In continuation of the embarrassing, politically dominated tenure of Eric Holder's time as Attorney General, Eric is now contemplating prosecuting Wikileaks for total non-crimes, and is apparently of the view that First Amendment protections of Free Speech and the Free Press are dependent on how "responsible" you are with what you print or say.
The contrast with his response to obvious and irrefutable evidence of War Crimes by high level political officials is glaring, pathetic and disheartening. It's difficult to imagine an Attorney General more influenced by politics. What did Alberto Gonzalez do that was so bad again?
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Saturday, November 20, 2010
.. Then They Grabbed My Junk and by That Time No One Was Left to Speak Up.
So, I guess we finally know how far is too far for American citizens to take...
I often find myself lamenting the willingness of American society and Americans specifically (sometimes, sadly on an individual basis) to accept the erosion of their rights. Freedom (to quote Andrew Shepard in the clip I put up last post) “isn’t easy… you gotta want it bad.” And most people don’t really want something they already feel they have. (Though, let's not forget, if you've got it, you don't need less of it!) That is, most people in America generally feel free and un-intruded upon so they don’t want more freedom, and don’t worry about intrusions into their freedoms if they can’t feel it or see it. Maybe this is why so many people talk about freedom but really just mean “lower taxes” (I’m looking at you Tea Party people - although to be fair). I mean, you feel your taxes when you pay them, but you don’t really feel the government spying on your email unless some G-man rolls up to your door or tries to put you in handcuffs...
.. Or tries to touch your balls!
Then we get seriously pissed. But what better metaphor for Americans’ tolerance of civil liberties erosions than the fact that there was so little outrage about warrantless spying, the Patriot Act, the plan to make the whole internet wiretap ready, torture, assassinating American citizens, rampant secrecy (the list goes on), that only when government agents started literally placing their hands on Americans’ genitals do we pipe up a little bit.
It’s really pretty pathetic, and anyone who fails to see the causal chain between tolerating all of that other – and quite probably worse – bullshit and the government even thinking about implementing this crap in the first place is a fucking dumbass. A lack of vigilance has a cost, civil libertarians like to say. That cost? The government will grab your junk. As if the case needed anymore evidence, the TSA flap proves we have not been very vigilant with our rights and our privacy.
This lesson will be missed though, of course. As is often the case, folks tend not see the inter-connectedness of all these issues. That’s the flip side to the same coin of not caring until it affects you personally. But I would like to at least state my hope that people getting groped will have an epiphany on this relationship (the one between different laws and policies, not the fleeting but intense one they are enjoying with a TSA agent – hey-yo!).
We see this short-sightedness all the time: most people understand that a trip to your favorite burger joint is delicious for about 15 minutes but will contribute to you feeling and looking slightly worse in the longer term. It’s a trade off. Not that we ever seem to notice, but policies work exactly the same way.
This is a very informative article laying out the clear connection between all the different issues that involve a large and intrusive federal government. It points out how progressives and conservatives love big government when it does what they want, but then hide behind Constitutional principles in areas where they don't quite want it to be so big:
And vice versa. The article effectively points out the tension, and possibly hypocricy, of the views themselves, but I actually don't think the people who hold those views - even the most craven politicians in the group - are themselves hypocrites. They're not compromising a principle for convenience, they never started with the principle to begin with. They don't see the connection.
For example, much has been made of these comments by Senator Jay Rockefeller, where he says that perhaps FOX News and MSNBC should be taken off the air by the FCC. Most of the attention has been critical which is actually in contrast with most people's views on the Citizens United ruling that "gave corporations free speech rights!" In response to that opinion, many people have said that sure, they concede the importance of free speech but don't think it applies as strongly to corporations and think it can be bent to "improve public discourse," or some such justification. But in the case of the Senator's proposal, FOX and MSNBC are corporations (for profit!) and Rockefeller's justifications for his idea are pretty familiar - wrong though they may be. In other words, if you hate the Citizens United opinion and disagree with Senator Rockefeller, then you're pretty mixed up when it comes to free speech.
There's also this incredibly bizarre editorial from the Philly Inquirer about WIkiLeaks, by William C. Kashatus. It starts by luading the importance of transparency in government and the role that the free press plays in that:
But then the editorial highlights the fact that some of what Wikileaks leaked was sensitive information that might endanger lives, and concludes:
So, according to Kashatus, WikiLeaks should be wiped from the earth essentially because they perhaps leaked too much information. No "do better next time," just jail. Moreover, even if that view is appropriate on this particular issue, does anyone really think that the government will only go after those who leak security-compromising info? Or will they also pursue those who leak its "misjudgments, incompetence, or misconduct" and just say it compromises security? (I emailed the author to ask him this, and to see if he could specify what criminal charges should be brought, twice. He replied once, only to suggest I might feel differently if I had a family member serving in combat.)
In many ways, that editorial is emblematic of the American view on these freedoms: we can write flowery words about how great they are, and we teach them to our kids, and we talk them up on Independence day, or when we talk about the troops. But, when we see them in action, in the lives of others, they make us pretty uncomfortable. And, when we see them slowly dissipate in our own lives, we just sit by silently.
At every turn the government is more emboldened and takes a little more, until they are literally grabbing you by the dick.
I often find myself lamenting the willingness of American society and Americans specifically (sometimes, sadly on an individual basis) to accept the erosion of their rights. Freedom (to quote Andrew Shepard in the clip I put up last post) “isn’t easy… you gotta want it bad.” And most people don’t really want something they already feel they have. (Though, let's not forget, if you've got it, you don't need less of it!) That is, most people in America generally feel free and un-intruded upon so they don’t want more freedom, and don’t worry about intrusions into their freedoms if they can’t feel it or see it. Maybe this is why so many people talk about freedom but really just mean “lower taxes” (I’m looking at you Tea Party people - although to be fair). I mean, you feel your taxes when you pay them, but you don’t really feel the government spying on your email unless some G-man rolls up to your door or tries to put you in handcuffs...
.. Or tries to touch your balls!
Then we get seriously pissed. But what better metaphor for Americans’ tolerance of civil liberties erosions than the fact that there was so little outrage about warrantless spying, the Patriot Act, the plan to make the whole internet wiretap ready, torture, assassinating American citizens, rampant secrecy (the list goes on), that only when government agents started literally placing their hands on Americans’ genitals do we pipe up a little bit.
