Great week for America & Dems (bad, for everyone else)!

Happy Friday, all! What a fantastic week for Americans - and a bad week for Republicans, Tea Partyers, and many Libertarians (the ones who just. can't. stand any government interfence and regulating bodies)! Let me take a brief moment to give you two examples - from this week alone - detailing the differences between the Democratic party and Republican party (of which Ron Paul is a devout member). *WARNING: includes facts!

1) Dems, let by Obama, Nancy, Harry and all the others, two years ago, created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). That means what it says: a body, that protects YOU, the consumer, from getting ripped the *&^% off by financial institutions. Republicans/Tea Partyers/many libertarians voted AGAINST this regulating body ...and since the bureau's been established, those same powers have made sure the President could not put someone in charge of it. Based on their actions, the GOP/others do not want YOU protected from predatory financial corps. Well, mercifcully, Obama decided to do some "fillibusting, baby!" and he put a leader - Richard Cordray - in place to start going about the business of protecting all Americans. This guy is an aggressive defender of consumer rights, having brought AIG to it's knees, with a $1,000,000,000 settlement, when he was prosecuting them for bad business practices, as Attorney General, earlier in his career. WINNING! GOP/tea partyers/many liberatarians be damned!

2) Today's job report (just released): a net of 200,000 jobs were added last month, and the jobless rate fell to 8.5%, it's lowest level since Feb, 2009, which was just a couple of weeks after Obama took office, when began fixing the God-awful mess that 8 years of Bush and the republicans made, with their wholly-unnecessary Iraq war (which caused 5,000 unnecessary deaths to our american heroes, and unnecessary physical and mental wounds for life, to another 100,000 american heroes), and TWO failed tax cuts (which added over $1,000,000,000,000 to the deficit). The unemployment rate has dropped, consistently, for a nice clip now, and we're in a six-month stretch in which the economy generated 100,000 jobs or more in each month. That hasn’t happened since April 2006. April, 2006. For all of 2011, the economy added 1.6 million jobs, better than the 940,000 added in 2010. All of this is better than analysts expected. Why? Because the Dems, let by Obama, Nancy, Harry and all the others lead and legislated purposefully, with the goal of fixing the economy, implementing good ideas like the stimulus package (even FAUX news analsysts begrudingly admit the Stimulus/Recovery Act was successful), and the recent payroll tax cut, among other things (the GOP was against a tax CUT! ANYthing to ensure Obama's not re-elected)! ...policies and proposed legislation that the GOP, Conservatives and tea party (to a person!), voted AGAINST. Do not forget that.

In summary: Democrats good for America. Republican, Conservatives, Tea Party, many Libertarians, and some "Independents" bad for America.

"Enjoy your weekend, America!"

-sj

What the Fuck has Obama Done so Far?

If you haven't seen this yet, you're missing out, plain and simple. Most of us know how much Obama, Pelosi, Harry Reid and the Democrats have accomplished the last two years. Too many people don't. Especially the less-educated and less-informed people of the country (Rush Limabaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity to name just a few).

Well, when you click on the title of this post, or here, you'll get dozens of the policies, bills and legislation that Obama and his administration have established and implemented the last two years, in a "couldn't-be-easier-to-read" format. Next time your whining "independent" or libertarian friend alludes to him not doing anything, just point them towards whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com and tell them to shut the fuck up.

I don't know who Shavanna Miller, Will Carlough and Richard Boenigk are, but they are to be seriously commended for thinking this up. Great job peoples!

below are just two screen shots. check the rest out now, here!

"get ready, criminals: hell is coming to breakfast"

Obama nails it. No ambiguity. Elizabeth Warren has been hired to protect Americans from evil, and put financial institutions, predatory lenders, and other criminal entities in check. This is what real change looks like, baby!

clicking on title of this post will bring you to HuffPo piece, filled with mad information and details on who she is, why she rules, and what the particulars are; including an incredibly-simple breakdown of just how easy it was for the mortgage brokers and financial services industry to hoodwink americans and just how they were responsible for the near-depression we find ourselves still in. Following are some excerpts....sj

"Anyone who knows her knows that she would only take a position that had real meat to it," said one source who had worked closely with Warren in the past. "I mean, seriously, you've seen her in action. Do you really think she's going to be anyone's lapdog? She bites hard."

"Republicans, too, began to endorse her. A former top official in the Reagan administration said a vote for Warren was akin to a vote for capitalism and free markets."

"Later that year, her opposition widened to include much of the House GOP. Republicans on the House Financial Services Committee introduced an amendment to the pending financial reform legislation intended to prevent Warren from ever heading the agency. It was defeated."

Wanna see why she rules? Watch this...

