Slashdot Mirror

The Republican party depends on a group of deeply delusional voters known as Evangelicals. That's why, in the 21st Century, there are elected officials pretending to be concerned about gay couples, pretending that evolution is a lie that shouldn't be taught as fact, and pretending that a woman's body is the property of the Federal Government.

And if you don't believe me, just look at how pathetic McCain was when he had to prostrate himself in front of these idiots: http://thinkprogress.org/mccain-flip-flops/

The Democratic party has it's fair share of hypocrites, but only one party demands delusion as part of their party platform. They are still demanding God be put back in Government, and pretending the founding fathers wanted the same thing. Their next sentence could be about the dangers of muslim theocracies, but their delusion is thought-proof. They know God chose America to fight Evil, just like their old hero President said himself: he answers to a higher father, even if the father he has in reality fought the same war against the same army only a decade earlier.

Except that the government makes more off taxes on oil and it's downstream products than companies like BP make in profit on oil.

I don't have the tax numbers at my fingertips, but it seems that BP posted $93,000,000 USD profits per day for the first quarter of 2010.

In fairness, the problem with these textbooks isn't limited to religious bullshit, but rather to conservative bullshit in general. Most conservative nonsense is not unconstitutional, but the bits that skew the facts in favor of religious nonsense certainly are. From Phil Plait's blog:

The new history standards downplays and questions the separation of Church and State. And this was no accident by the religious zealots on the Board; when a more moderate Democrat tried to insert language about why the Establishment Clause was put in the Constitution, it was voted down by the Republicans.

See also Think Progress' description of the new standards, where we learn:

- The Board removed Thomas Jefferson from the Texas curriculum, "replacing him with religious right icon John Calvin."

- The Board refused to require that "students learn that the Constitution prevents the U.S. government from promoting one religion over all others."

Think Progress posted their own response to CNET's claims. Don't know Whose true http://thinkprogress.org/2010/05/11/netneutrality-grover-afp/

Well, the immigration law specifically PROHIBITS stopping anyone based on skin color.

Yes, and no one has ever been stopped for Driving While Black either.

In short, I think the President should have that knee-jerking problem looked at by a doctor-- I hear he has a great health plan.

Yeah, because it's not like any of these conspiracy theories are being touted by "mainstream" Republicans:

1. Obama was born in Kenya, and his mom for some reason isn't a citizen either, and his (s)election was planned 48 years ago. (Sen Inhofe R-OK, Rep Posey R-FL, Rep Bono-Mack R-CA, Rep Campbell R-CA, Rep Blackburn R-TN, Rep Culberson R-TX all sponsored birth certificate legislation)
2. Obama had the oil rigged bombed.

3. (Former FEMA Director Michael Brown, Former White House Press Secretary Dana Perino, Rush Limbaugh (now he said "environmental wackos)

Seriously. Why should anyone think of these people as legitimate? Furthermore, since these are leaders in party, why should the party be considered legitimate?

Here are some examples from today's headlines. And by today I mean this week!

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/04/17/alec-massey-mine/

Yesterday, the AP reported that Marlene Griffith, a widow of William Griffith, one of the 29 men killed in last week’s explosion at a coal mine in West Virginia, is suing Massey Energy, the owner of the mine. Griffith filed a wrongful death lawsuit in Raleigh County Circuit Court, arguing that Massey’s handling of work conditions at the mine plus its history of safety violations amounted to aggravated conduct that rises above the level of ordinary negligence.

...

Responding to the lawsuit, Nathan Coffey, the Public Affairs Coordinator of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), took to Twitter yesterday to mock Marlene Griffith. Coffey posted a link to the AP story about Marlene Griffith, sarcastically commenting that “Everyone wants free money!”

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-18/goldman-s-staged-explosion-deserves-apology-roger-lowenstein.html

As only someone from Mars doesn’t know by now, Goldman allegedly sold collateralized debt obligation, or bonds backed by mortgage securities, to institutional investors without disclosing that the specific securities were handpicked by hedge-fund manager John Paulson. Paulson was betting on the securities to fall and, for that reason, structured the securities to include losers -- not winners.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/yesterday-germany-today-uk-tomorrow-world-goldmans-response-lawsuits-everyone-q1-stub-bonuse

As expected, the line of people preparing to sue Goldman is now longer than the posers who bought the iPad on launch day. Reuters reports that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who himself has been in hot water over his much lamented decision to sell UK's gold despite protests from the BOE and likely under the guidance of Goldman and JPM, wants an investigation into the Goldman affair by the FSA, and is saying that impacted UK banks will be considering legal action. Furthermore, GB slammed Goldman after the TimesOnline reported that Goldman will pay $5.6 billion in bonuses for just three months work, including 600 million pounds for London-based staff.

