Markos and Olbermann talk about the great left wing conspiracy

Yes, conservatives are almost as oppressed as white Christian men in America.

Read the rest of this post...

I almost forgot, there was good economic news today

Finally some good news.

Housing construction posted a surprisingly large increase in February, bolstered by strength in all parts of the country except the West.

The Commerce Department reported Tuesday that construction of new homes and apartments jumped 22.2 percent in February compared with January, pushing total activity to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 583,000 units.

Meanwhile, the Labor Department reported that wholesale prices edged up a slight 0.1 percent in February as a big drop in food costs offset a second monthly increase in energy prices.

Read the rest of this post...

The dolphins at Sea World are making bubble rings and playing with them

And I thought it was cool when my dad did this with his pipe. I can't give a description that will adequately describe what you're about to see. It's amazing. And even more amazing, this is apparently something these dolphins didn't do before. A few of them somehow learned it, then the other dolphins in the tank learned from them. Absolutely positively astounding.

Read the rest of this post...

Self-described "Drudge-olist" Chris Cillizza is flummoxed by Jon Stewart

Last September, I wrote a post about Chris "The Fix" Cillizza, which included the tidbit that Chris Cillizza is a self-described Drudge-ologist. Like so many in the warped world of political pundits, Cillizza basically admitted that he worships at the altar of that right-wing guru, Matt Drudge.

Yet, today, we learn the Washington Post's Drudge-olist can't figure out Jon Stewart, asking the question in his column today," Jon Stewart: Media Powerhouse or Rank Partisan?" Um, since Cillizza and so many others are talking and writing about Stewart, clearly he's a media powerhouse. It's also obvious from the title, and the article, that Cillizza apparently just learned that Stewart leans left and people on the left like him (he even cites a poll). So? Stewart doesn't pretend to be anything, and he certainly doesn't shy away from his liberal views on the war, gay civil rights, and many other issues. He is what he is, and it's a not a great surprise to anyone who's actually watched his show. Stewart does more to hold politicians accountable than anyone in the corporate media.

So, what's Cillizza's point? Who knows. Cillizza is all over the fact that a recent poll showed that a lot of Americans don't know Jon Stewart. What percentage of Americans know Chris Cillizza -- or anyone else at the Washington Post -- or in the DC press corps? His logic makes no sense. What does any of this prove? Cillizza then relies on the wisdom of Tucker Carlson to explain Stewart's partisanship. (Note to Cillizza: Stewart eviscerated Carlson on his old show, Crossfire, in 2004. Seriously, watch it. Millions have. Stewart ate Tucker alive. I'm sure Tucker still bears the scars. If you knew about that interview, what Stewart did to Cramer wouldn't seem so surprising. Perhaps you should have mentioned Carlson's bias vis-a-vis Stewart in your column, so as not to appear a rank partisan.)

A lot of people in America may not know Jon Stewart, but they agree with Stewart on this one. We watched him call out a guy who has been a cheerleader for the worst in corporate America. We've seen Stewart call out media types who were cheerleaders for Bush as he lied us into the Iraq war. The traditional media types want to be part of the inner circle here in DC, and that precludes asking tough questions (well, at least asking tough questions of Republicans). And, those CNBC types fall into the same trap. Stewart doesn't. No wonder Cillizza can't figure that out.

Read the rest of this post...

Nazi-enabling Pope tells Africans not to use condoms

In fact, he's claiming that condoms spread AIDS - a sure-fire way to scare poor, uneducated people away from using them, and saving their lives. Anybody seeing a pattern here from the German-born, Holocaust-denialist-enabling, former member of the Hitler Youth? Now he's telling people of another continent the best way to kill themselves. Not exactly what Jesus would have done. Read the rest of this post...

Charlie Rangel [hearts] AIG

It's been really tough for AIG the past few months, what with getting an $85bn bailout from the US taxpayer, and now another $165 million in bonuses. Life is tough.

But fret not. Congressman Charlie Rangel (D-NY), who chairs the House Ways and Means Committee, is coming to the rescue of the little-guy billionaires over at AIG. Rangel, whose committee oversees taxes, is going to make sure that we don't "unfairly" use the tax law to stop AIG from wasting taxpayer money. (I'm sure Rangel's sudden interest in defending the fat-cats at AIG has nothing to do with the fact that he's a congressman from New York City, and gosh, where is Wall Street?)