America got better today! Another great achievement for Obama & the Democrats

This new financial reform legislation the Democrats passed yesterday is worth celebrating. It's a victory for those who prioritize fiscal responsibility, a victory for conservatives, progressives, libertarians, all Americans, really! This is what change looks like. This is what those of us who voted for Obama wanted. Like, fix stuff. He's delivered, with another campaign promise fulfilled, straight from the Democratic playbook (and platform). Again, thanks for NOTHING, congressional Republicans (w/ the exception of 2 or 3)! I've compiled a few of the best takes/articles on what the legislation means, what it doesn't mean, some of the people involved, and what's next. - sj

Wall Street Reform Passes
Ryan Grim
Shahien Nasiripour
Huffington Post

Nearly two years after major banks brought the global financial system to the brink of collapse, triggering a steep economic decline and crisis-levels of unemployment, Congress passed its Wall Street reform package, 60-39, with only three Republicans joining every Democrat (but one). The president will sign it into law next week.

The bill became stronger as the nation's focus moved from health care to Wall Street reform and became tougher still as the debate was held in the open on the Senate floor and during televised conference committee negotiations. Bank lobbyists were able to beat back the most serious threats to their business model, but enough significant reforms remain to earn the opposition of the American Bankers Association and other Wall Street titans.

When Democrats last reformed the financial sector in the midst of the Great Depression, they had several advantages that today's party lacks:
(click on title of this piece for more of the informative article)

FinReg Vote Passes, Will Become Law
by David Dayen
Firedoglake

The Senate passed their cloture vote, as expected, on the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory reform bill. The vote was 60-38, with Scott Brown, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins supporting from the Republican side, and Russ Feingold opposing. Senatus says that the final vote will be taken up this afternoon, but I haven’t confirmed that. (UPDATE: It’s confirmed that passage will happen today, around 2pm ET.)

The bill is a landmark consumer protection and anti-predatory lending bill. It goes fairly far in that direction, though not quite far enough – the auto dealer exemption is a disappointment. But the mortgage reforms are actually pretty solid, and I have confidence that the consumer protection bureau can have an impact on ending a culture where certain predators in the financial services industry make their profits largely based on how well they can trick people.

As for the Wall Street part of the Wall Street reform bill, the public has no sense whatsoever that it will work. More important, most experts don’t either.
(click on title of this piece for more of the informative article)

FinReg vs Wall Street Reform
by Ezra Klein
Washington Post

Matt Yglesias calls it "the underrated FinReg bill," and I take that headline as a personal victory of sorts.

But he's right about the legislation. The desire for a bill that does more has obscured a clear picture of a bill that does a lot. "We’ve tended to focus much more on what’s not in the bill than on what is in the bill," Yglesias says. "What is in the bill is a consumer protection setup that would be considered a major progressive win as a standalone item. What is in the bill is a 'resolution authority' that will let future regulators avoid the bailout-or-crisis dynamic that plagued us in 2008. What is in the bill are regulatory tools that even Simon Johnson likes. The bill clarifies lines of regulatory authority and responsibility and should cut down on abusive 'competitive regulation.' "

I'd add a few more major wins. Bringing derivatives onto exchanges and into clearinghouses is a huge victory. In 2007, the over-the-counter -- and almost entirely unregulated -- derivatives market was worth about $700 trillion in notional value, and regulators had no idea what went where and few firms had serious capital or margin requirements. Those days are over.
(click on title of this piece for more of the informative article)

Blame the Teachers

Here's a story, in light of the mass firing of an entire high school staff at a "failing" school in Rhode Island.

When I began my teaching career way back in 1994 in Youngstown, Ohio, I was well aware that working in an urban, "inner city" district would pose significant challenges. First off, though the population of the high school was racially mixed, though not "balanced" (whatever that was supposed to mean), it was the product of a downsizing merger in which the entire population of one school had been moved to one of the three remaining high schools in the city at the time. My school, naturally, had the largest number of the new students.

In their wisdom, the district administration had taken a large number of youngsters who were members of a social organization known as the Bloods and crammed them into a school with an already established social organization known as the Crips. Two smaller social clubs known as Vice Lords and the Folk also shared the halls.

And every one of them was a great kid. They didn't have much use for each other, but they were never a problem for me. Just like any other school, there was a wide range of abilities and effort represented. Just like any other school, there were wide-ranging discussions of literature and current events. Just like any other school, the vast majority of the staff did everything they could to help kids succeed.

But there was an awful lot going on outside of the school.

There was a rule that staff had to be out of the building by 3:15, so they could lock down the building. The door to the staff parking lot had a bullet-hole just below the reinforced glass window. I had nice morning conversations with the police officer who spent his entire shift out in that parking lot, as well as his five colleagues stationed inside the school every day.