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

According to reports by ProPublica/National Public Radio/This American Life that came out in early April 2010, Magnetar "sponsored" mortgage-backed collateralized debt obligations by agreeing to buy the worst tranche (portion) of the CDO, the "equity tranche". The reports claim that Magnetar then shorted (bet against) those CDOs by buying credit default swaps that insured the CDOs. If the CDOs failed, Magnetar would get back many times its initial investment in the equity tranche by receiving the insurance payoff.[2][4]

Nice? Either it's out of sight for the majority of Americans (mountain top removal) or it's out of our country and fucking up some other one. How many companies willingly try to lower their pollution? How many more are brought into compliance kicking and screaming? How many more are in violation but tied punitive measures up in court? Recent example: http://thinkprogress.org/2010/04/06/massey-deadly-mine/

And on that second note, pollution doesn't stop at borders. http://geology.com/nasa/monitoring-pollution-by-satellite.shtml

Do you have a single shred of proof for this or are you basically a Truther or Birther at heart, with nothing but paranoia to offer us?

I refer you to this article from, wait for it, The American Conservative. Read the last paragraph. Here is the relevant part:

Such information could have made it far easier to carry out the type of mass roundup that some conservatives advocated.

And while we're on the subject of rounding up people, here's a neat goodie to show the mindset of at least one "conservative" and how they value American freedoms.

The GOP was against any health bill that wasn't focused on 1) tort reform, and 2) interstate insurance sales. The party leadership elected go all in on killing the more expansive Democratic efforts, and hence opted out of significantly influencing what passed. As Matt Yglesias pointed out, most Congressional Democrats were willing to go forward with a lot less than what got passed. But, when it was clear that the GOP was in a take no prisoners mode, any willingness to compromise went down the crapper.

Addressing your two policy points:
- tort reform is a non-starter until we address what drives the lawsuits. When someone gets physically fucked up, either out in the world or by a doctor, fixing it is often big bucks. If getting fucked up didn't fundamentally threaten a family's finances, the need to sue would fade. Going with tort reform first would greatly increase medical bankruptcies.

- interstate insurance is a non-starter unless there is a national standard for what's covered. Otherwise, there would almost certainly be a race to the floor for which state can pass the most pathetic standards, so that they could attract insurers. Much as virtually all large employers incorporate in Delaware, I suspect it would soon become next to impossible to get a policy not issued from [insert pathetic state here].

Chances are, if your family is making under $88k a year, you're not going to see a tax increase due to the structure of the tax plan. It's financed primarily by increased taxation on unearned income (rent paid to you, capital gains) and that's not the income bracket that needs to be subsidized. This is far from a neutral source, but the point-by-point breakdown seems to address funding.

Consolidation of wealth is the single most dangerous aspect of the American economy, and should disturb any country depending on the American economy. Everyone pays a few cents extra for gas, for insurance, for cell phones, for grain-based foods, operating systems, movies, entertainment. It doesn't look like a lot at the time, but it adds up, and the average consumer runs out of money. 1000 people control $3.6 Billion, and most of that comes from consumer goods, directly or indirectly. At some point, unless this trend stops, we will be right back to feudalism where we can't even afford land to build a house on. Working will be a requirement in order to use the rich man's land.

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2008/03/17/1928-resemblances/
Some ranting in this one:
http://www.theygaveusarepublic.com/diary/995/

"Between 2000 and 2007, the average American worker's productivity rose 19.2%, yet more of those gains are going to top managers,... Adjusted for inflation, average wages have grown just 0.7% per year since June 2000. In 1979, the ratio between the average CEO's pay and the typical workers pay was 27 to 1. By 2007, it had widened to 275 to 1."
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/sep2009/econ-s05.shtml