It’s really pretty pathetic, and anyone who fails to see the causal chain between tolerating all of that other – and quite probably worse – bullshit and the government even thinking about implementing this crap in the first place is a fucking dumbass. A lack of vigilance has a cost, civil libertarians like to say. That cost? The government will grab your junk. As if the case needed anymore evidence, the TSA flap proves we have not been very vigilant with our rights and our privacy.
This lesson will be missed though, of course. As is often the case, folks tend not see the inter-connectedness of all these issues. That’s the flip side to the same coin of not caring until it affects you personally. But I would like to at least state my hope that people getting groped will have an epiphany on this relationship (the one between different laws and policies, not the fleeting but intense one they are enjoying with a TSA agent – hey-yo!).
We see this short-sightedness all the time: most people understand that a trip to your favorite burger joint is delicious for about 15 minutes but will contribute to you feeling and looking slightly worse in the longer term. It’s a trade off. Not that we ever seem to notice, but policies work exactly the same way.
This is a very informative article laying out the clear connection between all the different issues that involve a large and intrusive federal government. It points out how progressives and conservatives love big government when it does what they want, but then hide behind Constitutional principles in areas where they don't quite want it to be so big:
A principled stand on the limits of federal power does not begin and end with health care. The Commerce Clause is a double-edged sword: Conservatives cannot wield it in the drug war without making it a useful tool for advancing progressive visions of federal power.
And vice versa. The article effectively points out the tension, and possibly hypocricy, of the views themselves, but I actually don't think the people who hold those views - even the most craven politicians in the group - are themselves hypocrites. They're not compromising a principle for convenience, they never started with the principle to begin with. They don't see the connection.
For example, much has been made of these comments by Senator Jay Rockefeller, where he says that perhaps FOX News and MSNBC should be taken off the air by the FCC. Most of the attention has been critical which is actually in contrast with most people's views on the Citizens United ruling that "gave corporations free speech rights!" In response to that opinion, many people have said that sure, they concede the importance of free speech but don't think it applies as strongly to corporations and think it can be bent to "improve public discourse," or some such justification. But in the case of the Senator's proposal, FOX and MSNBC are corporations (for profit!) and Rockefeller's justifications for his idea are pretty familiar - wrong though they may be. In other words, if you hate the Citizens United opinion and disagree with Senator Rockefeller, then you're pretty mixed up when it comes to free speech.
There's also this incredibly bizarre editorial from the Philly Inquirer about WIkiLeaks, by William C. Kashatus. It starts by luading the importance of transparency in government and the role that the free press plays in that:
As a self-governing society, we rightfully condemn any government - including our own - that attempts to shield its misjudgments, incompetence, or misconduct from public scrutiny. Such "government secrets" must be exposed because they threaten to destroy the individual liberties and collective freedom democracy depends on.
All too often, government officials attempt to maintain secrecy by invoking the claim of national security, as President Obama and his predecessor have been accused of doing. We rely on the integrity and wisdom of the free press to determine which national secrets are legitimate and which are illegitimate.
But then the editorial highlights the fact that some of what Wikileaks leaked was sensitive information that might endanger lives, and concludes:
WikiLeaks has acted recklessly, creating a clear and imminent danger to both U.S. and international security. The Obama administration should not only join other NATO countries in demanding the removal of classified documents from the WikiLeaks website, but also bring criminal charges against Assange and stop his travels across international borders. That would help restore the right balance between freedom of the press and international security.
So, according to Kashatus, WikiLeaks should be wiped from the earth essentially because they perhaps leaked too much information. No "do better next time," just jail. Moreover, even if that view is appropriate on this particular issue, does anyone really think that the government will only go after those who leak security-compromising info? Or will they also pursue those who leak its "misjudgments, incompetence, or misconduct" and just say it compromises security? (I emailed the author to ask him this, and to see if he could specify what criminal charges should be brought, twice. He replied once, only to suggest I might feel differently if I had a family member serving in combat.)
In many ways, that editorial is emblematic of the American view on these freedoms: we can write flowery words about how great they are, and we teach them to our kids, and we talk them up on Independence day, or when we talk about the troops. But, when we see them in action, in the lives of others, they make us pretty uncomfortable. And, when we see them slowly dissipate in our own lives, we just sit by silently.
At every turn the government is more emboldened and takes a little more, until they are literally grabbing you by the dick.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
(I Posted This to Get a Piece of that "Obama + Impeach" Google-Search Traffic)
The only way in which Obama appears to resemble Andrew Shepard, Michael Douglas's fictitious President from The American President.
To be fair to Barry, seeing the famous speech at the end of that movie, as a cynical adult, compels me to conclude that it marks the end of President Shepard's political career, and that he was probably forced to resign or impeached within the month. I mean, Dennis Kucinich finds this speech a little too liberal.
A "Card-Carrying Member of the ACLU!?!" That's just not Obama - unless you get a free membership card the 25th time they sue your ass...?
To be fair to Barry, seeing the famous speech at the end of that movie, as a cynical adult, compels me to conclude that it marks the end of President Shepard's political career, and that he was probably forced to resign or impeached within the month. I mean, Dennis Kucinich finds this speech a little too liberal.
A "Card-Carrying Member of the ACLU!?!" That's just not Obama - unless you get a free membership card the 25th time they sue your ass...?
Friday, November 12, 2010
In Which Eric Holder Reveals Himself as Too Stupid to Live or Too Unprincipled to not Resign Immediately
This is the most infuriatingly ridiculous series of statements I can imagine.
Perhaps, I knew this was true the whole time (I may, at one time or another, have questioned Eric Holder's reading comprehension) but to confirm it so clearly and explicitly is just too much. Could Eric Holder look more pathetic and out of his depth than he's portrayed in that article?
After spending the first half explainign Holder's views and his history, his devotion to lofty legal principles and blah blah blah, the article quotes Holder defending his decision not to pursue Bush for his crimes:
This "rationale" is such odious bullshit it doesn't even make any sense on its face. It is an argument explicilty and unapologetically antithetical to the rule of law. It's exactly like saying that prosecuting scumbags who prey on children over the internet will have a "chilling effect" on normal people who like to play checkers on Facebook against some 15 year old kid. "Chilling effect?" On fucking what? General behavior? Fucking hell, Eric, you're a lawyer, there are things all around that have a "chilling effect" on general behavior, they're called fucking LAWS. (Case in point, right now those nagging little laws are chilling me from randomly throwing heavy objects out of my window while blindfolded - if only I knew no one would come along and examine my decisions!)
