Elections | Economic Crisis | Jobs | TSA | Limbaugh | Fun Stuff
Follow @americablog
Sunday, March 06, 2011
Republicans have to 'use force' to end reaction to their overreach
In this segment on Wisconsin (heh), Rachel Maddow talks about the "great Republican overreach" of 2011, in which their up-yours kill-the-union tactics produced a Cairo-like escalation of response.
Her point is that the hard-fighting Dems have won. My point is, look what the other side is doing in response to strong defense. Can you say "use of force"? Maddow can (at 2:00).
(Our coverage of Wisconsin cops gang-tackling that Dem legislator is here. By the way, did you catch the cop saying "Secure the perimeter"? Rules of engagement.)
One way to see this turn of events is Maddow's way. She says, correctly, that the Republican reaction — upping the ante themselves with use of force — shows the Repubs are losing (yea Dems, she cheerleads). And like Ed Schultz, whom she regularly praises, she wants to spur the Dems to stronger and stronger action.
Good for her; so do I.
But the other way to see this is less sanguine. We may be winning this round (so far). But Movement Conservatives (in both parties) are escalating, not backing down. They are indeed using force.
Private security — "bounty hunters" — bringing back the out-of-state Wisconsin Dems (4:00 in the tape); the governor's own private Praetorian Guard. Really? Or Bradley Manning stripped naked as an ongoing policy, until he folds and "confesses" Julian Assange's sins. Or Timothy DeChristopher, environmental activist, who faces 10 years in prison for interfering with an oil and gas auction ... by bidding.
Not to mention Assange himself, who faces a bullet according to Paul Craig Roberts.
Give this some thought. It looks like we're in the next phase, on every front from environmentalism to union-busting to women's rights to the war on whistle-blowers. I wouldn't take that lightly. More in a bit.
GP Read the rest of this post...
Her point is that the hard-fighting Dems have won. My point is, look what the other side is doing in response to strong defense. Can you say "use of force"? Maddow can (at 2:00).
(Our coverage of Wisconsin cops gang-tackling that Dem legislator is here. By the way, did you catch the cop saying "Secure the perimeter"? Rules of engagement.)
One way to see this turn of events is Maddow's way. She says, correctly, that the Republican reaction — upping the ante themselves with use of force — shows the Repubs are losing (yea Dems, she cheerleads). And like Ed Schultz, whom she regularly praises, she wants to spur the Dems to stronger and stronger action.
Good for her; so do I.
But the other way to see this is less sanguine. We may be winning this round (so far). But Movement Conservatives (in both parties) are escalating, not backing down. They are indeed using force.
Private security — "bounty hunters" — bringing back the out-of-state Wisconsin Dems (4:00 in the tape); the governor's own private Praetorian Guard. Really? Or Bradley Manning stripped naked as an ongoing policy, until he folds and "confesses" Julian Assange's sins. Or Timothy DeChristopher, environmental activist, who faces 10 years in prison for interfering with an oil and gas auction ... by bidding.
Not to mention Assange himself, who faces a bullet according to Paul Craig Roberts.
Give this some thought. It looks like we're in the next phase, on every front from environmentalism to union-busting to women's rights to the war on whistle-blowers. I wouldn't take that lightly. More in a bit.
GP Read the rest of this post...
Austan Goolsbee weasels on Social Security benefit cuts
Based on this interview with Austan Goolsbee, it looks like Team Change hasn't given up "fixing" Social Security on the backs of the needy and the recipients. O'Donnell, to his credit, questions him pretty closely. The obviously weaselly answer is the result.
The Goolsbee interview starts at 3:20; the Social Security discussion starts at 7:15. At 8:30, weasel words begin leaving Goolsbee's mouth — and they just don't stop. Watch:
Kudos to O'Donnell (who's a benefit hawk himself) for pressing this hard. Question: Are you open to small changes to Social Security benefits, changes that would not be called "slashing"?
Goolsbee: "We don't have a specific plan" ... we want an "open discussion" ... the president won't weaken Social Security "including especially ideas about privatization" ... but he "will look at" things that "insure the solvency" of the program. Weasel. They still want at it.
And by "they" I mean Obama. The Bush tax cuts blow a hole, and Social Security benefits are the fix. Dems, Reps, doesn't seem to matter.
As I said before, the problem the big boys have with the SS Trust Fund is not when it will spend its last dollar — it's when it will spend its first dollar (see here, point 4).
After all, that's the date the Treasury has to make good those special-issue U.S. bonds, and the government will have to get the money (for more tax cuts) from somewhere else.
This is Cave Week come home. "From your pocket to mine, sucker" indeed.