Carlos Slim - Mexican cell phones
Bill Gates - Convicted operating system monopolist
Warren Buffet - invests insurance float from Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO), basically you pay him to borrow your money interest-free.
Mukesh Ambani - Oil/gas
Lakshmi Mittal - Indian steel. Who doesn't use steel?
Lawrence Ellison - Oracle. You pay a business a few cents extra, that company sends a lump check to Oracle
Bernard Arnault - Luxury goods, France. The rich man's consolidation of wealth target. But wait - don't normal people spend way too much on Louis Vuitton and Moet & Chandon just to keep up appearances? Yes, they do
Eike Batista - Brazilian Mining, Oil - more fuel
Amancio Ortega - fashion retail, normal people covering themselves from the elements using dollar bills.
Karl Albrecht - German supermarkets. Your grocery bill pads this guy's wallet, and he's #10 in the world. Germany's population is estimated at 81,757,600, so he has $287 for each person in Germany, or 1% of Germany's GDP.
Ingvar Kamprad - Ikea, selling to poor college students everywhere
Christy Walton - Wal-mart. Poor people everywhere throwing money at cheap goods with limited lifetimes
Stefan Persson - Fashion
More Waltons, fashion, makeup

Already on the drawing board - http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/08/chamber-of-commerce-wants-to-put-evolution-on-trial.php

In the US the insurance profits aren't actually all that much money.

Here is the problem with that statement (from ABC News):

But the companies' profits still represent a miniscule percentage of the $2.5 trillion Americans spend every year on health care.

Also, here is a nice link explaining the same thing

Insurance companies are comparing their individual company profits to the TOTAL amount spent on healthcare. This is totally absurd!

To answer the OP's question, you have several options. The first is to stay employed for health care.
The second is the take advantage of COBRA benefits until you find another job that will provide benefits.
The third is to join a local small business association that offers group plans to small businesses.
Fourth is to try to get an individual plan to cover your family.

In most cases, the last option will be cost prohibitive and as others have pointed out already, even with the threat of a lasting recession hanging over our heads and record unemployment, some insurance companies are regularly increasing rates by 15 - 30 percent when your contract renews.

I think Pat Robertson ought to reread the book of Job sometime (paying special attention to Job's so-called "friends") and I agree with the other person who pointed out that most Christians are trying to get all those Hatian orphans adopted and working with the relief efforts, not worrying about legends and whatnot.

But that aside, he did not invent this story. There is an actual legend concerning this pact that existed long before this disaster.

Contrary to most people’s reactions to Pat Robertson’s remarks on Wednesday, his reference to Haiti’s “pact with the devil” did not appear out of thin air. As Matt Yglesias has pointed out this was a reference to the Bois Caiman ceremony at the beginning of the Haitian Revolution in 1791. This is not strictly a mangling of history on Robertson’s part. His comments come straight out of a blend of theology and history that, at the grassroots, pervades Haiti’s political discourse. Labeling the event at Bois Caiman a satanic pact touches on the most potent part of a vibrant oral tradition, a national myth that attempts to explain Haiti’s relationship with God and the world.

The French Revolution had been going on for two years when slave leaders gathered in the Caiman woods outside of what’s today Cap Haitien. The fighting between and within the white elite and the free mulatto population presented an excellent opportunity for general revolt. Most of the slaves present worked as overseers or coachmen for their respective masters, giving them freedom of movement and the right to carry swords. Dutty Boukman, a slave originally from Jamaica, and a priestess of disputed identity led a Voudou ceremony where they allegedly charged the gathered slaves “to throw away the image of the god of the whites who thirsts for our tears and listen to the voice of liberty that speaks in the hearts of all of us.” They then made an oath of secrecy and revenge, sealing it by drinking the blood of a sacrificed pig, a ceremony possibly West African in origin. This event bears a similar relationship to the Haitian Revolution as the Boston Tea Party does to the American Revolution—a critical event that helped galvanize the founding generation and forms a centerpoint for revolutionary legend today.

One of the first things that comes to mind in any discussion of Haiti, Voudou is a complex blending of West African and popular Catholic traditions. Paul Farmer gave the best description of Voudou’s place in Haitian culture and society when he thus described a firmly Christian peasant: “Of course he believes in Voudou. He just believes it’s wrong.” The Voudou question strikes at the heart of Haitian religious life. For its practitioners, Voudou offers a pantheon of friendly spirits, or lwas, that offer avenues to healing and hope. For its opponents, including many conservative Protestants and Catholics, it is spirit possession and satanic worship. The two sides disagree on what percentage of Voudou involves curses and malevolence, but both agree that such things are part of the religion. And, for those who oppose Voudou, Boukman’s ceremony in Bois Caiman sold the country to the devil.