There were plenty of fights each week, mostly between girls, but I can only remember one time that the officers had to actually chase down one of the male students. He was a 20 year-old sophomore who had been so horribly abused by his alcoholic father that he was considered permanently disabled and already collecting SSI. When he failed was I the reason?

One of my favorites was a petite girl named Tania. She was pregnant when school began, and had to leave around Thanksgiving to be with her baby for a while. She came back just as the winter weather was turning to spring. She was far behind, of course, and would make every effort while at school, but had very little time or willingness to work on anything outside school. By the time we said goodbye for the summer, she had become pregnant again. She had just turned 16. When she failed, was I the reason?

When it came time for parent-teacher conferences, my roommate (in a shared classroom) advised me to bring a book to read. I was appalled. After all, we had an entire day without students set aside, and an evening as well. I had a total of three parents show up, one of whom was so drunk he couldn't remember what class I taught for his son. When the son failed, was I the reason?

Every so often, I would arrive at school and notice a couple of unmarked police vans in the lot. Weapons check. That meant an absence rate of close to 50% sometimes, but at least 25%. Some of the police would walk around the building and search the bushes after the school day began. They always found a few knives. Once, a .22 pistol.

When these kids did abysmally on tests (and not all of them did), was it really the teachers' fault? For some, it was a small miracle that they even got to school every day. For many of them it meant two guaranteed meals that day, so that was all it took.

Now, I'm highlighting some of the more dramatic cases of what I experienced, but keep in mind that this was not at all unusual for high-poverty districts. It still isn't unusual for high-poverty districts to be faced with overall failure.

In the case of the Rhode Island high school, the town of Central Falls has a population of about 18,600 and a per capita income of $10,800. According to Wikipedia, over 40% of the population under age 18 lives in poverty.

So our Hope&Change president had this to say:

"If a school continues to fail its students year after year after year, if it doesn't show signs of improvement, then there's got to be a sense of accountability…And that's what happened in Rhode Island last week at a chronically troubled school, when just 7 percent of 11th-graders passed state math tests -- 7 percent."

Thanks, man.

Couldn't we make the case that it isn't so much the school that's "chronically troubled," but the neighborhood or town itself? In fact, shouldn't we take into consideration that the number one predictor of academic success is the education level of the parents and the accessibility of books (and reading) in the home? Should we maybe consider that poverty and lack of academic progress are consistently found to be related phenomena, that failing schools also have dismal attendance rates, high numbers of transient students and are usually in areas that over-rely on property taxes for school funding (a model that was found unconstitutional by the Ohio Supreme Court four times before a Republican majority was elected to the Court, which promptly overturned the decision)?

Seriously, Mr. President? That's all you've got?

Update 3-10-10: Here's a link to a blog called Tempered Radical,where the author says pretty much the same thing as I did (a colleague pointed out the similarity to me). Only, he published earlier, so hat tip to him. We even zeroed in on the same quote from Obama (originally from WaPo), which I cribbed from another blog about the speech. Personally, though I agree with this blogger on this issue, I don't have the same sense of disappointment overall. Yet.

I don't teach in Youngstown anymore. I found a job in a wealthy exurban district that is able to easily sweep all of its troubles under a rug. More on that another time.

They live among us! The 2010 comprehensive Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll of self-identified republicans

Okay, folks this is too much. The new poll from Markos Moulitsas (a hero of my mine) and Daily Kos. And it's 100% independent and legitimate, as you can read the COMPLETE methodology at bottom of poll. There are links to the complete story, and analysis below; the poll is long, but the the findings are truly extraordinary. The summaries are short, but all are worth reading. This is too damn important to not read, and I sincerely urge you to do so.

I learned years ago, I lived among tens of millions of Americans who aren't that bright (too put it nicely), but honestly, I didn't know it was this many. And I didn't know the extent of their gullibilty (is that a word?!) and ignorance. At a time when information and facts are at everyone's disposal, we STILL have millions of people who apparently forgo fact, for fiction, and choose to believe the craziest batshit out there (it especially helps when Rush/Rove/Hannity/FAUX news tell them what to believe)! Well, in this case, it's solely republicans I'm speaking about, as only self-described republicans were polled independently for this survey. No, not all republicans are clueless (in all seriousness, I have plenty of friends and neighbors who are republicans, and many of them are far from clueless; not all of them though). But according to these poll results, LOTS of them are! These are their OWN answers! Just look at them! So w/out further rambling, I'll try and get the whole of the poll on this post, w/ a few summaries/results printed, and links to the original stuff.-sj

by Kos
Tue, Feb 02, 2010, at 08:58:03 AM PST

As I've mentioned before, I'm putting the finishing touches on my new book, American Taliban, which catalogues the ways in which modern-day conservatives share the same agenda as radical Jihadists in the Islamic world. But I found myself making certain claims about Republicans that I didn't know if they could be backed up. So I thought, "why don't we ask them directly?" And so, this massive poll, by non-partisan independent pollster Research 2000 of over 2,000 self-identified Republicans, was born.

