The Balding Monkey

Hannity and Credibility

2009-11-15T15:40:31Z

Gee... Hannity got caught with his hand in the cookie jar, lying.

Well, lying twice. The first time, he and Fox used old Tea Party footage to make Bachmann's recent rally attempt look large and successful. I would guess since they had to lie about it that it was small and pitiful, but I don't care enough to look up the numbers - the lie itself is the thing.

Then Hannity apologized - well, if a smug assertion of "Ooops, somebody used the wrong footage" is an apology, delivered in a smug "we don't care what you think" manner.

Then this letter showed up:

I have been working in television for the past 15 years. I know in detail how these things work: 1) you are assigned a story, 2) you send out a crew to shoot the necessary footage, 3) the footage is brought back to the studio and loaded into the Avid, or whatever editing system you are using, 4) you cut together your piece based on THE FOOTAGE AT HAND.

For footage from a different event that took place months earlier to find its way into an entirely new piece, well, someone had to: 1) make the decision to lie in the first place (and lets be clear, it IS a lie), 2) locate the old footage, 3) cut the footage into the new piece, 4) a producer or the like had to approve the clip for air.

In short, it had to be a deliberate case where someone pulled the old footage from the archive. It was a deliberate act. Hannity may not have been aware of that editorial decision, but contrary to what he said, someone DID mean for it to happen.

Makes one wonder how often this is being done on his network.

Note: This does not lead me to believe that other networks are any better - just proof that Fox is a lying sack of propaganda.

7 x 13 = 28

2009-11-13T20:32:06Z

A & C

2009-11-13T20:23:03Z

Daniel Larison and NY-23

2009-11-06T19:14:41Z

"One thing that seems crucial to emphasize is how much this was not a “revolt” or an explosion of anti-GOP establishment fervor. I want to be very precise here. Many voters in NY-23 revolted against their local party leadership by backing Hoffman, but the outpouring of support for Hoffman came from the very center of what remains of the national Republican establishment. Viewed locally, Hoffman was not the establishment candidate. However, he was the national GOP establishment’s candidate, which is why I do not regard his defeat as such a great loss."

So, the local GOP candidate was the local establishment choice, which the rank-and-file rebelled against, and pulled it the now-mainstream national GOP talking heads like Back and Palin?

"To the extent that last night signaled the amount of right-populist discontent in the country, the establishment support for Hoffman represented yet another episode of the national party attempting to feed off of populist enthusiasm to sustain its own decaying body and to co-opt (and then ignore) populist themes while having no intention of ever governing in the interests of their constituents should they regain power."

Both parties have a tradition of this, best recently portrayed in Obama's first year of election-promise-breaking.

"The prominence of the pseudo-populist Palin in all of this was significant. Her presence served as a reminder of how often conservative voters are pandered to rhetorically and symbolically and how uninterested Republican leaders are in serving the interests of their constituents once elections are concluded."

Pretty much, yeah.

"Hoffman’s failure may mean that rank-and-file Republican voters in once-safe districts are no longer going to be taken for granted, and it could mean that their votes will have to be earned with policy proposals that address their concrete interests. The national and Congressional party has no clue how to do this, and so they keep failing. Candidates at the state level seem to grasp this basic idea and have started having some success."

So, I wonder how long before the Tea Partiers (conflating them with active rank-and-filers) get representation within the party by someone who isn't essentially a panderer?

His full article:

http://www.amconmag.com/larison/

Reporting on the Bachman Tea Party

2009-11-06T17:49:02Z

Protest signs that deny the Tea Partiers credibility with anyone not already agreeing with them:

* "Get the Red Out of the White House"
* "Waterboard Congress"
* "Ken-ya Trust Obama?"
* "Traitor to the U.S. Constitution."
* Pictures of dead bodies at the Dachau concentration camp and compared health care reform to the Holocaust.
* Obama as Sambo
* "Obama takes his orders from the Rothchilds"

Just as the GOP declared the John Birchers unwelcome, the Tea Partiers who want to be taken more seriously need to exile the bigots and haters. So long as the media can focus on this aspect, they won't get much traction outside of the ever-shrinking GOP.