For religious conservatives in Haiti and abroad, the idea that the leaders of the slave revolt led and participated in a Voudou ceremony provides a troubling contrast to presentations of the United States’ founding fathers as devout Christians, one that explains their vastly different fortunes. Many view the U.S. invasions and the rule of the Duvaliers as indications of the devil’s two hundred year lease on the country.

Any system that leaves so many out in the cold is easily beaten by one that does not. You can fail to see it all you want, but that doesn't mean it's not there. It just means you adjust your focus a little more--that is, not only on yourself.

The House may well just pass the Senate bill, now, which is less fortunate than if they'd been able to put the bills together via conference. And just because the pundits are saying something doesn't make it true. The plan certainly doesn't go far enough, as the lack of progressive enthusiasm about Coakley showed--see the exit polling I linked--but it's about damn time we started to fix this broken system we have.

Any system that leaves so many out in the cold is easily beaten by one that does not. You can fail to see it all you want, but that doesn't mean it's not there. It just means you adjust your focus a little more--that is, not only on yourself.

The House may well just pass the Senate bill, now, which is less fortunate than if they'd been able to put the bills together via conference. And just because the pundits are saying something doesn't make it true. The plan certainly doesn't go far enough, as the lack of progressive enthusiasm about Coakley showed--see the exit polling I linked--but it's about damn time we started to fix this broken system we have.

Marc Emery is playtime. Maher Arar is a much better example.

Moreover, Canada put the U.S. on a list of countries that torture, and then removed them from the list because the U.S. objected.

Behind the "rule of law" and other fancy constructions of civilization, there is only the law of the jungle.

Reality check:
- Wealth makes right
- Might makes right

The U.S. is both richer and stronger than Canada, which makes any action by the U.S. morally correct by definition.

Why are you shocked that the United States of America acts this way? Did screwing the Native Americans out of their land and resources teach you nothing?

Marc Emery is playtime. Maher Arar is a much better example.

Moreover, Canada put the U.S. on a list of countries that torture, and then removed them from the list because the U.S. objected.

Behind the "rule of law" and other fancy constructions of civilization, there is only the law of the jungle.

Reality check:
- Wealth makes right
- Might makes right

The U.S. is both richer and stronger than Canada, which makes any action by the U.S. morally correct by definition.

Why are you shocked that the United States of America acts this way? Did screwing the Native Americans out of their land and resources teach you nothing?

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/26/us/texas-candidate-s-comment-about-rape-causes-a-furor.html

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/14/mccain-cancels-event-with-fundraiser-who-compared-rape-to-the-weather/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/rape-joke-returns-to-torment-mccain-campaign-848499.html

Welcome to the Internet. Enjoy your stay.

Where have you been? The first salvo was fired even before Obama was sworn in. That would be when he persuaded Defense Secretary Robert Gates (who used to literally count the days until he was replaced) to stay on. I've often wondered how and why Obama did that. My best guess is that they agreed on an agenda of cost cutting and procurement reform.

When Gates announced his program, the defense special interests fought back — hard. And yet they lost. Mind-boggling, but true. Now that's change I can believe in!

I'm all for space travel, but I want to see the same thing happen at NASA. Anybody who really believes we're going to start a moon base and travel to Mars using Apollo-style space capsules is fooling themselves. The program is pure pork, USDA approved.

Oh please! You wanna know why Obama won? two words for you pal-Caribou Barbie. Even life long conservative I knew voted for Obama and when I asked them why they were going for him? "Because McCain is old and has had health problems and if he wins Caribou Barbie is one heart attack away from the oval office!"

Hell you could have run bozo the clown against blunder woman and he would have swept the thing. Between McCain flip flopping so badly that 2000 McCain could have run against 2008 McCain and not had anything in common, Palin coming off as a total idiot in every interview, not to mention Caribou Barbie stirring up the ultra right loony tunes so bad that McCain actually had to come out and say nice things about Obama to keep it from looking like a lynching party, it is a miracle he got the amount of votes he did.

But it was the Moose Knuckle Prom Queen that pushed the election into the win column for Obama, not the black vote. Hell the only thing good about her was she made SNL not suck again for a little while. Frankly both sides have become so whoreish that it is like voting for which $20 skank is less likely to give you an STD. Either way the outcome isn't gonna be pretty and you'll feel dirty just for participating.

...how do you explain away statistics like the the 5 yr cancer survival rate? Hint: It's higher in the United States than in most European countries

Cancer survival rates != people cured of cancer. It may mean that they live a couple months longer. See here.

