tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-282750222024-03-12T21:44:52.676-04:00The Jaundiced EyeCurmudgettehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00909592581165744084noreply@blogger.comBlogger318125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28275022.post-4658507549546647082012-04-06T09:16:00.001-04:002012-04-06T09:20:54.832-04:00Gary Stein Case: Military Board Recommends Dismissal For Marine Who Criticized President Obama On Facebook<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/559708/thumbs/s-GARY-STEIN-large.jpg"><img alt="" border="0" height="292" src="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/559708/thumbs/s-GARY-STEIN-large.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
"Armed Forces Tea Party" was the name of his Facebook page. He should be bounced for that alone. You cannot endorse a political party or group as a member of the armed services. These policies are what separate the US military from the Brownshirts and the SS. The military is apolitical for very good reasons. This guy <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/06/gary-stein-case-criticized-obama-facebook_n_1407719.html">has to go</a>.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: #783f04;">A military board has recommended dismissal for a Marine sergeant who criticized President Barack Obama on his Facebook page, including allegedly putting the president's face on a "Jackass" movie poster.</span><br />
<span style="color: #783f04;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="color: #783f04;">The Marine Corps administrative board said after a daylong hearing late Thursday at Camp Pendleton that Sgt. Gary Stein has committed misconduct and should be dismissed.</span><br />
<span style="color: #783f04;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="color: #783f04;">The board also recommended that Stein be given an other-then-honorable discharge. That would mean Stein would lose his benefits and would not be allowed on any military base.</span></blockquote>Curmudgettehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00909592581165744084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28275022.post-43890601549430321842012-03-01T13:40:00.001-05:002012-03-01T13:45:57.223-05:00Blunt Amendment Vote: Contraception Measure Fails In Senate<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/518103/thumbs/s-BLUNT-AMENDMENT-VOTE-large.jpg"><img alt="" border="0" height="292" src="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/518103/thumbs/s-BLUNT-AMENDMENT-VOTE-large.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #783f04;">"This is just the beginning," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on the Senate floor before the vote. "If the government is allowed to tell people to buy health care, it won't stop there. I wonder what's next? This isn't about one particular religion -- it's about the right of any American to live out their faith without the government picking and choosing which doctrines they're allowed to follow."</span></blockquote>
<br />
That's right, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/01/blunt-amendment-vote-fails-senate-contraception_n_1313287.html">Mitch</a>. It should be <i>business owners</i> picking and choosing what doctrines their employees are allowed to follow. That's a much better system. <br />
<br />
What a tool.Curmudgettehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00909592581165744084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28275022.post-49039386282894144872012-02-29T18:06:00.001-05:002012-02-29T18:54:19.293-05:00NBC News Fires Back At Glenn Greenwald's McCaffrey Report (UPDATE: Greenwald Responds)<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/516730/thumbs/s-BARRY-MCCAFFREY-large.jpg"><img alt="" border="0" height="292" src="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/516730/thumbs/s-BARRY-MCCAFFREY-large.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
So NBC took the time to <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/29/nbc-news-mccaffrey-allegations_n_1310605.html">write a letter</a> that confirms the major elements of Glenn Greenwald's story: They DID have Barry McCaffrey speak on Iran at a recent editorial board meeting. It IS their policy to hear from "leading analysts" like McCaffrey. Nowhere do they even address the central issue raised by Greenwald's piece. McCaffrey has multiple conflicts of interest which were well established by Pulitzer-winning reportage. Yet they conclude that Greenwald's piece was "woefully inaccurate." It would help their case if they could point out a single inaccuracy as opposed to demonstrating how accurate it was.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTyH3QM41HzDotli5ikzkhPpVw3eHtEwVwDVg-294wVjNGMNthSDFUTsulwjSRNM7AUYm1d2I1kIGIFqcqRAJfHAoWtksli0p5sWmgqKuvf14k1Ha-QFvawLgUSgWPpi8ITyj-/s1600/McCaffreyFlag.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="103" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTyH3QM41HzDotli5ikzkhPpVw3eHtEwVwDVg-294wVjNGMNthSDFUTsulwjSRNM7AUYm1d2I1kIGIFqcqRAJfHAoWtksli0p5sWmgqKuvf14k1Ha-QFvawLgUSgWPpi8ITyj-/s400/McCaffreyFlag.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Greenwald's <a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/02/28/gen_mccaffrey_privately_briefs_nbc_execs_on_war_with_iran/singleton/">piece</a> is worth reading for a number of reasons including the images from McCaffrey's powerpoint presentation. Note the use of the flag icon boasting his four star general status. McCaffrey's been <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_McCaffrey">retired</a> since 1996. But this creepy influence peddler and war profiteer still expects everyone to stand up and salute. And NBC seems all too willing to do so.Curmudgettehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00909592581165744084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28275022.post-31060529445358241772012-02-11T10:49:00.001-05:002012-02-29T19:02:12.170-05:00Michele Bachmann At CPAC: Former GOP Candidate Slams Prop 8 Ruling, Meets Chuck Woolery<div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/495743/thumbs/s-MICHELE-BACHMANN-CHUCK-WOOLERY-large.jpg"><img alt="" border="0" height="292" src="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/495743/thumbs/s-MICHELE-BACHMANN-CHUCK-WOOLERY-large.