Someone with a "deep love" for this country, who is a lawyer who dedicated his career to working at the DOJ should probably, ya know, have enough faith in the American Judicial System to be at least partially confident that simply "examining" past decisions won't lead to prosecutions unless there's actual evidence of criminal behavior.
Fucking "Chilling Effect!?" That's a notion to be applied to things we value and cherish like free speech. Not to government officials who might one day choose to murder people locked in cages, not even if the Presidential himself makes that choice. But he's right: if people who work in this administration feel like one day someone will look back at their activities, they might just... try to conform their behavior to the law! Holy christ, that would be a terrible thing. Average fuck-ups like me and this guy can go to jail (or get sued) for all kinds of shit, and ignorance of the law is no excuse. But we should adopt an explicit policy that the powerful, all-law-knowledgeable officials can just own slaves, marinate cats and compliment a White House intern on her tits and face no consequences because otherwise there will be a "chilling effect?"
This line of bullshit is so crushingly pathetic when you consider this same man once said the American people were owed a "reckoning." So Eric here wanted a reckoning, but, looking back on previous administrations is now something we "don't want." What a colossal pussy.
And, if any doubt remained, there is this exchange:
I don't know how it got to this point, Eric, and I'm sure at each turn you thought you could give a little here or there but stick around to fight the good fight. Well, you got knocked the fuck out! You're a political hack and a blatant hypocrite. "Resign in protest" or something and we'll just forget this whole thing ever happened.
Perhaps, I knew this was true the whole time (I may, at one time or another, have questioned Eric Holder's reading comprehension) but to confirm it so clearly and explicitly is just too much. Could Eric Holder look more pathetic and out of his depth than he's portrayed in that article?
After spending the first half explainign Holder's views and his history, his devotion to lofty legal principles and blah blah blah, the article quotes Holder defending his decision not to pursue Bush for his crimes:
"You only want to look back at a previous administration if you feel you really have to," Holder said. "Because it has a potential chilling effect. If people who work in this administration today think that four years from now, or eight years from now, the decisions they make are going to be examined by a successor administration, you don't want that to happen. So that's a political consideration."
This "rationale" is such odious bullshit it doesn't even make any sense on its face. It is an argument explicilty and unapologetically antithetical to the rule of law. It's exactly like saying that prosecuting scumbags who prey on children over the internet will have a "chilling effect" on normal people who like to play checkers on Facebook against some 15 year old kid. "Chilling effect?" On fucking what? General behavior? Fucking hell, Eric, you're a lawyer, there are things all around that have a "chilling effect" on general behavior, they're called fucking LAWS. (Case in point, right now those nagging little laws are chilling me from randomly throwing heavy objects out of my window while blindfolded - if only I knew no one would come along and examine my decisions!)
Someone with a "deep love" for this country, who is a lawyer who dedicated his career to working at the DOJ should probably, ya know, have enough faith in the American Judicial System to be at least partially confident that simply "examining" past decisions won't lead to prosecutions unless there's actual evidence of criminal behavior.
Fucking "Chilling Effect!?" That's a notion to be applied to things we value and cherish like free speech. Not to government officials who might one day choose to murder people locked in cages, not even if the Presidential himself makes that choice. But he's right: if people who work in this administration feel like one day someone will look back at their activities, they might just... try to conform their behavior to the law! Holy christ, that would be a terrible thing. Average fuck-ups like me and this guy can go to jail (or get sued) for all kinds of shit, and ignorance of the law is no excuse. But we should adopt an explicit policy that the powerful, all-law-knowledgeable officials can just own slaves, marinate cats and compliment a White House intern on her tits and face no consequences because otherwise there will be a "chilling effect?"
This line of bullshit is so crushingly pathetic when you consider this same man once said the American people were owed a "reckoning." So Eric here wanted a reckoning, but, looking back on previous administrations is now something we "don't want." What a colossal pussy.
And, if any doubt remained, there is this exchange:
"But before the inauguration," I said, "both you and the president said that habeas should apply to enemy combatants."
"I'm not sure I ever opined on that," Holder said.
"I could read you a quote."
Holder laughed uncomfortably.
"Here's the quote: 'Our government authorized the use of torture, approved secret electronic surveillance without due process of law, denied the writ of habeas corpus to hundreds of accused enemy combatants,' and a few other things."
Holder was silent. "But I was talking about Guantánamo," he said. "I'm pretty sure I was talking about Guantánamo."
I don't know how it got to this point, Eric, and I'm sure at each turn you thought you could give a little here or there but stick around to fight the good fight. Well, you got knocked the fuck out! You're a political hack and a blatant hypocrite. "Resign in protest" or something and we'll just forget this whole thing ever happened.
Poor Poor People
There's a big difference between illegality and immorality. Many - perhaps even most - things that are immoral shouldn't be illegal. I think most people would agree that things like making fun of people in horrible ways or cheating in a high school football game are seriously reprehensible acts... that the government should not spend any time policing.
But many people often lose sight of this principle when it comes to a few topics, one of which is pay-day lending. In short, pay-day lending is the practice of loaning money to someone over a short period of time (like 2 weeks) and charging them something like 20-40 cents on the dollar for that loan. Obviously people who use this service are pretty desperate for the cash at the time, and they usually have to produce a pay-stub (so they likely have a job) as proof that they will get paid in the future and are good for it.
You're probably not human if this doesn't strike you as "taking advantage of people who are down on their luck," which clearly implicates the question of morality, but should this be illegal?
This is an interesting article about efforts by politicians to ban or heavily regulate this practice, and it explains why those policies actually end up leaving many people worse off.
But regardless of how it ends up benefiting or harming people's lives, the argument for heavily regulating or banning this practice is rooted in morality alone, at best, and bald-faced paternalism at worst.
Of course the argument is displayed with a handy catchphrase - "Predatory Lending" - which lends itself to the morality issue, these people are taking advantage of the poor! And, maybe they are and that seems wrong. The more nauseating, insulting and anti-freedom form of the argument is rooted in the idea that these poor people don't know any better. That they can't do a decent job of evaluating the price for having the money now versus waiting another week or two, that they will pay any price to get an extra 200 bucks so they can run out and buy spinning rims or a flat screen TV. Really, the paternalism argument is inseparable from the morality argument: in order for people to be "taken advantage of" they have to be signing up for something they don't understand, or have little to no choice.