The results are nothing short of startling.

Ultimately, these results explain why it is impossible for elected Republicans to work with Democrats to improve our country. Their base are conspiracy mongers who don't believe Obama was born in the United States, that he is the second coming of Lenin, and that he is racist against white people. They already want to impeach him despite the glaringly obvious lack of high crimes or misdemeanors. If any Republican strays and decides to do the right thing and try to work in a bipartisan fashion, they suffer primaries and attacks. Even the Maine twins have quit cooperating out of fear of their homegrown teabaggers.

Given what their base demands, and this poll illustrates them perfectly, it's no wonder the GOP is the party of no.

(just a few brief results followed by thought; click on link just below these for the rest! - sj)

Should Barack Obama be impeached, or not?
Yes39
No32
Not Sure29
...for what? who the heck knows. who needs high crimes and misdemeanors when...

Do you believe Barack Obama wants the terrorists to win?
Yes24
No43
Not Sure33
...not just a quarter of Republicans believe this ludicrous premise, but another third think it's a matter open to debate. How do you negotiate with a party whose rank and file are that divorced from reality?

Do you believe Barack Obama was born in the United States, or not?
Yes42
No36
Not Sure22
...We still have over a half of Republicans who don't think Obama was born in the US or think it's a matter open to debate.

click here for the summary, breakdown, captions and comments.

click here for the actual & complete poll, hard numbers, questions, answers and methodology.

Obama smacks down SCOTUS activist judges in his first SOTU address

Barack Obama's first State of the Union Address was very, very good. Some say excellent. Beck and Hannity "HATED IT!" Well, here's one of the highlights. Just weeks ago, The Supreme Court of the United States struck down a decades-old law that limited what corporations could pay to support presidential campaigns. How did this happen? Well, there are 5 Republicans on the bench now, unfortch. both pilgrim99 and me spoke about this in earlier posts, just before the one. Well here's Barack's take on it, and we see (Republican) Justice Alito mouth "that's a lie" after Barack states the truth about the decision. Good times.

Rachel Maddow nails it: Obama's Nobel Prize

The conservative hysteria: call it "Obama Derangement Syndrome." As Rep. Grayson said, if President Obama had a BLT for lunch, the Rethugs would try to ban bacon out of spite.

new poll: 35% of NJ conservatives think Obama might be anti-christ (NOT an Onion/sarcastic piece)!

Current practicing church-going Christian and co-founder of the religious right, himself, Frank Schaeffer, attempts to break down why so many of our fellow countrymen and women are just plain morons. - sj

Most of you know I'm a teacher in a public high school. Social Studies, English, but mostly Social Studies. Having a president speak to students via television is nothing new (Reagan, GHW Bush and Clinton all did, and we all know GW Bush was in an elementary school when 9-11 happened). What is new is having misinformed mouthbreathers object to the president addressing students. So my colleagues and I received the following from our superintendent on Friday. The Glenn Beck, et. al. Brigades have been using their cellphones apparently:

Dear Teachers,


In case you haven’t heard, President Obama intends to address the children on Tuesday, September 8th at noon. As a district we will not be airing President Obama's speech or utilizing the supporting documents for the speech. I believe his intentions are appropriate but we will let the political controversy to be handled by the parents. Furthermore, with Sept. 8th being the first day of classes it will make doing a public airing impossible.

While we respect the position of President, as a public school, we also must respect the rights of a parent to make decisions for their children when it comes to politics. We have been inundated with calls and emails by many parents both in favor and against the speech being broadcast live to students. In order to minimize any controversy and the potential disruption of the educational process, I have decided to leave it to parents to discuss or watch the speech with their children on their own time.

Our job is to teach children to think critically and think for themselves. Being in the midst of political controversy is not our intent as we begin the year.

Thank you for your understanding.


Sincerely,

xxxxx

You no doubt can see the irony in the last statement. My boss isn't the brightest bulb in the chandelier to begin with, and "inundated" by calls probably means two or three. That's the way he operates. One tiny lick of a controversy and he's digging a foxhole and putting on kevlar. Jeebus, could somebody put us out of Glenn Beck's misery, please?