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq"><span font-family: Arial, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; text-align: left;"><span style="color: #783f04;">"Majority rules," he said, dismissing the idea that minorities need protections. "We were born with natural rights. We don't need civil rights. [African-Americans] don't need civil rights. They don't need them. They have inalienable rights granted by God in the Constitution. I mean, I'm discriminated against all the time. I don't care. It doesn't bother me. [I'm discriminated against] because I'm old. I'm too old to get a job as a game show host. They say, well, the guy's 71 and in five years he'll be 76. And I’m a one per center, and I'm absolutely discriminated against as a one per center."</span></span></blockquote><br />
Yes, the age discrimina<wbr></wbr>tion that keeps <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/10/michele-bachmann-cpac-prop-8_n_1268627.html">millionair<wbr></wbr>e septuagena<wbr></wbr>rians</a> from being game show hosts is a real tragedy. It's our national shame and I'm surprised Woolery isn't more outspoken about the injustice. I guess being able to nap on piles of money makes it all a little easier to bear. <br />
<br />
So a people who were brought to this country as slaves and faced discrimina<wbr></wbr>tion and lynching are just like retired entertaine<wbr></wbr>rs. As are people who are denied their inalienabl<wbr></wbr>e right to get married and visit their loved ones in hospital... because God wrote the US Constituti<wbr></wbr>on... huh... (???)<br />
<br />
SaveUsChuc<wbr></wbr>kWoolery.c<wbr></wbr>om = NarcissistCurmudgettehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00909592581165744084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28275022.post-52802143877322252582012-02-09T10:32:00.001-05:002012-02-29T18:51:49.765-05:00Santorum Backer Says Newt Gingrich Looks Like Paula Deen<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/493997/thumbs/s-NEWT-GINGRICH-PAULA-DEEN-large.jpg"><img alt="" border="0" height="292" src="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/493997/thumbs/s-NEWT-GINGRICH-PAULA-DEEN-large.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Far more insulting to Paula Deen than it is to Newt. I can't believe how juvenile this beauty contest has gotten. I'm embarrasse<wbr></wbr>d for the lot of them.<br />
<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/09/newt-gingrich-paula-deen-santorum-_n_1265273.html">Read the Article at HuffingtonPost</a>Curmudgettehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00909592581165744084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28275022.post-77076456338053547372012-02-07T14:17:00.001-05:002012-03-04T01:13:14.092-05:00Karen Handel, Susan G. Komen Executive, Quits Over Planned Parenthood Dispute<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/491200/thumbs/s-KAREN-HANDEL-QUITS-large.jpg"><img alt="" border="0" height="292" src="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/491200/thumbs/s-KAREN-HANDEL-QUITS-large.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
"I openly acknowledg<wbr></wbr>e my role in the matter and continue to believe our decision was the best one for Komen's future and the women we serve." ~ <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/07/karen-handel-quits-susan-g-komen_n_1259835.html">Karen Handel</a> upon her resignatio<wbr></wbr>n from Susan G. Komen Foundation<br />
<br />
FLASHBACK: "Well, let me just for the record tell you, Karen did not have anything to do with this decision." ~ <a href="http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/201%C2%AD2/02/02/10%C2%AD303379-and%C2%ADrea-mitche%C2%ADll-intervi%C2%ADews-susan-%C2%ADg-komens-n%C2%ADancy-brink%C2%ADer">Nancy Brinker</a>, founder of Susan G. Komen Foundation in an interview with Andrea Mitchell<br />
<br />
Where I come from, we call that lying.<br />
<br />Curmudgettehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00909592581165744084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28275022.post-76700479485234037832012-02-01T23:46:00.001-05:002012-02-29T18:50:11.464-05:00Shadrack McGill, Alabama State Senator, Says Keeping Teacher Pay Low 'A Biblical Principle'<div style="text-align: center;">
<img alt="" border="0" height="292" src="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/485332/thumbs/s-SHADRACK-MCGILL-large.jpg" width="400" /></div>
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #783f04;">"Teachers need to make the money that they need to make," McGill said, according to <a href="http://times-journal.com/news/article_16355b2a-4c64-11e1-a0b1-001871e3ce6c.html">the <i>Times-Journal</i></a>. "If you double a teacher's pay scale, you'll attract people who aren't called to teach ... and these teachers that are called to teach, regardless of the pay scale, they would teach. It's just in them to do. It's the ability that God give 'em."</span></blockquote>
<br />