Anyway, Rangel thinks it's very very very unfair to use the US tax code to get those bonuses back:

"It's difficult for me to think of the code as a political weapon," said Rangel, who spoke to a handful of reporters outside his office.

"Is this an indictment or a bill?" asked Rangel. "Are they naming people? I mean, are they naming the taxpayers?"

Rangel said he sympathizes with the effort, but not the means it takes. "There's no way that good thinking Americans should reward people when they've been complicit in wrong doing," he said. "But as a former federal prosecutor, as I recall, it was the criminal code that you dealt with, not internal revenue."

First off, a political weapon? I have no idea what the politics are of the folks at AIG. I do know that I just lent them $85bn of my money and I just caught them wasting it. So, what Rangel is saying is that it's wrong to stop bailed out companies, now and in the future, from giving exorbitant bonuses. It's "political." It's not moral, it's not ethical, it's not the right thing to do, it's simply "political." That's a new one.

Second, as a lawyer myself, this notion of using the criminal code to punish legal behavior is new to me. Maybe prosecutions work differently in New York. But last time I checked, it was perfectly legal for AIG to give huge bonuses to its employees. The problem is, it was also obscene. I checked with my own financial expert who buys and sells big companies, he says it's pretty much common knowledge that when you take over a company, by bailing it out, you put provisions in place to stop them from granting these kid of bonuses. That was Congress' job, to stop the bonuses in the first place. And last time I checked, Charlie Rangel was a congressman. So what happened? (A reader pointed out that AIG's initial bailout came from the Fed, last September, during the Bush administration. So the initial blame is Bush's - fair enough.)

So where does this leave us? Now the Republicans can legitimately blame the House Democrats for blocking the American taxpayers from making sure the bailout monies are spent responsibly. Possibly the most idiotic, tone deaf political move in a generation. The Republicans wanted their issue? Charlie Rangel just handed it to them. Talk about obscene. Read the rest of this post...

GOP leaders claim Palin is keynote speaker at their big fundraising dinner, but Palin "did not know anything about it"

I really love reading the Anchorage Daily News. See, this morning, I was watching MSNBC, which reported that Palin was going to be the speaker at a big GOP fundraiser in a couple months. But, Palin's hometown newspaper, instead of just taking the word of the GOP and the traditional media types, asked Governor Palin's office about it. Apparently, the Governor was unaware that she was going to be the keynoter. The GOP is in disarray, but you'd think something like getting a dinner speaker wouldn't be so complicated:

Gov. Sarah Palin's spokesman said Monday that congressional Republicans were mistaken in announcing the governor would headline one of the biggest Republican gatherings of the year, the Senate-House dinner in Washington, D.C. The governor's office said Palin has not even confirmed she would be attending the event. "I communicated with the governor directly and she did not know anything about it," said Bill McAllister, the governor's spokesman.

The chairmen of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, Texas Sen. John Cornyn, and the National Republican Congressional Committee, Texas Rep. Pete Sessions, sent out a press release Monday announcing Palin as keynote speaker for the June 8 event.

It's the annual fundraiser for the Republican Party's congressional re-election efforts.

The NRSC and NRCC announcement of Palin's leading role in the event made national news. The Associated Press distributed the story and it appeared on the Web sites of the Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Dallas Morning News and USA Today, among many others.

McAllister said Palin asked him why The Associated Press was reporting that she was going to do this. "I pointed out the (National Republican Senatorial Committee) press release and she was like, no," he said.

NRSC spokesman Brian Walsh said Monday night that the staff of the governor's national political action committee, SarahPAC, had confirmed Palin would indeed speak at the Senate-House dinner.

You remember SarahPac, which is "Dedicated to building America's future, supporting fresh ideas and candidates who share our vision for reform and innovation." But, it seems that SarahPac doesn't talk to or speak for Sarah. Or something like that. These Republicans are a mess.

Read the rest of this post...

Congress' role in the AIG bonus debacle

A friend called last night, and asked me why Congress didn't include anything in the bailout legislation to ensure that any company receiving a bailout didn't pay out bonuses? If the courts would have required the contracts to go through, then amend whatever law the courts are relying on to make that ruling, specifically as it applies to companies that accept bailout monies and the enforcement of bonuses. In essence, pass "cram down" legislation that applies to bonuses at companies like AIG.