But that's just not the case. At least according to the article, the terms of these loans are clear ("in large type, outlined in a gray box, was the amount of money I would have to pay the company when my loan came due") and there are a host of other options simply through a robust lending market ("there are more than 20,000 payday lending outlets, more than all the Starbucks and McDonald’s stores in the country combined") or borrowing money from friends, using credit cards or even just accepting bounced check or overdraft fees.
The government heavily regulates the credit card industry and that seems to make a good amount of sense because those services are based largely on - and the regulations seem to target - screwing you over with fine print and changing terms. In other words, when you innocently trigger section 38, subpart b(43) of your credit card agreement and they jack your interest rate up to 50%, you've effectively been had because you didn't really know that was part of the deal. But if a credit card offered you a one paragraph contract that said "You get our card, everything you charge on it will be paid back at 50% interest. Enjoy!" and you, in your ignorant but well-informed and fully-comprehending glory, thought this made sense, the government should step in an tell you that's just no good? That they know better than you? (Well, maybe they do, I mean 50%!? what is wrong with you?) If you're bad with money, or just delayed gratification in general, does taking away one of your options help you make better decisions overall? Maybe you're totally hopeless and the government really is hooking you up here, but even if they do know better in the case of your hopeless ass, how is it their decision to make for everyone everywhere?
That's really the question here, if two separate private parties agree to exchange money and services on completely clear terms (in a market with reasonable competition) how is it at all appropriate for the government to regulate the terms themselves?
But many people often lose sight of this principle when it comes to a few topics, one of which is pay-day lending. In short, pay-day lending is the practice of loaning money to someone over a short period of time (like 2 weeks) and charging them something like 20-40 cents on the dollar for that loan. Obviously people who use this service are pretty desperate for the cash at the time, and they usually have to produce a pay-stub (so they likely have a job) as proof that they will get paid in the future and are good for it.
You're probably not human if this doesn't strike you as "taking advantage of people who are down on their luck," which clearly implicates the question of morality, but should this be illegal?
This is an interesting article about efforts by politicians to ban or heavily regulate this practice, and it explains why those policies actually end up leaving many people worse off.
But regardless of how it ends up benefiting or harming people's lives, the argument for heavily regulating or banning this practice is rooted in morality alone, at best, and bald-faced paternalism at worst.
Of course the argument is displayed with a handy catchphrase - "Predatory Lending" - which lends itself to the morality issue, these people are taking advantage of the poor! And, maybe they are and that seems wrong. The more nauseating, insulting and anti-freedom form of the argument is rooted in the idea that these poor people don't know any better. That they can't do a decent job of evaluating the price for having the money now versus waiting another week or two, that they will pay any price to get an extra 200 bucks so they can run out and buy spinning rims or a flat screen TV. Really, the paternalism argument is inseparable from the morality argument: in order for people to be "taken advantage of" they have to be signing up for something they don't understand, or have little to no choice.
But that's just not the case. At least according to the article, the terms of these loans are clear ("in large type, outlined in a gray box, was the amount of money I would have to pay the company when my loan came due") and there are a host of other options simply through a robust lending market ("there are more than 20,000 payday lending outlets, more than all the Starbucks and McDonald’s stores in the country combined") or borrowing money from friends, using credit cards or even just accepting bounced check or overdraft fees.
The government heavily regulates the credit card industry and that seems to make a good amount of sense because those services are based largely on - and the regulations seem to target - screwing you over with fine print and changing terms. In other words, when you innocently trigger section 38, subpart b(43) of your credit card agreement and they jack your interest rate up to 50%, you've effectively been had because you didn't really know that was part of the deal. But if a credit card offered you a one paragraph contract that said "You get our card, everything you charge on it will be paid back at 50% interest. Enjoy!" and you, in your ignorant but well-informed and fully-comprehending glory, thought this made sense, the government should step in an tell you that's just no good? That they know better than you? (Well, maybe they do, I mean 50%!? what is wrong with you?) If you're bad with money, or just delayed gratification in general, does taking away one of your options help you make better decisions overall? Maybe you're totally hopeless and the government really is hooking you up here, but even if they do know better in the case of your hopeless ass, how is it their decision to make for everyone everywhere?
That's really the question here, if two separate private parties agree to exchange money and services on completely clear terms (in a market with reasonable competition) how is it at all appropriate for the government to regulate the terms themselves?
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Don't Do Anything of Substance Differently or Better, Just Sell That Shit Like Billy Mayes
This is just the whiniest, most substance free, cliche-riddled rant I can imagine.
I could be convinced that this was some sort of meta-satire of the liberals who complain against Obama and what he's done. Really, the opening and closing paragraphs, juxtaposed, tell you exactly how senseless and silly this letter is. It opens with this:
and the last paragraph begins like this:
I don't mean to get all 7th-grade English teacher on this clown (first and final paragraphs should be similar and express the overall thesis), but this is pretty emblematic of the incoherence of this entire piece. The gist of it is that the author, Stu Kreisman, seems to be really disappointed with the Obama administration:
And so what are those shortcomings according to Mr. Kreisman? Well, here are his complaints listed in the order they appear:
Annnd that's it. Those really are all the complaints I find in the article directed at Obama. The rest of it is a borderline screed against the ignorance, dishonesty, hatred and blatant partisan games of the Republicans. There is not one complaint about substance, or policy other than incredibly vague notions of "compromise" and "watered down" and even things like that only appear a few times. (I suppose not firing all Bush DOJ appointees is kinda policy? But not really.)
What the fuck kind of political complaint is this!? Mr. Kreisman, at the start, gushes - to put it mildly - about how great Obama has been in terms of, ya know, doing things that help the country. And then spend the rest of the piece complaining about not "fighting" hard enough, and not showing graphs on television, and not playing smart political theater, and not pointing out how bad Bush was, and being too idealistic. This piece is total fucking bullshit.
A true liberal would have one substantive issue to complain about with Obama. How about no public option? How about continuing one too many (ALL) of Bush's War on Terror Policies like indefinite detention, how about not making the stimulus big enough or failing to include limits on executive bonuses? Christ on a Bronco, SOMETHING that is a complaint about a actual decision Obama made incorrectly according to you on matters of actual policy?