<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/01/shadrack-mcgill-alabama-teacher-pay-bible_n_1247765.html?ref=politics&ir=Politics">Exactly</a>. That's why we need to cap CEO pay. People who are called to be CEOs do it for the love of it. You throw mad amounts of money at these people and they start making really bad decisions.<wbr></wbr>.. as we've seen.Curmudgettehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00909592581165744084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28275022.post-16454819860832705322012-02-01T09:11:00.001-05:002012-02-29T18:49:01.877-05:00Newt Gingrich Florida Primary Results 2012: The Candidate Who Refuses To Operate Within Reality<div style="text-align: center;">
<img alt="" border="0" height="292" src="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/484054/thumbs/s-NEWT-GINGRICH-FLORIDA-PRIMARY-RESULTS-large.jpg" width="400" /></div>
<br />
<br />
Like school on Saturday. <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/31/newt-gingrich-florida-primary-results_n_1244876.html">No class</a>.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #783f04;">Gingrich, in fact, never even congratulated Romney on his win.</span></blockquote>Curmudgettehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00909592581165744084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28275022.post-81212405276143843362011-02-17T20:26:00.002-05:002011-02-17T20:30:21.383-05:00Wisconsin Protests: State Police Pursue Democratic Lawmakers Boycotting Vote<div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/248874/thumbs/s-WISCONSIN-PROTESTS-SCOTT-WALKER-large.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" height="292" src="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/248874/thumbs/s-WISCONSIN-PROTESTS-SCOTT-WALKER-large.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />
<br />
I love <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/17/wisconsin-protests-scott-walker-police_n_824697.html">this</a>!<br />
<br />
<blockquote style="color: #783f04;">The move produced a frantic political drama, as state troopers were reportedly sent out to find the fleeing lawmakers and Walker hinted that the National Guard would be called in to fill the void left by protesting union workers.</blockquote><br />
So they have to call up the National Guard because the cops are in the public union and may get a case of the blue flu. And who will fill the void for the National Guard which is a little tied up in Afghanista<wbr></wbr>n right now? It's a freakin' comedy of errors.Curmudgettehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00909592581165744084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28275022.post-62885863574703906062011-01-16T19:18:00.002-05:002011-01-16T19:29:20.612-05:00Sarah Palin: Political Speech Can Cause Violence<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikb4yLPjUC879bXn5K9415D0jnxQLHkq_wJij3wAGYbSMgU5EeZbCcVU4CqH5_OsLcsaBykPiZ-nunGeCqhv_pld8XRPSzF19dSvean51kOB1MJTNLhQ0iGZ2zBbyQy0l2BDfF/s1600/Sarah_Palin_Fireside.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="262" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikb4yLPjUC879bXn5K9415D0jnxQLHkq_wJij3wAGYbSMgU5EeZbCcVU4CqH5_OsLcsaBykPiZ-nunGeCqhv_pld8XRPSzF19dSvean51kOB1MJTNLhQ0iGZ2zBbyQy0l2BDfF/s400/Sarah_Palin_Fireside.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />
<br />
I just got 'round to reading <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/sarah-palin-fumbles-and-f_b_808336.html">this blog</a> on Palin's speech and I'm glad to see that someone else picked up on how Sarah Palin can't get through a short speech without completely contradicting herself on the central issue of that speech. This one made my eyes spin around their sockets. I mean... huh? <br />
<br />
<blockquote style="color: #783f04;">At no other point in her address were Beck's phony-baloney, maudlin dramatics more apparent than when she accused the press of inciting violence against her: "Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn." <br />
<br />
So when a public figure says something incendiary on television, it can trigger violence, and, therefore, public figures should be careful about their language. Let that be a warning, Keith Olbermann. No recommendations for "Second Amendment remedies" to our problems. And chill out, Arianna Huffington, with anything resembling the word "reload." Sarah Palin said that words can motivate people to commit violence. So cut the crap.<br />
<br />
Except she doesn't believe that. How do we know? She said so in the very same presentation: "Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them." <br />
<br />
That's a direct contradiction. We can only gather that, in her opinion, words are and are not responsible for inciting violence. Confused?</blockquote><br />
I guess words or are only dangerous if she's the potential victim (more of her narcissism). But she has no ability to cause anything with her rhetoric... and that's what makes her a political leader who should be taken seriously in a presidential run... the fact that she's completely ineffectual... (???)Curmudgettehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00909592581165744084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28275022.post-86377689082070386612011-01-14T10:25:00.000-05:002011-01-14T10:25:33.733-05:00Loughner's Politics<div style="text-align: center;"><img src="http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f153/Curmudgette/Jared_Loughner_video_burn_American_1.jpg" /></div><br />
<br />
Regarding Andrew Sullivan's post <a href="http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/01/currency.html">here</a>, I don't see how anyone can say that the Arizona shooter Jared Lee Loughner was apolitical. It's a convenient meme for putting distance between his actions and a toxic, political climate fueled by violent rhetoric. Sarah "crosshairs map" Palin used that talking point in her weird, "blood libel" invoking <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/12/sarah-palin-arizona-shooting-statement_n_807833.html">fireside chat</a>.<br />
<br />