GP
UPDATE: Joan McCarter has more on this from admin-ally Claire McCaskill. It's everywhere. Read the rest of this post...
The Goolsbee interview starts at 3:20; the Social Security discussion starts at 7:15. At 8:30, weasel words begin leaving Goolsbee's mouth — and they just don't stop. Watch:
Kudos to O'Donnell (who's a benefit hawk himself) for pressing this hard. Question: Are you open to small changes to Social Security benefits, changes that would not be called "slashing"?
Goolsbee: "We don't have a specific plan" ... we want an "open discussion" ... the president won't weaken Social Security "including especially ideas about privatization" ... but he "will look at" things that "insure the solvency" of the program. Weasel. They still want at it.
And by "they" I mean Obama. The Bush tax cuts blow a hole, and Social Security benefits are the fix. Dems, Reps, doesn't seem to matter.
As I said before, the problem the big boys have with the SS Trust Fund is not when it will spend its last dollar — it's when it will spend its first dollar (see here, point 4).
After all, that's the date the Treasury has to make good those special-issue U.S. bonds, and the government will have to get the money (for more tax cuts) from somewhere else.
This is Cave Week come home. "From your pocket to mine, sucker" indeed.
GP
UPDATE: Joan McCarter has more on this from admin-ally Claire McCaskill. It's everywhere. Read the rest of this post...
UK discusses 'urgent' plan to move away from oil
Who honestly believes that the home country for BP, Shell or Exxon has any serious sense of urgency to move beyond an oil-based economy? What's so urgent now that wasn't urgent one month ago, one year ago, ten years ago or thirty years ago? This is the classic knee-jerk behavior that we see in the US and UK and many other countries during oil price increases. To act surprised now is a joke. Of course it's urgent and of course it makes sense but scrambling at the last minute only proves how out of touch politicians are from this problem.
China has been investing in alternative energy for years and their new plan makes much more sense than this panicked attempt to sound sympathetic. With oil prices over $100 it's only a matter of time before US politicians jump on the "we need to do something urgently" bandwagon. Talking about it during a crisis is one thing but taking action is another.
China has been investing in alternative energy for years and their new plan makes much more sense than this panicked attempt to sound sympathetic. With oil prices over $100 it's only a matter of time before US politicians jump on the "we need to do something urgently" bandwagon. Talking about it during a crisis is one thing but taking action is another.
Ministers will be ordered to adopt urgent measures to wean the country off oil, amid rising concern that the Libya crisis has left the economy exposed to a dramatic rise in fuel prices.Read the rest of this post...
With fears growing that the cost of petrol could hit £2 a litre if instability in the Middle East persists and deepens, every government department will be told this week to comply with a new national "carbon plan" aimed specifically at "getting off the oil hook".
The energy secretary, Chris Huhne, told the Observer that the UK had no option but to speed up efforts to move away from oil. "Getting off the oil hook is made all the more urgent by the crisis in the Middle East. We cannot afford to go on relying on such a volatile source of energy when we can have clean, green and secure energy from low-carbon sources," he said. "The carbon plan is about ensuring that the whole of government is engaged in a joined-up effort to lead us into a low-carbon world."
The Pogues - If I Should Fall from Grace with God
It's a slow start this morning so I needed something a bit more upbeat today. Last night we cooked up some in-season sea scallops for dinner. They're often on sale this time of the year so I love cooking them up. Over here it's much more typical to buy them fresh, still in their shell the way you might buy oysters or clams in the US. It's also very typical to see them with the red coral attached. I never once saw that in the US and the coral is very tasty.
Another sunny late winter day over here so it's time for a bit of a ride to check for signs of spring around town. Read the rest of this post...
Bank of England chief slams bankers again, hints at breaking up banks
For the long term health of many western countries (of course, including the US) breaking up the banks has to happen. As they stand today, no country can afford the loss of one of these giants. The Guardian:
A fragile peace pact between the government and Britain's top banks has fractured as the Bank of England's governor, Mervyn King, delivered a scathing rebuke to top financiers for taking big bonuses while exploiting "gullible or unsuspecting" customers.Read the rest of this post...
In an attack that drew an angry reaction from the Square Mile, King suggested that "imbalances" in the banking system are beginning to grow again, posing a risk of another credit crunch.
The governor, who will get broad powers to regulate the banking industry when the Financial Services Authority is abolished next year, accused high-street lenders of taking a short-term view to "simply maximise profits next week". And he asked: "Why do banks in general want to pay bonuses? It's because they live in a 'too big to fail' world in which the state will bail them out on the downside."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