Districts near mine are having all students watch the speech. Parents were, of course, given the ability to "opt out", which is fine, as there never was a mandate from the Dept. of Ed. or the White House for all schools to watch (basically, they don't have the authority to do that). The default position is for all students to view the speech, but that is determined by individual districts, not the government. Yet more evidence that Faux News and their ilk have little regard for facts.

So my buddy at school who teaches AP Government says: "I wasn't going to watch it, but I sure as hell will now. What are they gonna do, send me a nasty email?" And he's a Republican. Nothing like being a Social Studies teacher and being told you can't teach your subject.



Love my frakking job!

Update:


Amen.

Obama's official birth certificate

Here it is you fucking birth survivors (clik official birth certificate for bigger view). Oh, and by the way, the other presidential candidate, John McShame, was born in Panama. Is Panama in America? - sj

One of my favorite pics of the year so far...

This was a pic Yahoo News posted on July 9th, from the G8 summit (full caption below photo). It was Drudge's feature pic that day, with this caption below it: "Second Stimulus!" Hilarious. I love this pic. Cracks me up. Classic. Check out joker Nicolas Sarozky. I wonder what the young woman looks like. How can you not?

U.S. President Barack Obama (C) and France's President Nicolas Sarkozy (R) take their places with junior G8 delegates for a family photo at the G8 summit in L'Aquila, Italy, July 9, 2009. Leaders of the Group of Eight major industrial nations and the main developing economies are meeting in the central Italian city of L'Aquila until Friday to discuss issues ranging from global economic stimulus to climate change and oil prices. REUTERS/Jason Reed (ITALY POLITICS IMAGES OF THE DAY)

It's Up to You, Israel and Islam

Posted June 4th
By Craig Crawford

Ok, so Barack Obama threw down the gauntlet with an exceedingly blunt speech in Cairo that, while not a policy address in diplomatic terms, provided a road map for ending hostilities between Jewish and Arab interests.

If the President's direct words, holding both sides accountable for progress, are not soon echoed by mainstream Israeli and Muslim leaders then the world shall know that they are not now and perhaps shall never be true agents for peace.

If electing a Christian with Muslim and African heritage, who has repeatedly stood firm for the preservation of Israel's Jewish state, is not enough to promote an eventual end to this ridiculous conflict then what more can the American people do? We've tried everything, from Jimmy Carter's conciliations to George W. Bush's war mongering. This presidency could be your last chance, folks, or you're on your own.

Obama spoke essential truths on Thursday. He said things that neither side dares to say in public -- namely, that Arabs privately accept Israel's right to exist, and that Israelis privately acknowledge the inevitability of a Palestinian state.

"It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true," Obama said.

It is time for each side to step up and lead their peoples to the place that Obama described. If they don't, we can rightly conclude that neither side is worthy of American support.

only 1 option Dems in Congress: GRILL HER!

Sonia Sotomayor truly appears to be a fabulous pick for the Supreme Court by President Obama, w/ the exception of one...gigantic...problem: her abortion rights record. Or, rather, what little there is of it. However, there is this ruling of hers, which is precisely the law/rule/directive Bush implemented as soon as he got in office, and the same exact one Obama eliminated once he got in office:

"In a 2002 case, she wrote an opinion upholding the Bush administration policy of withholding aid from international groups that provide or promote abortion services overseas."

Read that again. And again. And there are other rulings/opinions she's written throughout her career, which make me, a militant pro-choicer and abortion-rights activist EXTREMELY CONCERNED about this pick (I am also "pro-life," by the way, as in: "I like life," life is a good thing! I support 'life' in general, for all things living!)...

Look, if Dems now have the power to confirm whoever they want - and they do - they also have the power to DENY any pick Obama makes. If Sonia Sotomayor is not pro-choice, Congress MUST DENY HER a seat on the bench. PERIOD. Is she? Isn't she? Only one way to find out: GRILL HER! - sj

Click here, to read some more very interesting details and the entire great report by the NY Times.

Justice Souter will retire. Obama to appoint replacement. Conservative heads exploding.

I didn't think it would be Souter, actually. Lots of people will be weighing in, of course, with all number of suggestions and comments, most of which will be utter bullcrap. I just have a couple quick thoughts running around:

Sen. Specter's decision has just become more significant.
(former) Senator Coleman's stubborn refusal to accept reality has also become more significant.
There's a very good chance Obama's nominee will coast to confirmation (once Sen-elect Franken is seated), and that could be a ... gasp!... "librul"!
Justice Alito's and Justice Scalia's heads may explode. Thomas' will probably just melt.

I bet two more Justices hang it up soon, too.

ps: I'm hoping for a woman to be appointed, preferably African-American or Hispanic.