<blockquote style="color: #783f04;">There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal.</blockquote><br />
Lougher's apparent mental illness makes it all too easy to dismiss <i>what</i> he was saying because of <i>how</i> he was saying it. Well I looked at his <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/Classitup10#p/a/f/0/3L1lsLU-kUw">YouTube account</a> the day of the incident. As disordered as his thinking and language is, it's clearly political. Just because it doesn't accord with any consistent, political philosophy that would be apparent to policy wonks inside the beltway, doesn't make it apolitical. It's quite explicitly political. Aside from his own rambling text videos, in which he takes on things like the monetary system and government control, there's the issue of the one and only favorite video <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L1lsLU-kUw">America: Your Last Memory In A Terrorist Country!</a> That video is posted by someone called Starhitshnaz who has a profile that looks exactly like Loughner's. I tend to think it's him. Whether it is or isn't, that this chilling video is his only favorite indicates an identification with a very angry, anti-government, political viewpoint.Curmudgettehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00909592581165744084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28275022.post-74242264054335658992011-01-12T20:42:00.000-05:002011-01-12T20:42:09.740-05:00Republicans in the Crosshairs<span style="font-style: italic;">Appearing at <a href="http://thebloggingcurmudgeon.blogspot.com/"><span style="color: #996633;">The Jaundiced Eye</span></a>, the <a href="http://independentbloggersalliance.blogspot.com/"><span style="color: #003366;">Independent Bloggers' Alliance</span></a>, and <a href="http://www.myleftwing.com/"><span style="color: #663300;">My Left Wing</span></a>.</span><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><img height="265" src="http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f153/Curmudgette/6a00d83451c45669e20148c7729f99970c-550wi.jpg" width="375" /></div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/milpolitics.htm"><span style="color: #134f5c; font-size: x-small;">Jesse Kelly Violating Military Regulations</span></a></div><br />
<br />
It's not just Democrats who are scared after the assassination attempt on Rep. Giffords that left six others dead. A number of Arizona Republicans <a href="http://www.azcentral.com/community/ahwatukee/articles/2011/01/11/20110111gabrielle-giffords-arizona-shooting-resignations.html#ixzz1AowZXHq1">have resigned</a> for fear of Tea Party violence directed at them for being RINOs. I think Jesse Kelly (see photo), who was narrowly defeated by Giffords, makes it clear what Arizona Tea Partiers think of RINOs. The primary target? Anthony Miller, a former McCain campaign staffer and the first and only African-American to hold the chairmanship for his Arizona district. This has netted him the moniker "McCain's boy."<br />
<br />
<blockquote style="color: #783f04;">A nasty battle between factions of Legislative District 20 Republicans and fears that it could turn violent in the wake of what happened in Tucson on Saturday prompted District Chairman Anthony Miller and several others to resign.<br />
<br />
Miller, a 43-year-old Ahwatukee Foothills resident and former campaign worker for U.S. Sen. John McCain, was re-elected to a second one-year term last month. He said constant verbal attacks after that election and Internet blog posts by some local members with Tea Party ties made him worry about his family's safety.<br />
<br />
. . .<br />
<br />
The newly-elected Dist. 20 Republican secretary, Sophia Johnson of Ahwatukee, first vice chairman Roger Dickinson of Tempe and Jeff Kolb, the former district spokesman from Ahwatukee, also quit. "This singular focus on 'getting' Anthony (Miller) was one of the main reasons I chose to resign," Kolb said in an e-mail to another party activist. Kolb confirmed the contents of the e-mail to the Republic.<br />
<br />
. . .<img align="right" src="http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f153/Curmudgette/PHP4D2D045C53EE3.jpg" width="100" /><br />
<br />
"I wasn't going to resign but decided to quit after what happened Saturday," Miller said. "I love the Republican Party but I don't want to take a bullet for anyone."</blockquote>Curmudgettehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00909592581165744084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28275022.post-17403211799495716102011-01-11T14:30:00.002-05:002011-01-11T14:47:29.709-05:00So what's the margin of error?<div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/155069/thumbs/s-JOBS-large.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" height="291" src="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/155069/thumbs/s-JOBS-large.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />
<br />
<blockquote style="color: #783f04;">In fact, the jobless rate is calculated based on survey data, not the unemployment insurance rolls. Roughly one-third of the nearly 15 million unemployed are not receiving benefits in the first place.<br />
<br />
"Each month the Census Bureau conducts a survey of 60,000 households," Steinberg said in an email. "Each household provides labor force information on each member of the household. Everyone unemployed is counted as unemployed, no matter how long they have been unemployed. The survey does not ask about unemployment insurance benefits."<br />
<br />
. . .<br />
<br />
