Do you suppose it's people like this who are at the end of their rope and see no realistic help on the way?

A new analysis released by the National Employment Law Project today reveals that 1.2 million workers will be cut off of federal jobless benefits by year’s end if Congress fails to renew the federal emergency extensions that expire on November 30th.
...
Of the 1.2 million workers at risk of losing federal benefits, 387,000 are workers who were recently laid-off and are now receiving the six months (26 weeks) of regular state benefits. After exhausting state benefits, these workers would be left to fend for themselves in a job market with just one job opening for every five unemployed workers and an unemployment rate that has exceeded nine percent for 17 months in a row—with no federal unemployment assistance whatsoever.

This doesn't include the '99ers - the workers who have exhausted all available unemployment benefits.

“I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Mortgage reform is not a second tier or niche issue. The economy we’re facing now is in part a direct result of the housing collapse brought on by predatory lending and irresponsible policies. I’m proud to have voted for the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which clamps down on these abuses, and will continue to fight for homeowner protections as long as I’m in Congress." --- Raul Grijalva

Raul Grijalva has been speaking out early and often about the greatest banking fraud scandal in American history. Unlike virtually every national Republican, he and other fighting Democrats came out swinging against these fraud merchants from the moment it became clear that banks and mortgage companies were so corrupt and inept that they were foreclosing on homes they didn't even own. (That's also known as stealing.)

His Republican opponent Ruth McClung will never stand up to these interests. Helping average people fight against powerful corporations goes against everything she believes in. After all, she belongs to a party that has been struck dumb in the face of this massive foreclosure fraud, so compromised by their ties to big business and Wall Street that they can't even speak up for average Americans whose homes are literally being stolen out from under them.

Progressive Democrats like Raul Grijalva are the ones out in front, asking for answers, demanding accountability while Republicans are doing everything they can to protect the banks.

If you want someone who isn't afraid to take on the big corporate interests, someone who isn't afraid to take on entrenched political power, who isn't afraid ... period, you'll vote for Raul Grijalva. He's got your back. Won't you get his?

You can donate to his campaign to help him fight the good fight, here.

America's Third Parties (and fourth, and fifth, and so on) are too often seen as the crazy uncle that shows up to the Halloween party and pees in the punch. One hopes they could someday be more than that--they could give our Democracy new hope in an era of gridlock and no-nothing activism.

Wouldn't progressive Democrats match up beautifully in a three-way race against a Republican and a Libertarian Party candidate? The possibilities are myriad and stunning to contemplate.

So when--as happened in the recent New York Gubernatorial debate--someone actually shows up and is impassioned, eccentric, and accurate, it kind of takes your breath away. The rent is indeed too damn high, Jimmy. One wanted to shout "thank you" for not worrying about mosques, "socialism," keeping people from getting married, or any of the other crap we're innundated this weird election season.

And thus this video. As his basic message evolved into a meme, we believed he could launch a revolution of people who repeat not only his inexplicable sartorial choices, but his commitment to the rights of the renter in a nation down on its luck. Leaseholders, stand up.

...Or so we'd hoped.

But that bright flame of hope was doused by the sour urine stream of reality: many were troubled to learn that Jimmy may or may not pay rent. (That honestly doesn't bother me that much, broadly speaking rent is still "2" damn high).

But, when it turns out this champion of the underdog has a pathetic Sanchezian tendency to blame problems on...wait for it...Jewish folks, it's time to look for another champion. Well, another potential benefit of a true multiple party system: when one candidate spouts hateful stereotypes there are other options.

Kinda sucks, I'd really wanted to like that guy--it's like finding out that Santa Claus has a weird thing against Puerto Ricans. Which, y'know, would just mean it's time to start celebrating Kwanzaa. Life must go on.

Grover Norquist, no big surprise here wants those Bush tax cuts kept in place and wants to see Social Security turned over to Wall Street. What was surprising was his attempt at some history revisionism. When Eliot Spitzer pointed out how unpopular the idea was when George Bush tried pushing it, Norquist pretended that's not what Bush was wanting to do. I wonder if Norquist had read this yet before he came on Parker and Spitzer's show?