Ambinder noted something similar yesterday - his take is a bit different, but still, it gets to the general question of Congress having had the power to regulate this in advance:

As recounted below, there's not so much that the executive branch can do -- and should do -- to prevent AIG from handing out loopy bonuses. But why can't Congress pass a law requiring that bonuses granted by a company that has taken bailout money from the Federal Reserve or TARP be taxed at a very high rate? Obviously, Congress would have to find some way to distinguish between legitimate performance pay and illegitimate bonuses, but a one-year tax hike on all such bonuses might not be unpalatable. It's a much saner alternative than to give the Treasury the instruction to root through contracts to find ways of breaking them.

Why didn't Congress do this? Possibly out of fear that the bill wouldn't pass with these provisions in, and possibly out of fear that the bailed out companies' employees would leave without the bonuses, thus bringing the must-survive companies down with them. Of course, we've debunked that last little chestnut before.

The Dems need to get off the dime on this issue, because the House Republicans are on the verge of stealing it away. Read the rest of this post...

Cheney brings up Iraq WMD lie, again, and the media says nothing

Maybe when CBS, ABC, MSNBC and CNN take a break from genuflecting before their God, Lord Cheney, they might parse his words a bit - oh hell, don't even parse, just read. Especially where Cheney suggested, yet again, that Saddam was building WMD and was supporting terrorists up until the US invasion. (Hint: He wasn't.) Said Cheney to CNN's John King on Sunday:

"There is no prospect" that Iraq will return to producing weapons of mass destruction or supporting terrorists, Cheney asserted, "as long as it's a democratically governed country, as long as they have got the security forces they do now and a relationship with the United States."

Well, yes, there is no prospect because there was no prospect before the invasion either. Iraq wasn't building WMD, and Saddam wasn't supporting Al Qaeda. Why did King let Cheney get away with this? Why did AP? It's not like it was some curveball that Cheney's never used before. He always lies about Saddam's supposed WMD and supposed ties to Al Qaeda (Prague anyone?) Why wasn't King prepared to challenge Cheney on this, and why didn't AP put anything in their story pointing out that this quote was untrue? Read the rest of this post...

NBC's Chuck Todd mocks Obama for relating to the lives of the American people: "This is very, shall we say, populist of the president."

NBC's First Read is on a roll today -- a bitchy roll.

Chuck Todd, who I used to admire as NBC's political guru, is now reading tea leaves over at the White House as NBC's correspondent. One thing is clear, Todd, like many of his colleagues, really doesn't grasp the economic realities of the country and how people in America are struggling -- and juggling multiple issues. When Obama says that, Todd writes that it's some new kind of populist strategy (as if there is something wrong with being a populist):

Has the White House tweaked their defense against the "biting off too much" attack again? It appears so. Check this out from President Obama this morning at his event with the two Congressional Budget committee chairs, Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and Rep. John Spratt (D-S.C.):

"I know that there are some on Wall Street and in Washington who've said that we should only focus on the banking crisis and one problem at a time. Well, we're spending a lot of time focusing on this banking crisis, and we will continue to do so because until we get liquidity flowing again, we will not fully recover. But the American people don't have the luxury of just focusing on Wall Street. They don't have the luxury of choosing to pay either their mortgage or their medical bills. They don't get to pick between paying for their kids' college tuition and saving enough money for retirement. They have to do all these things. They have to confront all these problems. And as a consequence, so do we."

It's the president attempting to connect himself to the rest of America, trying to turn the criticism into a badge of honor. This is very, shall we say, populist of the president.

Maybe the president is actually relating to the lives of the American people, something the elite in DC can't do. Elitists disdain populism. Imagine the little people having a point of view.

Obama had more to say than the lines Todd excerpted:

Now, there are those who say the plans in this budget are too ambitious to enact; to say that -- they say that in the face of challenges that we face, we should be trying to do less, than more. What I say is that the challenges we face are too large to ignore. The cost of our health care is too high to ignore. The dependence on oil is too dangerous to ignore. Our education deficit is growing too wide to ignore. To kick these problems down the road for another four years or another eight years would be to continue the same irresponsibility that led us to this point. That's not why I ran for this office. I didn't come here to pass on our problems to the next President or the next generation -- I came here to solve them.