"Respondents are never asked specifically if they are unemployed, nor are they given an opportunity to decide their own labor force status," according to the BLS website. "Similarly, interviewers do not decide the respondents' labor force classification. They simply ask the questions in the prescribed way and record the answers. Based on information collected in the survey and definitions programmed into the computer, individuals are then classified as employed, unemployed, or not in the labor force."</blockquote>If the unemployment number is based on what amounts polling, what is the margin of error? And couldn't that margin of error account for the fractions of a percent that change from month to month? Did the unemployment rate really go down .4 percent last month or is that just variability in polling data? <br />
It's based SURVEYS?!! Now I trust that number less than ever.<br />
<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/11/unemployment-rate-most-persistent-myth_n_806692.html">Read the Article at HuffingtonPost</a>Curmudgettehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00909592581165744084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28275022.post-86682242276512278332010-12-31T23:43:00.002-05:002010-12-31T23:49:04.119-05:00Only 21 Percent Of U.S. Voters Support Net Neutrality<div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/232602/thumbs/s-NET-NEUTRALITY-large.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" height="292" src="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/232602/thumbs/s-NET-NEUTRALITY-large.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />
<br />
"So this is how democracy dies; with thunderous applause."<br />
<br />
Kind of how I felt when I read this disturbing tidbit on the <a href="http://nymag.com/news/politics/70282/">silliness of libertarians</a>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote style="color: #783f04;">Maybe it was inevitable that the National Opt-Out Day, when travelers were going to refuse body scans en masse, failed to become the next Woolworth’<wbr></wbr>s sit-in (how do you organize a movement that abhors organizati<wbr></wbr>on?). <b>It turned out most Americans actually supported the body scanners.</b> [emphasis added]</blockquote><br />
If true, I'm afraid I must sadly conclude that we have become a nation of idiots.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/30/us-voters-net-neutrality_n_802456.html">Read the Article at HuffingtonPost</a>Curmudgettehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00909592581165744084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28275022.post-4164521046949063102010-12-28T14:43:00.001-05:002010-12-28T14:47:44.465-05:00Black People Make Good Lab Rats<div style="text-align: center;"><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/R5Zd9Bce7sk?fs=1&hl=en_US&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/R5Zd9Bce7sk?fs=1&hl=en_US&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
<br />
<object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kYX2qMVxdH4?fs=1&hl=en_US&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kYX2qMVxdH4?fs=1&hl=en_US&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />
<br />
<object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fz4jjZgkdEk?fs=1&hl=en_US&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fz4jjZgkdEk?fs=1&hl=en_US&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object></div><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: right;">More at <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2010/12/17/pharmaceutical_drug_industry_tops_defense_industry">Democracy Now</a></div>Curmudgettehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00909592581165744084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28275022.post-15099567796259935792010-12-27T14:16:00.003-05:002010-12-27T14:46:53.699-05:00Bailed Out Banks Teeter Towards Collapse<div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/134747/thumbs/s-BANKS-large.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" src="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/134747/thumbs/s-BANKS-large.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />
<br />
<blockquote style="color: #783f04;">"If Citibank and Bank of America were going under, that would be a problem," said Mark Blyth, a political economy professor at Brown and a fellow of the Watson Institute for International Studies. "The bailout was meant to deal with a global systemic crisis. It was not to make sure that some bank in Utah with dodgy commercial real estate would be okay."</blockquote><br />
<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/27/bailed-out-banks-failing_n_801548.html">Ok, Mr. Blyth</a>... As long as the huge, multinatio<wbr></wbr>nals are doing fine, who cares what happens to all the little people on Main Street, USA. Where is George Bailey when you need him?<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qu2uJWSZkck?fs=1&hl=en_US&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qu2uJWSZkck?fs=1&hl=en_US&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object></div>Curmudgettehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00909592581165744084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28275022.post-72811114361839929532010-12-03T17:39:00.003-05:002010-12-03T19:14:35.130-05:00Fuck Horatio Alger, Man<div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/94752/thumbs/s-UNEMPLOYED-large.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" height="292" src="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/94752/thumbs/s-UNEMPLOYED-large.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />
<br />
Remember when the American dream was all about coming from nothing and making your fortune? To hell with yer pluck and luck. Now all <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/03/employers-wont-hire-the-u_n_791710.html">head hunters</a> are good for is telling you to give up your possibly secure job so that you can be the last one hired and likely the first one fired from the next one. Just think. In a few, short months you too can join the ranks of the unemployable Horatio Algeresque losers out there.<br />