Even if I kinda sneakingly like the "Waterboard Congress" one. I mean, its just Enhanced Interrogation, riiiight? )

Andrew Sullivan on the federal deficit

2009-11-05T21:50:59Z

"I was too nice in ascribing merely a trillion dollar deficit bequeathed to Obama, as a reader reminds me:

'According to the treasury department's Bureau of Public Debt, the federal deficit went from $5,728,195,796,181.57 on January 22, 2001 to $10,626,877,048,913.08 on January 20, 2009. Bear in mind that the allegedly fiscally conservative Republican Party ran this government for six of those eight years. Roughly two trillion of that debt was added after Democrats took over Congress in 2007.'

Adding $5 trillion in debt in eight years is unprecedented in US history outside the Second World War. But that's what Bush and Rove and the GOP did. And now they lecture everyone else about fiscal responsibility.

Here's my litmus test for the Tea Party right: when they hold up effigies of Bush and Cheney as socialists, I'll take them seriously. Until then, they're more partisan than principled."

Something like that. There were many people who now carry Tea Party signs who defend the Bush administration like he was the Second Coming (Charlie is specifically exempted from this charge from me, and the rest of those whose primary protest is the erosion of 2nd Amendment rights). The federal deficit, the police-state powers (state secrecy trumping war crimes and illegal operations, like those of the 23 CIA operatives in Italy, et cetera) of the Bush administration, and torture, amongst other things.

But it wasn't until he was replaced with a Democrat that all of these things, so necessary under Bush/Cheney, became anathema for these folks.

Interesting Article

2009-11-05T19:46:09Z

"Here you get a special line that identifies the amount of the Federal Withholding was actually going to the defense budget all along, and it tells you what it is. You get a number that lets you identify exactly how much of your time you are working to keep the defense budget as large as it is."

http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/my-friendly-nudge-of-the-day/

GOP Health Care Plan - MUCH better

2009-11-05T17:37:40Z

The Congressional Budget Office Wednesday night released its cost analysis of the Republican health care plan and found that it would reduce health care premiums and cut the deficit by $68 billion over ten years.

I'll take it...

Its much less ambitious than the Dem plan, which IMO is a good thing. Its doing things in small steps, checking whether or not it worked before moving on. I'm always suspicious of huge, ambitious plans - usually their very magnitude is hiding something, given the theory that all politicians are corrupt to one degree or another.

According to CBO, the GOP bill would indeed lower costs, particularly for small businesses that have trouble finding affordable health care policies for their employees. The report found rates would drop by seven to 10 percent for this group, and by five to eight percent for the individual market, where it can also be difficult to find affordable policies.

The CBO found that under the Republican plan, insurance coverage would increase by about 3 million and that the percentage of insured non-elderly adults would remain at about 83 percent after ten years.

The CBO found that the Republican provision to reform medical malpractice liability would result in $41 billion in savings and increase revenues by $13 billion by reducing the cost of private health insurance plans.

So... why not do that, and then see what else needs doing? Tort reform? Check. Getting hard-to-insure people covered? Check. Enabling small businesses to provide coverage to their employees? Check.

As opposed to - essentially - Medicare for everyone. Even if it doesn't work, you'd never be able to take it back or scale it down - it would be political suicide.

Hey Charlie - Afghan question

2009-11-05T13:42:05Z

Honest question...

Begging the question of how much continual engagement in Afghan costs - which is no side question, but for the purposes of this, it is - how many American servicemen/women and civilians will lose their lives in Afghanistan if we stay for another ten years (I know, we've only - only? - been there for eight, but still) vs. the possibility of another 9/11 attack that would happen if and only if we left?

I mean, how does one even begin a rational, non-political cost/benefit analysis of Afghanistan, and without one how can we make a rational decision as to the cost (as opposed to the "keyboard commando" chickenhawks like Cheney, telling Obama to "man up" while he took deferment after deferment), both in dollars and human lives. Throw in how we've degraded our country's standards and honor by torture, and then hiding the war criminals away, and...

The 9/11 atrocity was planned mainly in Germany and Florida, and the 7/7 London subway bombings in Yorkshire. Holding a patch of ground in Afghanistan doesn't do much for us IMO, except act as a recruiting flag for AQ, in the "See? Americans are imperialists and forcefully occupy an Islamic country, proping up the corrupt, puppet regime" category.

Rollins on Yesterday's Elections

2009-11-04T23:03:25Z

"To all incumbents, yesterday's warning was: Get to work and start listening to voters. They definitely are listening and watching you."