The last President, with the help of the traditional media passed on the myriad of problems that Obama has to solve. We're in a crisis, although that seems almost academic to the D.C. pundits, but they don't live like the rest of us do.

Obama also had another great line, for which he'll probably face another round of criticism:

"Just say no" is the right advice to give your teenagers about drugs. It is not an acceptable response to whatever economic policy is proposed by the other party.

That's going to be viewed by the D.C. press elites as being mean to the Republicans, who are proudly doing nothing and just saying no. Read the rest of this post...

CBS, ABC and MSNBC are very upset that Robert Gibbs criticized their friend Dick Cheney

You see, CBS, ABC and MSNBC would have you believe that Obama promised to be a patsy if elected president. They think that Obama's promise for "change" meant Democrats won't fight back when they're viciously attacked by Republicans. Funny, but Democrats acting as patsies and push-overs isn't change, it's the status quo we've had to deal with for eight years, and then some.

In a nutshell, Dick Cheney said recently that President Obama has now made it more likely that we'll be hit by Al Qaeda. That's pretty much an accusation of treason. Now this is nothing new from Cheney, he's made a career out of gutter politics, while running the country into the gutter. And CBS, ABC and MSNBC, along with John King at CNN, have made a career out of coddling and defending Bush and Cheney, and Republicans more generally, so when White House spokesman Robert Gibbs had the tenacity to respond to an accusation of treason, well, you can imagine how that got the networks' knickers in a twist.

LEAVE BUSH AND CHENEY ALONE!

What's really going on here is the media is up to its old tricks (and I use the word with all of its meanings). They're parroting GOP talking points as though they're fact, just as they did in the lead up to the war. The Republicans have come up with a cute Catch-22, one they borrowed from the McCain campaign - they viciously attack Obama, then when Obama responds they accuse him of violating his promise to change the tone in Washington. And of course, if Obama didn't attack, then they'd accuse him of being a typical Democrat, a 98 pound sissy who never fights back when sand is kicked in his face. (

It's funny, really. The media thinks that now that Bush and Cheney are gone, the press can finally do their job and hold the White House accountable like they're supposed to. Except they're doing the exact same thing they did before. Giving the Republicans a pass, while attacking Democrats with GOP talking points. Talk about the tone not changing. Read the rest of this post...

If we arrest all the criminals, then who will be left to stop the crime?

No, it doesn't make a lot of sense. From the LA Times via The Angry Liberal:

An even bigger problem, they added, was that financial products employees who are denied payments could quit and that AIG's losses -- the insurer took the deepest bath in red ink in American history last quarter, losing $61.7 billion -- could spiral enormously if the only people who understand the company's convoluted dealings are not around to "unwind" the damage they have caused.

Really? If we don't give them their big fat bonuses, the staff at AIG, who literally are responsible for causing its bankruptcy, might flee to AIG's competitors. Oh to be a fly on the wall of that job interview:

INTERVIEWER: Previous employer?

JOB APPLICANT: AIG.

INTERVIEWER: What did you do there?

JOB APPLICANT: Pushed them into bankruptcy.

Read the rest of this post...

Top bank officials at Citigroup and Morgan Stanley meeting to figure out ways to skirt compensation limits

Wonder what is taking up the time of top officials at banks rescued with your tax dollars? You'd like to think they're all hunkered down trying to solve the crisis they created with help from George Bush and the GOP. According to Reuters, avoiding the salary caps is a top priority right now:

Anticipating restrictions on bonuses, officials at Citigroup Inc and Morgan Stanley are exploring ways to sidestep tough new federal caps on compensation, the Wall Street Journal said.

Executives at these banks and other financial institutions that received government aid are discussing increasing base salaries for some executives and other top-producing employees, the paper said, citing people familiar with the situation.

The discussions are at an early stage, partly because the government has not yet issued specific rules on the bonus payments that will be allowed at companies that received aid under the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program, the paper said.

Seriously, these people are tone deaf. They do not realize how hated they are in America right now. And, they aren't doing anything to ameliorate the situation. Instead, they're making it worse.