<br />
And how much do I love this font of employment wisdom's grammar?<br />
<br />
<blockquote style="color: #783f04;">"Do yourself and favor [sic] and start looking now," he wrote in the ad. "When you lose your job, you will interview from a position of weakness."</blockquote><br />
He's a friggin' genius.Curmudgettehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00909592581165744084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28275022.post-7321758149061119942010-10-06T09:26:00.003-04:002010-10-13T13:02:26.391-04:00Your Tax Dollars Not At Work<div style="text-align: center;"><object height="264" width="320"><param name="movie" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" value="http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/v/?i=104052668" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><param name="AllowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.wpsdlocal6.com/v/?i=104052668" AllowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" height="264" wmode="transparent" width="320"></embed></object></div><br />
<br />
Taxes are bad. Watching your <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/05/beck-producer-mock-firefighters/">house burn</a> to the ground because of unpaid FEES, however, priceless. Get it? Fees aren't like taxes. They're different. Because poor people have to pay exactly as much as rich people, making the system "fair." And if fee-paying people have to sustain a little fire damage because the non-fee-paying people have fires burning out of control, hey, at least the fire department will put out that fee-paying person's fire.<br />
<br />
<blockquote style="color: #783f04;">As ThinkProgress reported yesterday, last week South Fulton Fire Department firefighters from Obion, Tennessee, <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/04/county-firefighters-subscription/">stood by and watched</a> as the Cranick family’s home burned down — which also <a href="http://blackpoliticalthought.blogspot.com/2010/10/gene-cranick-loses-home-three-dogs-cat.html">led to the death</a> of the family’s three dogs and a cat — because their fire-fighting services were available by subscription only, and the family had not paid the $75 fee. Immediately, right-wing writers at the conservative movement’s bulkhead magazine, The National Review, <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/04/national-review-firefighters/">defended</a> the county and argued that firefighting should not be a public service available to all, regardless of ability to pay.<br />
<br />
Now, yet another major conservative has joined the defense. On his radio show this afternoon, leading right-wing talker Glenn Beck and his producer Pat Gray openly mocked the Cranick family. After playing a news clip explaining the situation, Gray adopted a southern drawl and began to mock Gene Cranick’s explanation of how the county’s firefighters refused to help his family. </blockquote>Curmudgettehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00909592581165744084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28275022.post-88471762109229300422010-09-26T13:20:00.002-04:002010-09-26T16:45:54.997-04:00Steny Hoyer: Stephen Colbert's Testimony To Congress Was 'An Embarrassment For Mr. Colbert'<div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/204126/thumbs/s-STEPHEN-COLBERT-CONGRESS-large.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" src="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/204126/thumbs/s-STEPHEN-COLBERT-CONGRESS-large.jpg" width="300" /></a></div><br />
Actors performing in Congress... I remember when a young Kuwaiti refugee named Nariyah testified before both houses of Congress about babies being ripped from incubators and thrown on the floor by Saddam's soldiers. Of course it came out much later that that "refugee" was the daughter of a Kuwaiti ambassador who had lived most of her life in the DC area. She was never identified as such during her testimony. It also came out later that there was no evidence of babies ever having been ripped from incubators by Iraqi troops.<br />
<br />
So we have one known actor appearing before congress in character telling the truthful story of his brief foray into farm work. And one undisclosed actor giving utterly fraudulent testimony before Congress. Lying to Congress is a crime; in that case unprosecuted. In one case a comedian brought a bit of poignant levity to a serious issue in a totally transparent way. In the other we had a Hill & Knowlton orchestrated PR stunt that paved the way to an actual war.<br />
<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/26/stephen-colbert-steny-hoyer-immigration-testimony_n_739511.html">Read the Article at HuffingtonPost</a>Curmudgettehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00909592581165744084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28275022.post-82446481650290883882010-08-10T20:25:00.002-04:002010-08-10T20:34:49.757-04:00Rep. Ellison: 'Gibbs Crossed The Line'<a href="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/189053/thumbs/s-ELLISON-large.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img align="left" alt="" border="0" hspace="5" src="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/189053/thumbs/s-ELLISON-large.jpg" style="cursor: pointer;" width="225" /></a>This was just dumb; alienating the liberal base months before an election. This is where Republicans beat us coming and going. They court their lunatic fringe. It keeps them in the fold, even when they don't get everything they want, and it keeps the Overton window moving farther and farther to the right. The "professional" Dems keep proving themselves to be idiots. They're still letting far right Republicans control the debate and control <i>them</i>.<br />