Socialism just works better for some things, health care being provably one of them.

Bullshit. Medical procedures that aren't covered by insurance (plastic surgery, lasik surgery, etc.) have consistently come down in price since being introduced to the market. Medical procedures that are covered by insurance have consistently gone up in price even though the technology behind them (MRIs are a great example) has gone down in price since being invented.

[Citation needed]. I'd argue that this is because, unlike nationalized systems, our doctors make a profit from ownership stakes in hospitals. This is the reason that Mayo has better outcomes, for example, than other private hospitals: they don't profit from doing more (sometimes unnecessary) tests. They make money based off of outcome, as opposed to volume. Best explanation of why our costs are so much higher than the rest of the world is here.

Also, you miss a key point: government bureaucracy is not for profit. The government has nothing to gain by denying you care--or this girl, for that matter. Private insurance companies have incentive to deny. That's the main difference between the two bureaucracies, as you put it, and it is a big one.

And those of us who are pushing for this plan would rather be pushing for a single-payer plan. Don't mistake us for saying that this compromise is the ideal solution, because it isn't, and we know that. It's just the best we can get passed. And as for the mandate, the provision of a public option negates what could be a mandate to participate in a private system, so it's a step better as far as that's concerned.

And I see you arguing that a totally free-market solution is the *angel choirs singing* ideal solution to the problem, but I don't see you arguing that single-payer solutions are less expensive than we have now. Oh, right: that's because the data doesn't support that conclusion. Bringing in the free market is another red herring. But while we're on that topic, a totally free-market healthcare solution pits money against lives. Guess which one always wins?

And to look into the future a bit, don't try to bring up lifestyle problems in the US, because Greece is fatter than we are and citizens live longer, paying about a third what we do, with a universal healthcare plan.

Oh, and since you want polls, here's more.

But the organization as a whole works as one machine. What Fox NEWS is very good at is reporting the rumors started by the Fox "commentators* - "...some people say..." - and those *commentators* are very good at talking about that *news* - "...it's been reported...". Rinse and repeat.

Examples, please. Don't say that it's true and provide no evidence or you are being guilty of the exact same thing you are accusing Fox News of. In your first paragraph, you start a rumor. In your second you draw a conclusion based on the very same rumor.

A recent "The Daily Show" episode had a whole series of clips from Fox News that illustrate this point very well.

And, again, NUMBERS DON'T LIE!

No, they sure don't: Daily Show/Colbert Viewers Most Knowledgeable, Fox News Viewers Rank Lowest

There shouldn't be a "Debian Women", "Debian LGBT", "Debian Minusvalids" or "Debian Furries" project not because it's somehow wrong for such people to participate (I belong to one of the listed categories), but because such things should be completely irrelevant and everybody should be only judged by the value of the code, art, etc they contribute.

Except that that's not the way the world works. People are in fact judged by gender, orientation, race, etcetera, in our society; and those who are (mis)judged by those criteria naturally will band together for support.

It may not be as bad inside our little enclave of coders (or, actually, it might: I've certainly seen asinine sexist behavior), but when you live in a muddy environment you're going to track mud through the house occasionally. We live in a nation where a political writer can get away with suggesting that women's suffrage might be a mistake, so let's not even pretend that sexism isn't an issue in our broader culture.

After a couple of decades, it might be possible for "Debian Women" to work themselves out of a job. This recently happened in the martial arts system I belong to, when it was decided that there were enough women in both total enrollment and in the senior ranks that it was no longer necessary to have a special "women's seminar" every year. But the reason that things reached the point that sexism was so reduced in significance was because there was this extra support system in place.

George Bush has claimed he was on a mission from God when he launched the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, ...

Palin: Iraq is a task 'from God.'

Sarah Palin (R-AK) addressed the graduating class of commission students at the Wasilla Assembly of God church. During that address, Palin portrayed the Iraq was as a quest decreed by God, and said that U.S. soldiers were carrying out "God's plan"

I'm sure we could find the same kind of thing for every country you listed, these were just the ones I could remember from the top of my head

which is it? Leftists government tit-sucking jobless liberals or right wing fanatics toting guns and talking god?

Ah, but the great irony is that many of those right wing fanatics toting guns and talking god are also government tit-sucking jobless folks. You know, the "keep government out of my Medicare!" sorts.