Miss California Is Just Like Our Prez Except for the Huge Dangling Things

I've been wondering the same exact thing that Ron Kuby (see his take, below) and many others have, since I first heard Obama's belief that gays should not be able to marry, way back when. Then during the primary season, I figured it was just lip service, to win over the "undecideds" and "moderates" (what a fickle and annoying sub-sect they are, their hugely important votes in national elections notwithstanding), and to not upset the republicans/conservatives out there, who didn't want to vote republican, but live with the concern/fear, that if they voted for a pro-gay marriage candidate, they wouldn't get into heaven. Alas, it appears Obama truly is against gays marrying and feels the same way that Miss California and tens of millions of republicans/conservatives throughout America feel. Needless to say, I hope he changes him mind. And I hope that the states, one-by-one, will continue to move in the direction they are, legally recognizing marriage as a right for gays and lesbians everywhere. There is no reason not to. - sj

By Ron Kuby
In case our audience wasn't paying attention to the Miss USA contest (I only watch because it is my duty to do show preparation), Miss California was a shoo-in to take the crown until she drew Perez Hilton as her questioner in the section of the contest that determines the candidate's thoughtfulness on the issues facing our world.

Usually it is a question about AIDS (bad), world peace (good), or what you can do to make people happy (having sex with many, many people, while true, is not a winning answer. Usually they go with education). Hilton, however, asked her whether other states should follow the lead of the four that permit gay marriage, why or why not?

Miss California (aka Carrie Prejean) stated that she believed marriage to be between a man and a woman, that is how she was raised.

She also managed to say that we live in a country where people of the same sex are free to marry (except in 46 states), and, in a subsequent interview, inadvertently outed her sister, who is in the U.S. Air Force.

Howls of protests greeted her answer. Perez Hilton referred to her as a "bitch." Classy. The head of the Miss California contest expressed his sadness. And Miss North Carolina, who was clearly in second place, jumped ahead with her thoughtful exposition on corporate bailouts (spoiler alert--she opposes them).

I would love to berate this blonde with the big, uh, earrings (huge dangling things). But support for marriage equality is not a qualification for entry into the Miss USA pageant. It seems somewhat unfair to ask a question regarding a person's opinion, when there is only one right answer.

More to the point, President Barack Obama has said precisely the same thing, using almost exactly the same words and exactly the same justification. Why are we so pissed that a beauty queen does not accept same sex marriage, when our president doesn't either?

Required reading/viewing, #27. Frank Schaeffer's got GOP and religious cred; and he's using it to expose the republican party for what it's become.

Hi Folks. So I've known about Frank Schaeffer for a little while now, but didn't know how fed up he actually was over Bush, Rush, the GOP, and the religious right (the latter two, which he once belonged to, the religious right, he and his parents were "co-founders" of, if you will). Unlike Michael Steele (RNC leader) and other GOPers who have apologized to Rush Limbaugh for telling the truth, you won't see that happening with Frank. And he does bring the hammer. Watch this video when you have 8 minutes (an interview he did w/ D.L. Hughley on CNN), and read his "Open Letter to the Republican Traitors (from a former republican)" below. It's an extremely well-written piece and really drives home many points. Perhaps the republicans who visit here (there are lots of you, I know!) can take a little something away from his observations. Original piece here. sj


You Republicans are the arsonists who burned down our national home. You combined the failed ideologies of the Religious Right, so-called free market deregulation and the Neoconservative love of war to light a fire that has consumed America. Now you have the nerve to criticize the "architect" America just hired -- President Obama -- to rebuild from the ashes. You do nothing constructive, just try to hinder the one person willing and able to fix the mess you created.

I used to be one of you. As recently as 2000 I worked to get Senator McCain elected in that year's primary. (McCain and Gen. Tommy Franks wrote glowing endorsements regarding my book about military service, AWOL.). I have a file of handwritten thank you notes from Presidents Ford, Reagan, Bush I and II. In the 1970s and early 80s I hung out with Jack Kemp and bought into his "supply side" myth and even wrote a book he endorsed pushing his ideas.) There's more, but take it from me; my parents (evangelical leaders Francis and Edith Schaeffer) and I were about as tight with -- and useful to -- the Republican Party as anyone. We played a big part creating the Religious Right.

In the mid 1980s I left the Religious Right, after I realized just how very anti-American they are, (the theme I explore in my book Crazy For God). They wanted America to fail in order to prove they were right about America's "moral decline." Soon after McCain lost in 2000 I re-registered as an independent in disgust with W. Bush. But I still respected many Republicans. Not today.

How can anyone who loves our country support the Republicans now? Barry Goldwater, William F. Buckley and Ronald Reagan defined the modern conservatism that used to be what the Republican Party I belonged to was about. Today no actual conservative can be a Republican. Reagan would despise today's wholly negative Republican Party. And can you picture the gentlemanly and always polite Ronald Reagan, endorsing a radio hate-jock slob who crudely mocked a man with Parkinson's and who now says he wants an American president to fail?!