<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/10/rep-ellison-demands-that_n_677195.html">Read the Article at HuffingtonPost</a>Curmudgettehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00909592581165744084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28275022.post-54651538709841114922010-07-27T00:16:00.001-04:002010-08-10T20:45:52.275-04:00Colleges NOT Worth Their Tuition (PHOTOS)<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/186632/thumbs/s-COLLEGES-NOT-WORTH-THEIR-TUITION-large.jpg"><img style="cursor: pointer;" src="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/186632/thumbs/s-COLLEGES-NOT-WORTH-THEIR-TUITION-large.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br/>Where did I get the crazy idea that college was supposed to be about learning? Clearly it's a simple business transaction.<br/><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/26/colleges-not-worth-their_n_659281.html">Read the Article at HuffingtonPost</a>Curmudgettehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00909592581165744084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28275022.post-91027103287306872982010-07-24T19:00:00.002-04:002010-08-10T20:45:16.601-04:00Gulf Oil Spill: BP Tries To Limit Release Of Oil Spill Research<div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/186397/thumbs/s-GULF-OIL-SPILL-large.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" src="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/186397/thumbs/s-GULF-OIL-SPILL-large.jpg" width="350" /></a></div><br />
<blockquote style="color: #783f04;">"'That's not wrong. Those are the rules of the game,' he said. 'It's the survival of a company, the survival of a crucial industry is at stake in a vital market area. This is serious business.'<wbr></wbr>"</blockquote><br />
Call me crazy. I'm a little more concerned about the survival of the planet, of the "crucial" ecosystem, of the "vital" human, animal, and plant lives. I'm eccentric like that.<br />
<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/24/gulf-oil-spill-bp-tries-t_0_n_658300.html">Read the Article at HuffingtonPost</a>Curmudgettehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00909592581165744084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28275022.post-87064236645745557692010-07-21T11:59:00.000-04:002010-07-21T11:59:18.332-04:00Ben Stein: Idiot<div style="text-align: center;"><img src="http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f153/Curmudgette/ben-stein-fake-ass-rebel.jpg" /></div><br />
<br />
Any respect I ever had for Ben Stein has thoroughly evaporated. Book smarts aside, the man's an idiot. Anyone who's ever seen lay-offs in action, from investor pleasing dumbsizing to this catastrophic recession-led shredding, knows full well that it's almost completely impersonal. In many cases the decisions are made by people who've never even met the people they've slated for pink slips. So what fucking universe is Ben Stein living in when he says shit like <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2010/07/20/ben-stein-ui/">this</a>?<br />
<br />
<blockquote style="color: #783f04;">The people who have been laid off and cannot find work are generally people with poor work habits and poor personalities. I say “generally” because there are exceptions. But in general, as I survey the ranks of those who are unemployed, I see people who have overbearing and unpleasant personalities and/or who do not know how to do a day’s work. They are people who create either little utility or negative utility on the job. Again, there are powerful exceptions and I know some, but when employers are looking to lay off, they lay off the least productive or the most negative. To assure that a worker is not one of them, he should learn how to work and how to get along — not always easy.</blockquote>Curmudgettehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00909592581165744084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28275022.post-63684913007240477502010-06-29T13:37:00.001-04:002010-06-29T13:46:55.566-04:00Matt Taibbi on Journalism's Endangered Species<div style="text-align: center;"><img src="http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f153/Curmudgette/2025206004_3695c554b9.jpg" width="425" /></div><br />
<a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/matt-taibbi/blogs/TaibbiData_May2010/121191/83512">Matt Taibbi</a> has picked up the torch of journalism so predictably dropped by <a href="http://thebloggingcurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2010/06/politico-almost-commits-act-of.html">Politico</a>. <br />
<br />
<blockquote style="color: #783f04;">First of all, I want to congratulate Michael Hastings for the amazing job he did on <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236">the McChrystal piece</a>. Not only was it a coup for our magazine, but it's a reminder of what journalists are supposed to be doing. For quite a long time political journalism, particularly in Washington, has been reduced to an access-trading game, where reporters are rewarded for favorable coverage of those in the know with more time and availability.<br />
<br />
This symbiotic dynamic affects not just individual reporters but whole publications and news channels; it's a huge reason why reporters have in general resisted challenging political authorities. Nobody wants to be the guy who gets not only himself but his whole paper shut out of the access game. Since many recent politicians have made good on this implied threat (George Bush's shut-out of the <i>Washington Post</i>'s White House reporters is a classic example), what we get is coverage that across the board fails to ask hard questions and in general treats leaders with a reverence they don't always deserve.</blockquote><br />