George W. Bush Reveals His Biggest Failure Was Not Privatizing Social Security

Oh well, it's not like anyone ever accused Abramoff buddy Norquist of being honest about anything. Another typical Republican liar trying to make sure the rich keep theirs.

SPITZER: We spoke with Fareed Zakaria about his piece in "Time" magazine, "How to Restore the American Dream." We now have a very different perspective.

Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, thank you for being with us. Grover, a central piece of your proposals is to extend the bush tax cuts in perpetuity, which many people, including the Congressional budget office, says would double the federal deficit to about $11 trillion over the next decade.

So, I'm going to ask you the same question we're asking everybody in our new program here called "Name Your Cuts," how do you balance the budget with that enormous tsunami of red ink facing us? What are the specific cuts you would make? What are you doing specifically on Social Security and Medicare? Because the other things you list here, I agree, about Afghanistan, those numbers are not going to be there available in the next year or two. What are you going to do on Medicare and Social Security?

PARKER: Would you raise the retirement age to 70? GROVER NORQUIST, AMERICANS FOR TAX REFORM: Well, I'm actually more in favor of moving all of our entitlement programs from defined benefit plan, which is what we have at present, what General Motors had for their pension setup, to defined contribution, basically to 401(k)s. The state of Utah has just done this. And I'm big on taking a look at something that just happened somewhere. Utah, this last year, just passed a new law, next July 1st all new hires in the state of Utah, state employees and local government employees, will have your pay plus 10 percent into a 401(k). They're not creating any more unfunded liabilities in Utah now into the future.

Every state could do that. The federal government could do that both with their employee, we do that with postal employees, which are a large chunk of government employees and we could do it with Social Security. I'm not necessarily in favor of raising taxes or -- on Social Security and cutting benefits. Both of those make your investment in Social Security as a taxpayer worse, a worse deal. That...

Continue reading »

I take back what I wrote last week. Apparently at least one Democrat does understand how to fight back against one of the worst corporatists on the Supreme Court:

With Democrats increasingly outraged over the Supreme Court's Citizen United decision that allowed unlimited corporate spending in elections -- a change conservatives have been more successful at taking advantage of -- a Democratic congressman is raising the prospect of impeaching the Supreme Court's chief justice over the issue.

"I mean, the Supreme Court has done a tremendous disservice to the United States of America," Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) told The Huffington Post on Tuesday. "They have done more to undermine our democracy with theirCitizens United decision than all of the Republican operatives in the world in this campaign. They've opened the floodgates, and personally, I'm investigating articles of impeachment against Justice Roberts for perjuring during his Senate hearings, where he said he wouldn't be a judicial activist, and he wouldn't overturn precedents.

"In his 2005 confirmation hearings, Roberts famously said, "Judges and justices are servants of the law, not the other way around. Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules. But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ball game to see the umpire."

According to DeFazio, Roberts hasn't stood by his own doctrine. He pointed to former Justice John Paul Stevens's dissent in the case, in which he said the Citizens United case was not properly brought before the Supreme Court. "This procedure is unusual and inadvisable for a court," Stevens said of the process. "Our colleagues' suggestion that 'we are asked to reconsider Austin and, in effect, McConnell," ante, at 1, would be more accurate if rephrased to state that 'we have asked ourselves' to reconsider those cases."

"Justice Stevens makes the point that Roberts decided a case that wasn't even before the Court, and invited the issue before the Court," said DeFazio. "It was the most extraordinary condemnation I've ever read of a perverted majority on the Supreme Court, at least in recent years."

Break out the smelling salts, because I think Orrin Hatch has got a bad case of the vapors. Better let go of those pearls, Orrin, or you're going to choke yourself. This guy is a real piece of work. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' wife Ginni makes a fool out of herself and Hatch goes on the air and attacks Anita Hill.

KING: Senator Hatch, I want to go to you first. I know you're a Thomas supporter. Many of the people are asking why. They understand this is tough personally for Ginni Thomas and for Clarence Thomas, but why now bring this up? And I want to read you the voice mail that Ginni Thomas left on Anita Hill's voicemail at Brandeis University at 7:31 a.m. on October 9th, a couple of weeks ago. "Good morning, Anita Hill, it's Ginni Thomas. I just wanted to reach across the airwaves and the years and ask you to consider something. I would love you to consider an apology some time and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband. So give it some thought and certainly pray about this and come to understand why you did what you did. OK, have a good day."