Light, I hope that the people who determine the local elections do precisely that, and vote the lazy, the corrupt, the too-busy-to-listen pols the hell out of office.

Full:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/11/04/democrats.election.warning/index.html"

Gay Marriage Commentary by E.D. Kain

2009-11-04T21:26:11Z

"I am a decentralist at heart. I believe in the decentralization of power, no matter what the organization. If there is to be a hierarchy, I want it to be a hierarchy that is still very flat, with power spread as far and wide as possible. The very Catholic notion of subsidiarity plays a very strong role in my thinking on this – and, paradoxically perhaps, a very weak role in the Church itself. I’m not against the papacy. I’m just against the level of power the Pope seems to wield."

http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2009/11/gay-marriage-and-the-catholic-church-in-maine/

Daniel Larison

2009-11-04T19:40:13Z

"What is more encouraging to me is that the wins by Christie and McDonnell show that competent center-right candidates interested in governance and all those “parochial” local issues can tap into voter discontent and win electoral victories. Hoffman’s possible defeat suggests that campaigns dominated by the presence of national activists, empty sloganeering and indifference to local interests may not gain traction even in those districts that are traditionally inclined to favor the politics of someone like Hoffman. Those of us who would like to see Democratic domestic agendas thwarted without empowering the Palins of the world may have managed to get exactly the results we would wish to have."

Emphasis mine, to show how much I agree )

http://www.amconmag.com/larison/

NY District 23 Madness

2009-11-04T12:44:35Z

Well, that was unexpected.

NY District 23, an area that has as major employers one military base, which has been a GOP stronghold for more than a century, has elected a Democrat rather than the candidate around which the likes of Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck broke their asses to endorse and assist.

Look to the Conservative "Party Base" to do some quick conspiracy theory work to show why the "people of the district" were robbed. No doubt they'll accuse ACORN - that always plays well, regardless of facts (not saying that ACORN is a bastion of probity, but they've also become the default "those damn libruls are stealing the country from REAL 'Mericans!" whipping horse, regardless of facts).

Of course, the lesson I draw is quite different. The Conservatives in the Party won their battle, and lost the war, in my eyes. If they don't wake up and smell the coffee - that their brand of Conservatism can't win general elections, and they need a bigger tent, with Moderates in it - they're in for a long, hard slog.

Larry King Nutz!

2009-11-04T03:42:55Z

Not that he's not a bit of an idiot at the best of times... but having a special panel on to discuss election results with Jesse Ventura, Ben Stein, and... James Carville?! I mean, I suppose the interplay might be marginally entertaining, like a train wreck of sorts, but... I'd even buy into Ventura and Stein... they have personalities? But Carville? Corrupt, dishonest Carville?

The Incredible Shrinking GOP!

2009-11-03T03:24:02Z

After eight years of doing the opposite of what the GOP is supposed to stand for - small government, civil rights, minimalist Federal government, responsible spending - the hallmarks of good governing, in short - GOP identification is in the toilet. Even the base can't stand its current leadership, and the only people getting rave reviews - Palin, Back, Limbaugh - disgust the 80% of the country who don't identify as GOP.

I agree that virtually none of the politicians of the last... oh, lets call it 12 years, counting back from 2012, shall we? That covers both sides pretty well... deserve the trust of the people.

But while Congress and Obama's approval ratings slowly sink, as they show more and more of their true colors, as the people who voted for "Change you can believe in" are given the shaft... GOP approval numbers continue to fall.

Never, ever been a better time for a viable third party.

Obama - Bush 2.0

2009-11-02T14:46:58Z

At least in the areas that matter to me:

"If the President can simply use "secrecy" claims to block courts from ruling on whether he broke the law, then what checks or limits exist on the President's power to spy illegally on Americans or commit other crimes in a classified setting? By definition, there are none. "
-- Greenwald - Full: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/11/01/state_secrets/index.html

At least the Tea Partiers and I can agree on this one, even if they kept their mouth shut under Bush.

The GOP and Obama

2009-10-30T18:38:22Z

Amazing how Groucho got it right, so many years ago!

Some Things Never Go Out of Style...

2009-10-30T18:31:59Z

Douchebags - Reclaiming the Word

2009-10-29T21:45:11Z

We Are Douchebags - watch more funny videos

So Close To The Truth It Hurts...