But his <i>bête noire</i> <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/matt-taibbi/blogs/TaibbiData_May2010/121680/83512">David Brooks</a> reflexively bristles at the notion that reporters and sources shouldn't be chums.<br />
<br />
<blockquote style="color: #783f04;">In the column Brooks talks about how the media landscape has changed over the past 50 years, about the gotcha journalism culture in which a public official, sadly, no longer feels safe in having a beer with a reporter and bragging about his mistresses and his Swiss bank accounts. Once upon a time, Brooks says, pols and reporters did a lot of "kvetching" together, gossiping about events in and around the Hill – and most of that "kvetching" stayed out of print:<br />
<br />
<blockquote style="color: #b45f06;">Those of us in the press corps have to figure out how to treat this torrent of private kvetching. During World War II and the years just after, a culture of reticence prevailed. The basic view was that human beings are sinful, flawed and fallen. What mattered most was whether people could overcome their flaws and do their duty as soldiers, politicians and public servants. Reporters suppressed private information and reported mostly — and maybe too gently — on public duties.</blockquote></blockquote><br />
Ah, the halcyon days when reporters could be trusted to protect the elite...<br />
<br />
But, as Taibbi also notes, CBS news's Afghanistan "reporter" <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/matt-taibbi/blogs/TaibbiData_May2010/122137/83512">Lara Logan</a> may be even more callow than Brooks.<br />
<br />
<blockquote style="color: #783f04;">Lara Logan, come on down! You're the next guest on <i>Hysterical Backstabbing Jealous Hackfest 2010</i>!<br />
<br />
I thought I'd seen everything when I read David Brooks saying out loud in a <i>New York Times</i> column that reporters should sit on damaging comments to save their sources from their own idiocy. But now we get CBS News Chief Foreign Correspondent Lara Logan slamming our own Michael Hastings <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/28/lara-logan-slams-michael_n_627601.html">on CNN's "Reliable Sources" program</a>, agreeing that the <i>Rolling Stone</i> reporter violated an "unspoken agreement" that journalists are not supposed to "embarrass [the troops] by reporting insults and banter."</blockquote>Curmudgettehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00909592581165744084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28275022.post-64673034314424739422010-06-24T13:56:00.001-04:002010-06-24T13:57:43.309-04:00Politico Almost Commits an Act of Journalism<div style="text-align: center;"><img src="http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f153/Curmudgette/858-McChrystalsffembeddedprod_affil.jpg" width="425" /></div><br />
The unvarnished look at <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236?RS_show_page=0">General McChrystal</a> that just tanked his career was made available by a freelance reporter who wasn't beholden to almighty "access." So said Politico before they sent that little revelation down the <a href="http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2010/06/24/an_openthekimon.html">memory hole</a>. <br />
<br />
<blockquote style="color: #783f04;">The Politico was so hopped up about the story that it took the <a href="http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/the_days_big_story_hours_befor.php">extraordinary step</a> of posting on its site a PDF of Rolling Stone’s article because Rolling Stone had not put it online fast enough. In one of the many articles The Politico ran about the episode the following observation was made by reporters Gordon Lubold and Carol E. Lee:<br />
<br />
<blockquote style="color: #b45f06;">McChrystal, an expert on counterterrorism and counterinsurgency, has long been thought to be uniquely qualified to lead in Afghanistan. But he is not known for being media savvy. Hastings, who has covered the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for two years, according to the magazine, is not well-known within the Defense Department. <b>And as a freelance reporter, Hastings would be considered a bigger risk to be given unfettered access, compared with a beat reporter, who would not risk burning bridges by publishing many of McChrystal’s remarks.</b> [emphasis mine]</blockquote>. . .<br />
<br />
Our reveal is looking pretty good, isn’t it? Gordon Lubold and Carol E. Lee let us in on a little trade secret. They have no motive to make it up. Lee is a beat reporter herself, qualified to speak on the subject. Lubold has covered the military for years. Politico trades in this kind of observation; it was founded to reveal some of journalism’s “state secrets.” Tom Ricks, a former beat reporter for the Washington Post who also covered the military, says pretty much the same thing: beat reporters have an investment in continuing the relationship so they are less risky for a powerful figure like McChrystal.<br />
<br />
And then, the next day… the reveal disappears. The Politico erased it, as if the thing had never happened. Down the memory hole, like in Orwell’s 1984. The story <a href="http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=5F510359-18FE-70B2-A8C7C7A9FFAEED08">as you encounter it online today</a> doesn’t have that part (“would not risk burning bridges…”) in it. Clint Hendler of Columbia Journalism Review, who discovered the missing lines, <a href="http://www.cjr.org/the_kicker/a_politico_graf_goes_missing.php">asked</a> The Politico about it…</blockquote><br />
Hendler got no answer. One wonders what access Politico is trying to preserve.Curmudgettehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00909592581165744084noreply@blogger.com