Why now Senator Hatch? What do you think the motive of that is?

HATCH: Well I think Ginni Thomas and Clarence Thomas they're two of the most honest people I've ever met. They're both really, really good people. Very Christian people. They're people who do what they do and say what they say and do it in honor. And I think probably this has grated on Ginni all these years and I think she was hoping Anita Hill would finally admit what she said was wrong. I can tell you a lot about that and why I'm so strongly in favor of Clarence Thomas.

KING: You believe, Senator, to this day, you believe Anita Hill was lying, exaggerating? What do you believe?

HATCH: The toughest witness to cross examine is somebody who is absolutely wrong but believes they're right. I think Anita Hill made an excellent witness but I also know Clarence Thomas and I know Ginni Thomas. By the way, when I heard the -- this whole thing was outed by a staffer of one of the Democrat senators. It was a violation of law to do this. Because Anita Hill did not want to testify and that's why she was not called.

KING: I don't want to go back to that. I do want to focus on the question at hand.

HATCH: Let me get to it because this is all important. What happened was, is that I called Clarence and I said, Clarence, any truth to this? Now, I know Clarence very well. I know if there had been he would have said, yeah, I did that, but he didn't, he said no, I can't understand why she would do this. I was her mentor. I helped her. He said, I did promote somebody over her. He said, that's the only explanation I can give. Just think about it. If you put the worst twist, the worst spin, on what she accused Clarence Thomas of, you'd have to say he used inappropriate language. Now, he didn't that but she believed it -- [...]

Continue reading »

The Non Sequitur: Facts and science and argument.

We Are Respectable Negroes: Star Wars versus Glenn Beck – an exclusive interview with Obi-Wan Kenobi.

Public Knowledge: Glenn Beck and his fair use problem.

Steve Benen: Laying the groundwork for future obstinacy.

Steve Audio: Burning down the house.

Guest post by Batocchio. E-mail tips to batocchio9 AT yahoo DOT com.

Warning, this video drops at least one eff bomb.

The boys at Red State Update are taking $120.00 from anyone who wants them to make a political ad. New York NORML, who advocates the legalization of marijuana, paid up.

Legal Notice: The website Crooks and Liars does not officially advocate the consumption of illegal substances, even for Carl Paladino.

Open thread below.

In which Junior Murvin passes on words of wisdom in falsetto, none better, imo, than "Patient man rides donkey."

Ever since the 1972 election when Henry Kissinger announced that "peace is at hand" during a press conference on October 26, 1972, with reference to the Vietnam War, thus boosting Nixon's re-election, The October Surprise has been synonymous with election campaigns. And in 1980 the October Surprise came in the form of a rumored pending release of the 50 American hostages held in Iran the better part of a year. Late in the day on October 21, the first bits of news trickled in that Iran was considering a release. As the day of the 22nd wore on so did the optimism on one hand, and the caution on the other. Speculation was rife, and has been for years, that the announcement was geared to give the Carter campaign a boost, while the delay until after the election was geared to give the Reagan campaign a boost. Denials were everywhere, even though former Iranian President Bani-Sadr charged in his book "My Turn To Speak" that the Reagan campaign was successful in preventing an early release of the hostages and it had been openly discussed with members of the Iranian Parliament to prevent the hostage release until after the election in order to insure a Reagan victory.

Still, the timing was interesting, particularly as Ronald Reagan was touting a "secret plan" to release the hostages. Jimmy Carter, while campaigning in Texas, brought up that point to a crowd in Waco.

Jimmy Carter: “Do you remember when Richard Nixon said, just before the election in 1968 that he had a secret plan to win the war in Vietnam? You all remember that? Now how many of you, how many of you Texans with sound judgment, familiar with history, believe that Ronald Reagan has a secret plan to get the hostages back?”

Reagan downplayed the whole thing while having his running mate George Bush, act as attack dog.

Here is a sampling of news surrounding the event from 8:00 am the morning of the 22nd to 11:00 pm, going from optimism to downplay as the day wore on.

Those October surprises . . .