With people like Limbaugh as the loudmouth image of the Republican Party -- you need no enemies. But something far more serious has happened than an image problem: the Republican Party has become the party of obstruction at just the time when all Americans should be pulling together for the good of our country. Instead, Republicans are today's fifth column sabotaging American renewal.

President Obama has been in office barely 45 days and the Republican Party has the nerve to blame him for the economic and military cataclysm he inherited. I say economic and military cataclysm because without the needless war in Iraq you all backed we would not be in the economic mess we're in today. If that money had been spent here at home on renovating our infrastructure, taking us toward a green economy, putting our health-care system in order we'd be a very different situation.

As the father of a Marine who served in George W. Bush's misbegotten wars let me say this: if President Obama's strategy to repair our economy, infrastructure and healthcare fails that will put our troops at far greater risk because the world will become a far more dangerous place. So for all you flag-waving Republicans who are trying to undermine the President at home -- if you succeed more of our troops will be killed abroad.

When your new leader Rush Limbaugh calls for President Obama to fail he's calling for more flag-draped coffins. Limbaugh is the new "Hanoi Jane."

For the party that created our crises of misbegotten war, mismanaged economy, the lack of regulation of our banking industry, handing our country to rich crooks... to obstruct the one person who is trying to repair the damage is obscene.

Just imagine where America would be today if the 14 to 20 million voters -- "the rube base" who slavishly follow the likes of Limbaugh -- had not voted as a block year after year thus empowering the Republican fiasco. We would have a regulated banking industry and would have avoided our current financial crisis; some 4000 of our killed military men and women would be alive; over to 35,000 wounded Americans would be whole; we would have been leaders in the environmental movement; we would be in the middle of a green technology boom fueling a huge expansion of our economy and stopping our dependence on foreign oil, and our health-care system would be reformed.

After Obama was elected, you Republican leaders had a unique last chance to send a patriotic message of unity to the world -- and to all Americans. You could have backed our president's economic recovery plan. Since we all know that half of our problem is one of lost confidence and perception, nothing would have done more to calm the markets and project resolve and confidence than if you had been big enough to take Obama's offered hand and had work with him -- even if you disagreed ideologically. You had the chance to put our country first. You utterly failed to rise to the occasion.

The worsening economic situation is your fault and your fault alone. The Republicans created this mess through 8 years of backing the worst president in our history and now, because you put partisan ideology ahead of the good of our country, you have blown your last chance to redeem yourselves. You deserve the banishment to the political wilderness that awaits all traitors.

Sun Rises, Market Falls

another interesting, well-written analysis from last week's 538.com (visit their site via left sidebar), on Obama, the markets, politics of, et. al. indeed, everything from 538 is interesting and insightful. sj

Sun Rises, Market Falls

One of the more unapologetically idiotic notions being advanced by
certain conservative commentators is the idea that the poor
performance of the stock markets represents a negative reaction to
Barack Obama's stimulus package.

For one thing, the trading markets aren't gauges of overall economic
health. They are gauges of future anticipated profits for the large
corporations that make up their components. In the long run,
certainly, these two things should be correlated. But they needn't be
perfectly so: an oil price shock, for instance, is possibly good for
the profitability of Exxon, while being damaging to the economy at
large. Likewise, the announcement of a plan to take over and
turnaround Citigroup, perhaps a necessary evil for economic recovery,
would certainly not be good for Citigroup's shareholders, who would
probably get wiped out in the process.

That's not the the basis of my critique, however. Rather, it's that
this line of argumentation often cites "evidence" that flies in the
face of Finance 101.

Robust markets like major stock indices are fairly good at
incorporating information. They don't literally have to see an event
occur in order to "price in" its effects. On Wednesday, for example,
Barack Obama signed the stimulus package into law. Once this
occurred, the prospects for the passage of the stimulus rose to 100%.
But what had been the probability of the stimulus bill passing the
very second before Obama put pen to paper? Probably about 99.999999%,
accounting for the small probability of a hostile takeover by space
aliens in the intervening moments. The performance of the market in
reaction to such events tells us no more about how it feels about
them than it does to the rising of the sun.