According to that same recent Congressional testimony, Citigroup got $45 billion in TARP funds while Morgan Stanley got $10 billion in TARP funds. Here's the video:

Citigroup has another big problem on its hands, as Think Progress asks "Did Citigroup CEO Vikram Pandit lie to Congress about his compensation?" In that video above, Pandit told a Congressional committee, under oath, that his salary in 2008 was $1 million with no bonus. But, the actual total appears to be well over $10 million:

The $10.82 million in total compensation for 2008 consisted of $7.73 million in sign-on and retention awards, a $958,333 salary, $9.84 million of stock and option awards and $16,193 of other compensation.

Given everything else we've learned about the ineptitude of our top bankers, it's possible Pandit doesn't know the difference between one million and almost eleven million. Possible, but not likely.

Read the rest of this post...

Tuesday Morning Open Thread

Good morning.

Lá Fhéile Pádraig Sona Daoibh or Happy St. Patrick's Day for all who don't speak the Irish language. Special greetings to our readers in Ireland (including my cousin, Treasa), although I know it's a much bigger holiday in the U.S. than in Ireland.

There's a big Irish celebration at the White House today. The Taoiseach, Brian Cowen, is in D.C. Also attending is the 2008 Irish American of the Year, Christine Quinn, who is the Speaker of the New York City Council and one of the most powerful people in the City and the State. Chris doesn't march in her own city's St. Patrick's Day parade because of the homophobes who run that event. A couple years ago, the organizer compared gays to neo-Nazis, the KKK and prostitutes. Classy, huh?

What else is on the agenda today? Read the rest of this post...

Citibank's CEO paid $11 million for 2008

Not bad work, when you can get it. To be fair to Pandit, they didn't collapse, so he really deserved his payout.

Citigroup awarded Chief Executive Vikram Pandit $10.82 million of compensation in 2008, a year in which the bank required two government rescues totaling more than $45 billion.

Citigroup also said it had nominated four new independent directors to help it recover following the government bailouts.

About $7.73 million of Pandit's total compensation was a sign-on bonus awarded in January 2008, a month after he became CEO, succeeding Charles Prince.

Wall Street compensation has come under intense scrutiny, especially at banks that have received taxpayer money from the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program. Citigroup has received $45 billion of TARP money.

Pandit did not receive a bonus for 2008 and has said he will accept no incentive pay and will accept base annual pay of $1 until Citigroup returns to profitability. The New York-based bank has not made money since the third quarter of 2007.

In 2008 Pandit was awarded a $958,333 salary, $9.84 million of stock and option awards including the sign-on bonus, and $16,193 of other compensation, according to a Citigroup proxy filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Monday.

Gosh. How does he get by with such a terrible pay plan? The country feels his pain. Read the rest of this post...

More bailout bonuses for AIG?

I've had it with the "well, it's legal" crap with the AIG bonus payouts. Let's quit being cute about this and lower the boom. We all know AIG needs more money and that won't end any time soon. If they want to play the legal game, let's let the bastards go bankrupt and yes, this will likely destroy some others on Wall Street such as Goldman not to mention others. Let them declare bankruptcy and then get re-started where all previous deals are off. There hasn't been much of an issue with letting unions suffer such consequences and business such as the airlines have renegotiated so maybe it's time we push AIG (and their friends) to the brink and see who wants to scream chicken.

A failed AIG - as much as we all detest this company - is going to bad all around but playing this game is too much. Do the greedy people at AIG really want to be responsible for damaging the US and global economy any more than they've done so far?

With few legal options available, the White House may be forced to add millions of dollars in bonus payments to the outstanding debt owed by American International Group.

Earlier Monday, President Barack Obama expressed his outrage over AIG's payment of $165 million in bonuses, and ordered Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner to take all legal measures to block them.

However, sources tell CNBC, that there are few legal options available to the White House.

A U.S. Treasury official said that the Treasury will modify a planned $30 billion capital infusion for AIG to try to recoup hundreds of millions of dollars in controversial bonuses paid by the insurer.

The Treasury is finalizing the terms of its latest rescue package for AIG, announced on March 2, and will attach new provisions to it, the official said. The company was due to pay $165 billion in employee retention bonuses by Sunday to employees of AIG Financial Products, the unit that made bad bets on toxic mortgages and credit default swaps.

Read the rest of this post...

Big conservative wins post as Israel's foreign minister

And what it means for America.

(So many Liebermans...)

Read the rest of this post...