Mr. Kreisman seems to want to inject his letter with passion and emotion - which I will grant him, he does - but a cursory read reveals that all that anger is mainly directed at Republicans. He's oozing with disgust for these people (not that I can blame him) in a letter written to... someone totally different. Plus Obama didn't just cave to Republicans, he caved to corporate interests and lobbyists, but Mr. Kreisman conspicuously leaves that unmentioned, perhaps because that would be entirely Obama's fault.
It's exactly one of those awkward situations where you call out a close friend but you slather that point in tons of other praise or easy-to-agree-to points about a somewhat related topic. Mr. Kreisman can't bring himself to come down too harsh on the President, and he's got very little to complain about (he's the President's base, after all)so he's just going to say "Hey Obama! Republicans are total douche-scooters, Amuhright!?!?"
Not pointing to any substantive issue means Mr. Kreisman isn't trying at all. He reveals himself as someone who wants to be mad because his party lost, and his leader is beaten down, but not express his anger as actual criticism. This letter isn't an expression of dissatisfaction, it's a fucking pep talk appropriately delivered at half time with the home team trailing.
He also, sadly, reveals himself as someone who is an absurd product of our absurd media culture where everything is "messaging" and "strategy" and polls. Seriously consider it: What type of politically depraved individual would consider not voting for a politician whom they believed had accomplished "amazing things" and whose removal from leadership would be a "tragedy" to the country? What the fucking fuck, dude?
Stu Kreisman, ladies and gentlemen! A man who will not be satisfied with politicians who do things that he really loves IF they don't fight for them hard enough and sell them effectively!
Somewhere Obama is receiving this letter, reading it, and thinking, "geez my critics 'from the left' are hopelessly stupid... and they will totally vote for me no matter what. Yessss!"
I could be convinced that this was some sort of meta-satire of the liberals who complain against Obama and what he's done. Really, the opening and closing paragraphs, juxtaposed, tell you exactly how senseless and silly this letter is. It opens with this:
First off, I want to tell you that despite the enormous landmines set in place by George W. Bush and the Republicans, you have accomplished amazing things in your first two years in office. You have saved the country from another depression, pushed through landmark health care legislation; you have slowed the downward spiral of job losses, ended the war in Iraq and cut taxes on most of the nation.
and the last paragraph begins like this:
So this is why I didn't go all out this year. I voted, but I'm dispirited.
I don't mean to get all 7th-grade English teacher on this clown (first and final paragraphs should be similar and express the overall thesis), but this is pretty emblematic of the incoherence of this entire piece. The gist of it is that the author, Stu Kreisman, seems to be really disappointed with the Obama administration:
your progressive base was asked not just to sacrifice time and time again, we were held up to ridicule and blamed by your administration for your shortcomings, of which there were plenty.
And so what are those shortcomings according to Mr. Kreisman? Well, here are his complaints listed in the order they appear:
you didn't know when to stop [reaching across the aisle]. You continued to pander to the right desperately searching for common ground.
you consulted with [Republicans] and watered [the stimulus bill] down
we on the left were disappointed by the number of Clinton re-treads you choose for positions in your administration
[Even though Republicans hate you] you continued to let them off the hook and pander to them at the expense of your base, the progressives.
you didn't fire (as was your right as President) all the Bush-appointed federal prosecutors
People needed to know what destruction Bush and the Republicans did in plain English rather than in polite, veiled references. Instead, you handed the right wing a stronger stranglehold of the judiciary as a peace offering.
By trying to let all sides be heard [on healthcare] (even after Sen. DeMint announced that Healthcare will be your Waterloo), you lost control of the narrative.
where was your FCC when it was discovered that Fox had contributed a million dollars to the Republican Governor's Association?
Your administration's communication skills are, to be honest, horrible. Would it have been so hard to put up a commercial with the jobs created/lost graph showing that just after you took office you stopped the hemorrhaging?
"No Drama Obama" didn't work.
You're mistake was being idealistic and naïve
Tacking to the center-right was a disastrous move on your administration's part.... By playing tough against the "lefties" you played right into the narrative of the conservatives.
Annnd that's it. Those really are all the complaints I find in the article directed at Obama. The rest of it is a borderline screed against the ignorance, dishonesty, hatred and blatant partisan games of the Republicans. There is not one complaint about substance, or policy other than incredibly vague notions of "compromise" and "watered down" and even things like that only appear a few times. (I suppose not firing all Bush DOJ appointees is kinda policy? But not really.)
What the fuck kind of political complaint is this!? Mr. Kreisman, at the start, gushes - to put it mildly - about how great Obama has been in terms of, ya know, doing things that help the country. And then spend the rest of the piece complaining about not "fighting" hard enough, and not showing graphs on television, and not playing smart political theater, and not pointing out how bad Bush was, and being too idealistic. This piece is total fucking bullshit.
A true liberal would have one substantive issue to complain about with Obama. How about no public option? How about continuing one too many (ALL) of Bush's War on Terror Policies like indefinite detention, how about not making the stimulus big enough or failing to include limits on executive bonuses? Christ on a Bronco, SOMETHING that is a complaint about a actual decision Obama made incorrectly according to you on matters of actual policy?
Mr. Kreisman seems to want to inject his letter with passion and emotion - which I will grant him, he does - but a cursory read reveals that all that anger is mainly directed at Republicans. He's oozing with disgust for these people (not that I can blame him) in a letter written to... someone totally different. Plus Obama didn't just cave to Republicans, he caved to corporate interests and lobbyists, but Mr. Kreisman conspicuously leaves that unmentioned, perhaps because that would be entirely Obama's fault.
It's exactly one of those awkward situations where you call out a close friend but you slather that point in tons of other praise or easy-to-agree-to points about a somewhat related topic. Mr. Kreisman can't bring himself to come down too harsh on the President, and he's got very little to complain about (he's the President's base, after all)so he's just going to say "Hey Obama! Republicans are total douche-scooters, Amuhright!?!?"
Not pointing to any substantive issue means Mr. Kreisman isn't trying at all. He reveals himself as someone who wants to be mad because his party lost, and his leader is beaten down, but not express his anger as actual criticism. This letter isn't an expression of dissatisfaction, it's a fucking pep talk appropriately delivered at half time with the home team trailing.