Take, for instance this little gem of dialog between actor Craig T. Nelson and Glenn Beck, where Nelson spouts a bunch of right-wing anti-tax rhetoric and caps it off with "What happened to society? I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. I've been on food stamps and welfare, did anybody help me out? No. No." (For readers outside the U.S., or for fatally ignorant Americans, welfare and food stamps are tax-funded government programs that help people like Craig T. Nelson out when they fall on hard times.)

Remember Texas Governor Rick Perry's recent secession rhetoric about how "the federal government has become oppressive"? Turns out that he just turned to said oppressive government and asked to suck at its tit for swine flu emergency funding -- since the beginning of FEMA's record-keeping, Texas has actually received more federal assistance from FEMA than any other state.

It's just more red state socialism.

Olbermann he is ONE OF THE VERY FEW that attacks BOTH sides. (can you produce 3 videolinks of FOX news or glen beck criticizing bush ?)

Well, I'm no fan of Beck, but, well... yea:

• Beck
• Transcript can't find the video of this
• Fox News anchor slams Bush on SCHIP

Yea, so what?

Pelosi didn't call anyone a fascist. She pointed out, correctly, that people have been carrying swastikas to town hall meetings. In fact, as you can see, it's the right-wing demonstrators who have been accusing Obama and other Democrats of fascism, not the other way around.

"'As I've said before, the traditional business model has to change rapidly to ensure that our journalistic businesses can return to their old margins of profitability,' Murdoch said. 'Quality journalism is not cheap, and an industry that gives away its content is simply cannibalizing its ability to produce good reporting.'"

Is it because they are a cheap news agency and they can't provide quality reporting? Is that why their viewers continuously rank at the bottom of the most uninformed TV news viewers? Oh wait, don't you own them? Hm, odd. So we should presume that, if you are given more money, that money would go into providing "quality reporting" and make the Fox News viewers more knowledgeable right?

For some reason I cannot see that happening.

Can you point to one or several Fox News stories that are absolutely false...?

Google is your friend.....

Fox News: We Report — Even If We Know It's False
Fox News Sinks to New Low, Repeatedly Reports Parody Story as Actual News
Anatomy of a False Story
Dobbs, FOX News, and Drudge Report Push False AP Story
Countdown: Fox News Caught Creating False News
Of Mice and Misinformation: Sammon Joins Other Fox News Personalities in Spreading Stimulus Falsehood

That's just from the first page of results.

Of course it's socialism's fault! Are you crazy, what else could it be!? And universal healthcare breeds terrorists!

...is that it's not progressive. So Joe Sixpack bears a much higher load in proportion to, say, Al Gore

Whether a Cap & Trade scheme is progressive depends entirely on how you give out the emissions permits. Auction them off and rebate the proceeds to the taxpayer (even if it's a flat check to every American), you have an enormously progressive plan.** Give them away and you have a regressive plan.

Now if you want a progressive version, contact your member of Congress and tell them to support that. Unfortunately, the regressive version seems to be what the most conservative members of Congress want, and since the Republicans are opposing anything, then that's probably what we'll get. It's still better than nothing, and if you want better, then stop concern trolling about it and start voting for more progressive Congresspeople.

** Citation, from the CBO analysis. Sadly I have to give the graph excerpted on this blog page, since I didn't have time to hunt for the original: http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/04/making_cap_and_trade_regressive.php).

Political analyst Matthew Yglesias over at CAP has a fairly good take on both the book and the review at the CAP web site.

sPh

I'll pick a few here:

Teh GAYS are coming to steal yer marriages!!!!11

Never heard this from a Republican

You are a liar. Bush's "re-election" (his first actual election) was won primarily because they snuck so many anti-equality laws on the ballots. The bigoted wingnuts came out of the woodwork and voted for Bush while they were there.

We're the party of fiscal responsibility!

I would have agreed with this last year. But since the current party has tripled the deficit, it turns out that it's true!

Yes, I am absolutely certain that Obama, in 100 days, managed to triple the deficit, compared to 8 years of Bush spending like a drunken frat boy.

I totally believe that, because, apparently, I am an idiot.

They're not prisoners of war, so the Geneva Convention doesn't apply!

Were any of these guys wearing a uniform? No? then the Geneva Convention does not apply. Why is this so hard to understand?

Because I have a soul, and the idea of shoving flashlights up little kid's asses in front of the kid's mother is abhorrent to me.

Oh, and here's a POW being waterboarded:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-05-13/cheneys-role-deepens/

Iraq had something, anything to do with 9/11!