To the extent that we can learn anything about the market's
preference for the stimulus, we'd instead need to look at those
moments where the passage of a stimulus package became more or less
certain, or its magnitude became significantly larger or smaller than
previously anticipated. In the article I linked to above, professors
Bittlingmayer and Hazlett claim to have isolated a couple of such
moments:

More pointedly, key political victories for the Team Obama spending
plan have not been viewed as buying opportunities on Wall Street. A
string of negative market reactions began with the December 18
announcement of a stimulus bill of $700 billion (Dow down 2.5%),
continued with the January 7 announcement that the actual plan would
be “on the high side” (-2.7%) and continued with last week’s 61-36
Senate vote supporting the Administration’s fiscal plan. The White
House victory and the new bank bail-out plan announced the following
day by Treasury Secretary Geithner were met with a 5% wipe-out in the
DJI, and a decline in Treasury bond yields, indicating a “flight to
quality.”

Bittlingmayer and Hazlett's memories turn out to be rather selective.
Take the December 18th date they describe in their article, when the
markets fell by 2.5 percent. On this date, according to the Wall
Street Journal Obama had outlined the broad parameters of stimulus
package "worth between $675 billion to $775 billion" to Capitol Hill.
Was this a surprise to the markets? Not according to contemporaneous
accounts of the market's activity that day, which do not so much as
mention the stimulus. Moreover, at this time, there were as many
complaints that the stimulus was too small as that it was too large.
As the Journal then reported:

"The biggest fear is that people will do too little," said one
Democratic leadership aide, "like a start-up that fails because it
didn't do enough."

Obama aides hope to keep the package below the trillion-dollar mark,
a psychological threshold that could carry political consequences, as
they fear being accused of adding too much to the country's long-term
budget deficit.

One could advance an argument, which would be no less unconvincing
than Bittlingmayer and Hazlett's, that the market was behaving badly
that day because it wanted more stimulus rather than less.

How about January 7th, the next occasion cited by Bittlingmayer and
Hazlett? Bittlingmayer and Hazlett's phrasing to the contrary, there
was no major "announcement" about the stimulus bill that day.
Instead, there were some off-handed remarks made by Obama at a
morning briefing on the economy, which were described by MarketWatch
as such:

President-elect Barack Obama said Wednesday that his proposals to
jump-start the economy must also build a stronger nation in the long
run. Obama said the size of the stimulus package hasn't yet been
settled in discussions with lawmakers, but it would likely be on the
"high side" of his team's estimates and lower than some economists
have been recommending. The latest guesses are that it will be about
$775 billion over two years.

That sort of carefully-parsed response is hardly the sort of "shock"
that is likely to have altered Wall Street's expectations about the
stimulus. Indeed, Wall Street had many better things to be worried
about that day between a plethora of dour economic news.

And how about November 24th, when Obama rolled out his economic
advisory team and prompted the Wall Street Journal headline "Obama
Signals Big Stimulus Plan"? Bittlingmayer and Hazlett forget to
mention this date. And little wonder why: the Dow had closed up by
almost 400 points.

The fact is, there have been very few surprises in the entire debate
over the stimulus package, the passage of which was more or less
inevitable from the moment Obama took office, and the eventual size
of which -- just under $800 billion -- was in line with the
expectations that the markets had held for weeks and weeks. The
nearest exception was probably on January 29th, when the initial
version of the stimulus passed through the House without a single
Republican vote, something which looked as thought it might
theoretically imperil the prospects of the bill passing in the
Senate. If the market was anti-stimulus, it should have loved this
news; instead it dumped about 230 points.

Disclosure of conflict of interest: I own some mutual funds. I'd like
to see 'em go up. I'm not an anti-Wall Street guy. I'm just anti-stupid.

Governor Jindal = Epic Fail

Did he really use Katrina as an example? He went there?
I had heard Jindal was actually intelligent. WTF did we see last night?

David Brooks thought it was a "disaster".

Seriously?

The New York Post's editors clearly weren't thinking, which appears to be par for their course:

"But it has been taken as something else -- as a depiction of President Obama, as a thinly veiled expression of racism," reads the statement. "This most certainly was not its intent; to those who were offended by the image, we apologize....However, there are some in the media and in public life who have had differences with The Post in the past -- and they see the incident as an opportunity for payback," the statement says. "To them, no apology is due. Sometimes a cartoon is just a cartoon -- even as the opportunists seek to make it something else."

Come, now, you can't really believe that is a legitimate apology. Any reasonably sentient person with even a shred of historical perspective would easily make the association of the chimp to the first African-American President of the US. Given the legacy of racist depictions of African-Americans, over centuries, as monkeys or apes, any aforementioned reasonable person should draw the conclusion that a cartoon such as this would be perceived as at best insensitive, at worst blatantly racist.

As for the defenders of the artist and tabloid who point out that GW Bush was often portrayed as a chimp, the intent of the cartoon is beside the point. There is a line beyond which is no man's land when it comes to racial sensitivity, and there's just too much historical baggage for this to be taken in another context.