He also, sadly, reveals himself as someone who is an absurd product of our absurd media culture where everything is "messaging" and "strategy" and polls. Seriously consider it: What type of politically depraved individual would consider not voting for a politician whom they believed had accomplished "amazing things" and whose removal from leadership would be a "tragedy" to the country? What the fucking fuck, dude?
Stu Kreisman, ladies and gentlemen! A man who will not be satisfied with politicians who do things that he really loves IF they don't fight for them hard enough and sell them effectively!
Somewhere Obama is receiving this letter, reading it, and thinking, "geez my critics 'from the left' are hopelessly stupid... and they will totally vote for me no matter what. Yessss!"
Monday, November 8, 2010
Another Thing I Just Don't Get...
..is this view from former pot smokers, who have not swallowed any of the fear-based propaganda about the “harms” of the drug, that it shouldn’t quite be totally legalized because, well… that would just be sorta weird. That view seems best epitomized here, and while I credit Marshall with his honesty and recognition (seemingly) of himself as a (possible) hypocrite, I find this view not just intellectually vapid, but morally repugnant.
If you have ever smoked pot, never had any harmful effects or saw any consequences (i.e. didn’t get caught) and now have just moved on without regret, then aren’t you essentially compelled to support its legalization? Or rather, aren’t you at least compelled to oppose the consequences that might befall someone who wasn’t as - really - lucky as you were? So it was fine for you (successful, educated white guy/girl) to have pot at a party or before you watched Zardoz with your friends 15 years ago and not get caught and have an arrest on your record, or get kicked out of college or not make it into a prestigious grad school, or not land that first job, but you’re fine with a legal system that arrests hundreds of thousands of people per year for the same thing, or for taking the initiative to provide people like you with the pot you wanted to smoke? Or is that had you been caught, your education, parents, skin color, dialect etc. would have allowed you to escape those consequences, and now anyone unfortunate enough to be lacking any of those things can go screw? How does one come to grips with this? Moreso than just an irrational or hypocritical position, how to you reconcile this view with your own humanity?
Taken in the abstract: You have done something. You find it to have been pretty harmless and do not regret it. You are okay with others going to jail for it. What the Fuck!?
Maybe Marshall has a point about “legalization” versus “decriminalization” and exactly the terminology or extent of the prohibition can be debated. And, don't get me wrong, getting out and voting in favor of Prop 19 was not a requirement either. But whatever you want to call it, and whatever you do about it, in your former, non-regretful pot-smoker mind, you should be reflexively opposed to criminal penalties for getting high or you should take up less morally questionable activities like torturing woodland creatures.
If you have ever smoked pot, never had any harmful effects or saw any consequences (i.e. didn’t get caught) and now have just moved on without regret, then aren’t you essentially compelled to support its legalization? Or rather, aren’t you at least compelled to oppose the consequences that might befall someone who wasn’t as - really - lucky as you were? So it was fine for you (successful, educated white guy/girl) to have pot at a party or before you watched Zardoz with your friends 15 years ago and not get caught and have an arrest on your record, or get kicked out of college or not make it into a prestigious grad school, or not land that first job, but you’re fine with a legal system that arrests hundreds of thousands of people per year for the same thing, or for taking the initiative to provide people like you with the pot you wanted to smoke? Or is that had you been caught, your education, parents, skin color, dialect etc. would have allowed you to escape those consequences, and now anyone unfortunate enough to be lacking any of those things can go screw? How does one come to grips with this? Moreso than just an irrational or hypocritical position, how to you reconcile this view with your own humanity?
Taken in the abstract: You have done something. You find it to have been pretty harmless and do not regret it. You are okay with others going to jail for it. What the Fuck!?
Maybe Marshall has a point about “legalization” versus “decriminalization” and exactly the terminology or extent of the prohibition can be debated. And, don't get me wrong, getting out and voting in favor of Prop 19 was not a requirement either. But whatever you want to call it, and whatever you do about it, in your former, non-regretful pot-smoker mind, you should be reflexively opposed to criminal penalties for getting high or you should take up less morally questionable activities like torturing woodland creatures.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
A WHOLE 10%!!!???
This is some remarkably weak sauce in defense of a President who is/was supposed to be a tremendously bright and gifted leader, changing the ways of Washington and restoring normality after a "radical" (I used quotes, but I agree with that characterization) Presidency.
You really know they're digging when you get to the Gitmo one. Anyway Let's go through these guys:
“Signed a financial reform law allowing shareholders of publicly traded companies to vote on executive pay”
First, private companies can pay employees whatever they want. Now maybe if these companies received bailout money then executive pay would be our business and then he could put conditions on receipt of said moneys and tie it to executive pay. But Obama had a chance to do this and actually ensured there were no limits on those bonuses... and then blamed in on Chris Dodd.
“Cut prescription drug cost for medicare recipients by 50%”
GWB cut the hell out of prescription drug costs for old, decrepit seniors. Most people I know though that bill stunk and was a corporate giveaway, but somewhere there's a website called whatthefuckdidGWBdo.com that has that listed.
“Extended Benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees”
Well, that's nice and all, but Obama could end DADT (for a time) with a swipe of his pen, and he’s had his DOJ defend DOMA to the hilt which actively harms people’s lives, makes no sense (not a single coherent justification) and is almost certainly unconstitutional. Gay rights activist and apparently gays in general are downright furious with this administration, and should see this half-hearted and objectively weak measure has the insulting bone-throw that it is.
“The American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009: a $789 billion economic stimulus plan”
Umm, ok yes that was a thing and it passed. I guess just doing something or anything gets you credit nowadays. Since there is no argument here, I won’t respond in pointing out how bald-faced a corporate giveaway that was.
“Launched recovery.gov to track spending from the Recovery Act, providing transparency and allowing the public to report fraud, waste, or abuse.”
Anyone can launch a website like one where you sugar-coat (non) accomplishments of a politician of whom you're a fanboy. In terms of things with meaning, the Inspector General in charge of monitoring this chunk of change has been undercut and ridiculed by the Administration. But hey, that website is awesome, I’m sure.
“Signed the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act to stop fraud and wasteful spending in the defense procurement and contracting system”
All bills have an ostensible purpose, it doesn't mean they work or change anything. Case in point, Obama actually developed and signed a *larger* budget for the military than previous years. I.e. military spending has gone up, though perhaps it is more efficient now.
“Issued executive order to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay”
So then apparently an executive order and $3.89 gets you a Green Tea Latte from Starbucks (yumm). Obama has a real issue with saying things and then not doing them. Most people see that as a major problem with politicians. This website is apparently bragging about it.
