benefits. But this is always the way things work in Congress. This is one of the main points in Winner-Take-All Politics. Politicians will never admit to being against a bill in a general sense. They always come up with some minor reason why the bill is unacceptable. I lampooned this before regarding the minimum wage, "If we were raising it to $8.99 per hour, I would vote for it. But I just cannot support $9 per hour!"


Read more »

Bookmark and Share

A.M. Headlines


(New York Times): "Pressure rising as Obama works to rein in Russia"

(Mother Jones): "Here's what is going to happen with Ukraine"

(The Hill): "US moves to isolate Russia from 'community of civilized nations'"

(TPM): "Gov. Brown not ready to legalize weed, worried about 'potheads'"

(Roll Call): "5 reasons this supposedly boring budget year could be anything but"

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, March 02, 2014

Bruce Springsteen tackles Lorde's "Royals" to open first show in New Zealand in 11 years

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Yesterday, Bruce Springsteen, with the E Street Band, performed in New Zealand for the first time in over a decade, and he chose to open the show with a cover of one of the biggest songs ever to come out of that distant land (to us, not them), one of the biggest songs of 2013, the recent Grammy winner for Song of the Year, "Royals" by Lorde. (From what I understand, Lorde is a teenaged hobbit with a bit of an eccentric goth look who sings about things well beyond her years and the pastoral peace of the Shire.)

It was an unambiguous nod to New Zealand, of course, but also a really fine cover of a song that actually isn't that bad, that may actually be quite good, if overplayed and overhyped and overrated, as is usually the case with such global pop tunes, not to mention also simplistic and repetitive. And with its critique of our generally hyper-materialistic and narcissistic culture, and particularly as that culture is reflected in contemporary popular music, it's actually a very Springsteen-ish song thematically, and in his stripped-down acoustic version Bruce brought depth and intimacy to it, even a certain anger, of sorts, like he actually knows what it's all about, like he's actually seen it all before, because of course he does and he has, and doesn't like it at all.

Anyway, here it is, the opening song of his March 1 show at Mt. Smart Stadium in Auckland, a show that featured Born in the U.S.A. played in its entirety along with some of his very greatest songs, like "Atlantic City," "The River," "The Rising," and "The Ghost of Tom Joad" (along with "Born to Run" and "Thunder Road," of course), as well as Wrecking Ball highlights like the title track, "Death to My Hometown," and "Land of Hope and Dreams," instead of focusing on his most recent album, High Hopes, from which only "Tom Joad" and the title track made an appearance. Enjoy!

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share