I have never heard a Republican say this, yet it keeps getting repeated over and over as if it's true. And what do you know, many of the exceedingly ignorant and borderline retarded believe it.

Liar.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/21/bush-on-911/
http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/bush-team-peddles-911-iraq-link-torture
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-durang/lieberman-peddles-the-old_b_77198.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10164478
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0511/S00247.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0321-02.htm

Not only that, it turns out we were torturing people to death and shoving flashlights up children's bums specifically to try and GET a fake link between Iraq and 9/11. Whoops!

Finally, news where I can actually stand up proudly and say take a page from the United States on this one, Canada [whitehouse.gov]:

Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing. Information maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset. My Administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use. Executive departments and agencies should harness new technologies to put information about their operations and decisions online and readily available to the public. Executive departments and agencies should also solicit public feedback to identify information of greatest use to the public.

That's Obama talking, right?

Obama blocks release of torture photos

Obama administration invokes 'state secrets' claim to defend Bush's wiretapping program.

Obama administration threatens Britain to keep torture evidence concealed

I certainly hope Obama follows through.

You have your answer.

You know there is no proposed SoCal-Vegas HS rail line right? Look at the plan. It's a myth that Republicans are trying to use to bash Harry Reid with.

You mean these letters?:

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/07/john-doe-letters/

The Army was forced to apologize today after sending approximately 7,000 letters to family members of soldiers killed in Iraq or Afghanistan which mistakenly addressed them as "John Doe." The letters were sent late last month to inform survivors about private organizations "that offer gifts, programs and other assistance to families that have lost" soldiers. "Army Chief of Staff Gen. George W. Casey, Jr., was sending a personal letter to all the families who received the improperly addressed letters as the result of a printing error, the Army said."

You mean like this?

Godwinning is humor, something you might not understand. What is most funny how the educated focus on civil rights abuses, and the uneducated just thinks he talks too good.

Unfortunately, most news sources in the US are biased, and the number of mainstream media outlets with liberal leanings appear to outnumber the conservative ones.

Except of course that is demonstrably false. Conservative writers dominate editorial pages and conservative commentators dominate TV.

On the national level: CNN, which has lost all credibility as a news source, is mostly iReporters and Hollywood gossip, and engage in constant concern trolling on Democrats

Fixed that for you.

That's a very insightful comment, if I had mod points I'd just mod you up, but since I don't then I'll respond. It continually amazes me how often you see a similar brand of perversion, not just with women, but with homosexuals as well. Examples I can think of off the top of my head include the anti-gay preacher who was caught hiring male prostitutes, or the anti-gay congressman who was caught soliciting sex in the airport mens' room. When caught, these people always deny it, even when faced with overwhelming evidence. I think the screening is probably a good idea, but how would you get congress to go along with it? Finding a scape-goat like homosexuals or child pornography is always popular politically and that will mean resistance by politicians.

... much worse, actually, for its inane, partisan ignorance: http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/24/palin-fruit-flies/
ac

Clean coal is a myth.

I never said it wasn't normal legislative procedure.

Then why bring it up in terms of an oligarchical abuse of power.

The bill was not released to congress days and weeks beforehand.

Because it was evolving legislation. Again, pretending that normal legislative procedure is something out of the ordinary.

I assume by "you guys" you mean Republicans, conservatives, Hooverites, right-wingers et al. To assume that I am one of those (or any part for that matter) when I am definitely not just proves your overwhelming bias against anything that doesn't fit in your world view.

Except of course that your use of "leftist media" outs you as a combination of the above, Mr. Pot.

Yes, there is a portion of the media that panders to the left. Just as there is a segment that panders to the right.

Ah, I see we've moved on to the false equivalency part of the equation. When Republicans controlled all three branches of government, they made up the majority of media appearances. This was justified that the GOP was the party in power. But now that the Democrats are in charge...the media still features 2 Republicans for every Democrat.

But of course someone who believes that government is the only answer (the most disheartening part of your reply)

But of course you're attacking a straw man in a rather pathetic fashion. No Democrat, no liberal, no progressive, nor even an out-and-out socialist has ever said that "government is the only answer". The point is that less government for the sake of less government is as asinine as more government for the sake of more government.

Government spending will not create demand.

Of course it will; you wingnuts really need to take remdial economics:

GDP = consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports - imports)

Government spending (infrastructure, research, etc) increases demand for labor and resources - which means...drumroll...jobs.