“Ended Bush administration's CIA program of 'enhanced interrogation methods' by requiring that the Army field manual be used as the guide for terrorism interrogations”
This is factually false. Bush had already ended these techniques in ’06 (so add another thing to whatthefuckdidGWBdo.com). What is telling is that Obama brags about ending “torture” which is obviously a concession that torture took place, and therefore under the law is required to be investigated and prosecuted by the DOJ, the independent law enforcement body of the country. Yet Obama has decreed that this will not happen, for no reason, and then talked about the rule of law (without a hint of irony).
“Health Care Reform Bill, preventing insurance companies from denying insurance because of a pre-existing condition”
This is, I suppose, a nice thing, but this fact is inseparable from the other fact that the bill requires everyone to buy insurance from those same insurance companies. Something insurance companies like even more than arbitrarily denying people coverage. This will obviously raise all rates, and improve insurance companies bottom lines and, therefore, their ability to fight the next round of healthcare reform. Another way to look at this is that insurance companies are/were the problem, and this bill - despite some good things - just made them stronger and more pervasive.
“Require health insurance plans to disclose how much of the premium actually goes to patient care.”
This is so misleading it’s basically false. “Patient care” is I think a slightly different term in the law that is already being defined to include things like lobbying and executive bonuses. This part of the bill epitomizes how bills are written to sound awesome, but in practice keep the powerful very happy by redefining words into total non-existence.
The Cuba thing is pretty great. Gotta give him that.
“Increased funding for national parks and forests by 10%”
Whoop-dee-friggin-doo. whatthefuckdidGWBdo.com says Bush increased spending on education by like 50% or something.
“Expanded hate crime law in the US to include sexual orientation through the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act”
Classic form and symbolism over substance.
“Provided stimulus funding to boost private sector spaceflight programs”
Hot to death.
“Appointed nation's first Chief Technology Officer”
Uhhhhhh
“Signed financial reform law establishing a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to look out for the interests of everyday Americans”
Again, agencies, like laws, have ostensible purposes, but it's another thing to see what they do in practice. Their leaders have a big effect on this. A sign that this agency would be serious would mean appointing Elizabeth Warren to head it. But instead, Obama took weeks and appointed her to head the effort to “set up” this agency. So we still have to wait and see who gets the control. As one example, Obama appointed Ken Salazar to head the agency that regulates off-shore drilling. Enviro0nmentalists were not happy, industry folks were tickled pink. How did that work out?
I left out a few but those all seem to be pretty standard, run-of-the-mill, Democrats-control-the government policy shifts. Not all bad, but not exactly barn-burning stuff.
This website provides a great response to anyone who argues that Obama sat in the oval office twiddling his thumbs for the past 20 months, other than that I'm not sure it's usefulness or persuasiveness. And, at points it reeks of desperation.
Most importantly though, the list in opposition to this is really ugly, and now, likely forthcoming.
You really know they're digging when you get to the Gitmo one. Anyway Let's go through these guys:
“Signed a financial reform law allowing shareholders of publicly traded companies to vote on executive pay”
First, private companies can pay employees whatever they want. Now maybe if these companies received bailout money then executive pay would be our business and then he could put conditions on receipt of said moneys and tie it to executive pay. But Obama had a chance to do this and actually ensured there were no limits on those bonuses... and then blamed in on Chris Dodd.
“Cut prescription drug cost for medicare recipients by 50%”
GWB cut the hell out of prescription drug costs for old, decrepit seniors. Most people I know though that bill stunk and was a corporate giveaway, but somewhere there's a website called whatthefuckdidGWBdo.com that has that listed.
“Extended Benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees”
Well, that's nice and all, but Obama could end DADT (for a time) with a swipe of his pen, and he’s had his DOJ defend DOMA to the hilt which actively harms people’s lives, makes no sense (not a single coherent justification) and is almost certainly unconstitutional. Gay rights activist and apparently gays in general are downright furious with this administration, and should see this half-hearted and objectively weak measure has the insulting bone-throw that it is.
“The American Recovery & Reinvestment Act of 2009: a $789 billion economic stimulus plan”
Umm, ok yes that was a thing and it passed. I guess just doing something or anything gets you credit nowadays. Since there is no argument here, I won’t respond in pointing out how bald-faced a corporate giveaway that was.
“Launched recovery.gov to track spending from the Recovery Act, providing transparency and allowing the public to report fraud, waste, or abuse.”
Anyone can launch a website like one where you sugar-coat (non) accomplishments of a politician of whom you're a fanboy. In terms of things with meaning, the Inspector General in charge of monitoring this chunk of change has been undercut and ridiculed by the Administration. But hey, that website is awesome, I’m sure.
“Signed the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act to stop fraud and wasteful spending in the defense procurement and contracting system”
All bills have an ostensible purpose, it doesn't mean they work or change anything. Case in point, Obama actually developed and signed a *larger* budget for the military than previous years. I.e. military spending has gone up, though perhaps it is more efficient now.
“Issued executive order to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay”
So then apparently an executive order and $3.89 gets you a Green Tea Latte from Starbucks (yumm). Obama has a real issue with saying things and then not doing them. Most people see that as a major problem with politicians. This website is apparently bragging about it.
“Ended Bush administration's CIA program of 'enhanced interrogation methods' by requiring that the Army field manual be used as the guide for terrorism interrogations”
This is factually false. Bush had already ended these techniques in ’06 (so add another thing to whatthefuckdidGWBdo.com). What is telling is that Obama brags about ending “torture” which is obviously a concession that torture took place, and therefore under the law is required to be investigated and prosecuted by the DOJ, the independent law enforcement body of the country. Yet Obama has decreed that this will not happen, for no reason, and then talked about the rule of law (without a hint of irony).
“Health Care Reform Bill, preventing insurance companies from denying insurance because of a pre-existing condition”
This is, I suppose, a nice thing, but this fact is inseparable from the other fact that the bill requires everyone to buy insurance from those same insurance companies. Something insurance companies like even more than arbitrarily denying people coverage. This will obviously raise all rates, and improve insurance companies bottom lines and, therefore, their ability to fight the next round of healthcare reform. Another way to look at this is that insurance companies are/were the problem, and this bill - despite some good things - just made them stronger and more pervasive.
“Require health insurance plans to disclose how much of the premium actually goes to patient care.”
This is so misleading it’s basically false. “Patient care” is I think a slightly different term in the law that is already being defined to include things like lobbying and executive bonuses. This part of the bill epitomizes how bills are written to sound awesome, but in practice keep the powerful very happy by redefining words into total non-existence.
The Cuba thing is pretty great. Gotta give him that.
“Increased funding for national parks and forests by 10%”
Whoop-dee-friggin-doo. whatthefuckdidGWBdo.com says Bush increased spending on education by like 50% or something.
“Expanded hate crime law in the US to include sexual orientation through the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act”
Classic form and symbolism over substance.
“Provided stimulus funding to boost private sector spaceflight programs”
Hot to death.
“Appointed nation's first Chief Technology Officer”
Uhhhhhh
“Signed financial reform law establishing a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to look out for the interests of everyday Americans”
Again, agencies, like laws, have ostensible purposes, but it's another thing to see what they do in practice. Their leaders have a big effect on this. A sign that this agency would be serious would mean appointing Elizabeth Warren to head it. But instead, Obama took weeks and appointed her to head the effort to “set up” this agency. So we still have to wait and see who gets the control. As one example, Obama appointed Ken Salazar to head the agency that regulates off-shore drilling. Enviro0nmentalists were not happy, industry folks were tickled pink. How did that work out?
I left out a few but those all seem to be pretty standard, run-of-the-mill, Democrats-control-the government policy shifts. Not all bad, but not exactly barn-burning stuff.
This website provides a great response to anyone who argues that Obama sat in the oval office twiddling his thumbs for the past 20 months, other than that I'm not sure it's usefulness or persuasiveness. And, at points it reeks of desperation.
Most importantly though, the list in opposition to this is really ugly, and now, likely forthcoming.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
"Fool me once... I'm a Sociopath"
Words pretty much fail.
I said "pretty much" cuz.... well it seems like success in politics is based largely on knowing how you sound and come across to others. Bush, whatever else you want to say about him, was pretty decent at appearances, showmanship, stagecraft and the like. I mean he got elected President (twice ... kinda)! Of course Bush had an enormous share of gaffes mostly centered around his inability to command the English language (to be fair, who doesn't have to think a little bit before they use that 'fool me once' cliche?). But this one is of a different order altogether; it's not a technical mis-speak but a peek into a sick and demented mindset. Which maybe many of us were already onto, but to show it so nakedly?!
For someone so overtly concerned about his legacy, he has to know he's a pretty controversial and divisive figure, and as a thinking creature he has to know he presided over a pretty disastrous and needless (certainly in hindsight) war where, conservatively, a few hundred thousand people died or were maimed - not to mention the Katrina debacle which stands in immediate conceptual proximity to the issue at hand.
We're all pretty self-centered at times, and we all have regrets that nag at you, but if my regrets involved a gigantic pile of dead bodies, I'd like to think I'd develop some thicker skin, or at least shut my stupid fucking mouth when it came to insults from people I had never heard of.
I said "pretty much" cuz.... well it seems like success in politics is based largely on knowing how you sound and come across to others. Bush, whatever else you want to say about him, was pretty decent at appearances, showmanship, stagecraft and the like. I mean he got elected President (twice ... kinda)! Of course Bush had an enormous share of gaffes mostly centered around his inability to command the English language (to be fair, who doesn't have to think a little bit before they use that 'fool me once' cliche?). But this one is of a different order altogether; it's not a technical mis-speak but a peek into a sick and demented mindset. Which maybe many of us were already onto, but to show it so nakedly?!
For someone so overtly concerned about his legacy, he has to know he's a pretty controversial and divisive figure, and as a thinking creature he has to know he presided over a pretty disastrous and needless (certainly in hindsight) war where, conservatively, a few hundred thousand people died or were maimed - not to mention the Katrina debacle which stands in immediate conceptual proximity to the issue at hand.
We're all pretty self-centered at times, and we all have regrets that nag at you, but if my regrets involved a gigantic pile of dead bodies, I'd like to think I'd develop some thicker skin, or at least shut my stupid fucking mouth when it came to insults from people I had never heard of.
Election Recap:
Some quick thoughts on an interesting election:
- Voters had a clear choice, if you wanted more gay rights, a restoration of the rule of law and America’s values, less war, and sensible immigration and drug policies, you could pick the uh.... hmmm... Well, at least if you wanted smaller government you could clearly choose.... the uhh... I'll get back to you on this.
- Feingold losing marks the symbolic and official death of Civil Liberties in this country. The leading civil libertarian in the Senate is now arguably Rand Paul. God help us all.
- Christine O'Donnel will, like Obi-wan, become more powerful in defeat than she ever could've been in victory. I put the over/under at 5.5 months before she has her own TV show or something pretty close to it.
- I can't wait to see Republicans run around frantically saying that this election is a) a repudiation of Obama b) a shift to the right AND c) a mandate requiring cooperation from the White House, and then when the TV host asks them why the same logic appeared to not apply to the '08 results - wait, no TV host would ever ask that.
- What are all the media people going to talk about now that the election is over? Oh right, polls, strategies, "messaging," etc. for the next election. That is until we re-start the debate over healthcare again... which the media people will mainly cover from the angle of how it affects the next election.
- Voters had a clear choice, if you wanted more gay rights, a restoration of the rule of law and America’s values, less war, and sensible immigration and drug policies, you could pick the uh.... hmmm... Well, at least if you wanted smaller government you could clearly choose.... the uhh... I'll get back to you on this.
- Feingold losing marks the symbolic and official death of Civil Liberties in this country. The leading civil libertarian in the Senate is now arguably Rand Paul. God help us all.
- Christine O'Donnel will, like Obi-wan, become more powerful in defeat than she ever could've been in victory. I put the over/under at 5.5 months before she has her own TV show or something pretty close to it.
- I can't wait to see Republicans run around frantically saying that this election is a) a repudiation of Obama b) a shift to the right AND c) a mandate requiring cooperation from the White House, and then when the TV host asks them why the same logic appeared to not apply to the '08 results - wait, no TV host would ever ask that.
- What are all the media people going to talk about now that the election is over? Oh right, polls, strategies, "messaging," etc. for the next election. That is until we re-start the debate over healthcare again... which the media people will mainly cover from the angle of how it affects the next election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)