It will create bigger government, and at the expense of personal liberty.

Yawn. Why don't you go join one of those militias that are popping up again, after taking a nap through 8 years of Republican wiretapping & torture, you hack.

Well, for starters, autoworkers union != bank executives. The two situations aren't even similar. On one hand, you have a union that's doing nothing more than bleeding a corporation dry. On the other, you have a situation where the free market should really be determining things like salaries and bonuses*.

The auto workers negotiated in just as much a free market as those bank executives did. SO they are the same in that regard.

Truth be told, it would be better for the US Automakers if they went bankrupt. That would dissolve all union contracts, forcing them to restructure. While there are certainly other factors like demand and quality, the benefits alone received by members of the UAW make it almost impossible for American car companies to compete with non-union car manufacturers in the US.

While it may be better if US auto manufacturers did go bankrupt, you're either discounting, ignoring, or don't know something. Even foreign auto makers what Detroit bailed out, "Why Toyota wants GM to be saved". This is because of the reason mentioned above, they all depend on the same suppliers. If Chrysler goes bankrupt it's suppliers, who also supply Japanese makers in the US may go bankrupt as well. Secondly those foreign owned factories received a lot of government subsidies. State governments have given out billions in subsidies. "Alabama offered a stunning $253 million incentive package to Mercedes ." And one of Alabama's senators, Sen. Richard Shelby was one of those who opposed bailing out US auto companies.

Its great when a company can afford to treat their people well, but when they can't, something's gotta give. Unfortunately, the UAW doesn't see it that way.

Neither do company executives. Even Carl Icahn says executive pay needs to change.

Falcon

Are you talking about Canada? Because the united states effective tax rate is no where near that high. I'm not sure where you got that impression either. Here's a source for you. And another and here which actually states the corporate tax rate as 35% for the upper end. Sorry, that doesn't sound very socialist. It's definitely on the upper end of world wide tax rates but dictatorships, communist countries, and the rest all seem to do roughly the same.

Also I fail to see how even tax rates on revenue relate to ownership in the company. You mean to say that all the money the government put into public works like roads, power, and telecomm shouldn't be compensated by the people that use it the most?

dude. go to wikipedia. type in "espionage". follow the pretty links. educate your ignorant self. here endeth the intellectual charity for you about spywork and communications

as for bush:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/26/rnc-emails-waxman/

Multiple congressional investigations have uncovered evidence that White House appointees regularly communicate using email accounts provided by the Republican Party. As CREW has argued, such activity violates the Presidential Records Act, which requires that the White House preserve such records.

Today, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) issued letters to the Republican National Committee and the Bush-Cheney '04 Campaign directing them to preserve all emails by and for White House officials, and to meet with the committee about the legal issues involved in conducting official government business using partisan email accounts. From Waxman's letter:

The e-mails of White House officials maintained on RNC e-mail accounts may be relevant to multiple congressional investigations. For this reason, the Committee directs you to preserve all e-mails sent or received by White House officials using e-mail accounts under your control.

In addition, the Committee requests that you or your designee meet with Committee staff during the week of April 2,2007, to discuss the following five matters:

- Who has access to the e-mail accounts maintained by the RNC; [...]

- What steps have been taken to preserve the e-mail accounts maintained by the RNC that have been used by White House officials;

- What assurance can the RNC provide the Committee that no e-mails involving official White House business have been destroyed or altered.

As Waxman points out in his letter, communications between criminal lobbyist Jack Abramoff and White House officials were conducted via nongovernmental e-mail accounts. "In at least one case, the e-mails indicate that these nonofficial accounts were being used because 'to put this stuff in writing in their e-mail system...might actually limit what they can do to help us.'"

it was never kosher, bush using these channels

when discovered that the bush white house was using these communication channels, it was shock and revulsion time

please, ramble on about jack bauer and demonstrable wrongness

zzz

I'll raise you one biased article for another. Then here's the actual relevant part of the bill so people can read it themselves.

We are safer now than we were 8 years ago, but not due to sacrificing our rights. We got rid of Bush.

We have had all of the necessary security in place for many years, but it can't do much if it isn't used. The Bush administration could have known about and possibly stopped 9/11, but chose to ignore the warnings.

Any new "security" after 9/11 was just a power grab under the guise of protecting the people from something that could have been prevented had we had a competent person in charge.

Well, this does make Bush appear to be a dick... (and yes, this web site is quite biased in one direction)

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/07/howard-blair-house/