2009-10-29T20:29:47Z

...from the Onion:

"'Obama's Declaration Of Swine Flu Emergency Prompts Pro-Swine-Flu Republican Response'

Republican leaders announced Wednesday that they were officially endorsing the swine flu. 'Thousands of Americans -- hardworking ordinary Americans like you and me -- already have H1N1,' Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele said during a press conference. 'Now Obama wants to take that away from us. Ask yourself: Do you want the federal government making these kinds of health care decisions for you and your family?'"

Given the GOP knee-jerks anything that Obama says or does as a Bad Thing and Evidence of Failure!, I had to double-check to make sure it was an Onion story, not something from the toilet bowl we call Fox Entertainment.

Aren't Bills of Attainder Illegal?

2009-10-29T20:24:22Z

In a bill to establish a new consumer regulatory agency, Rep. Michelle Bachmann attempted to insert an amendment that would bar ACORN from a role in the proposed agency’s advisory board.

Aren't bills of attainder (an act of the legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without benefit of a trial) prohibited by the Constitution?

Article 1, Section 9 and Section 10 seem to prohibit it on a Federal and State level.

Not that I care a good god-damn about ACORN, but shouldn't those yammering about the Constitution be reading it?

Why Did The Chicken Cross The Road?

2009-10-27T23:12:09Z

To check it for IEDs.

"We invade and occupy a country, and then label as "insurgents" or even "terrorists" the people in that country who fight against our invasion and occupation. With the most circular logic imaginable, we then insist that we must remain in order to defeat the "insurgents" and "terrorists" -- largely composed of people whose only cause for fighting is our presence in their country"
-- Glenn Greenwald, summarizing Matthew Hoh's resignation.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/10/27/afghanistan/index.html

His resignation letter is here: PDF. Wait for the inevitable discrediting his observations from safe seats in America.

My favorite quote in the WaPo interview:

"There are plenty of dudes who need to be killed," he said of al-Qaeda and the Taliban. "I was never more happy than when our Iraq team whacked a bunch of guys."

Alan Grayson -- Attention Whore

2009-10-27T17:50:47Z

"It was about a month ago that Grayson gave an interview to the Alex Jones Show, which is home to a wide array of old-school right-wing conspiracy theorizing -- think the Bilderberg Group, Wall Street and Barack Obama conspiring to bring about the New World Order. You get the idea.

In the Jones interview, Grayson opined that Fed adviser Linda Robertson, with whom he has had some sharp exchanges, is a 'K Street whore.'"

Classless, and just about as clever as the GOP moron whose intellectual summation of Obama's stance on healthcare availability to illegal immigrants was to shout "You lie!".

Now that bad behavior is the rule and getting all the attention, don't expect the trend to stop anytime soon.

OK... they need another sponsor...

2009-10-27T00:18:33Z

... ASAP.

I was watching the latest Castle episode, as I rarely keep track of TV times and days, and I love that I can grab them when its convenient for me (same with Brave and the Bold and Marvel Super Hero Squad at www.cartoonnetwork.com, not to mention Royal Pains, Sanctuary, and Secret Saturdays...but I digress).

About ever 15 minutes or so they run a commercial from their sponsors. Which is also OK with me - I mean, someone has to pay for it, right?

But the same two commercials three times each (OK, every ten minutes, clearly)? Aaaargh!

Greenwald on the Intellectual Dishonesty of Obama Supporters

2009-10-26T15:49:54Z

"All of this vividly underscores a vital point. There is simply no way that a person with even the most minimal levels of intellectual integrity could have objected to these actions during the Bush years yet defend them now that Obama is doing them, or even refrain from objecting just as loudly. What would it say about a person who spent years warning of the dangers posed by these very policies, yet found ways to excuse them now that there's a new President who is affirming and further institutionalizing them?"

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/10/26/obama/index.html

And Julian Sanchez:

"We know the rules by now, the strange conventions and stilted Kabuki scripts that govern our cartoon facsimile of a national security debate. The Obama administration makes vague, reassuring noises about constraining executive power and protecting civil liberties, but then merrily adopts whatever appalling policy George W. Bush put in place. Conservatives hit the panic button on the right-wing noise machine anyway, keeping the delicate ecosystem in balance by creating the false impression that something has changed. We've watched the formula play out with Guantánamo Bay, torture prosecutions and the invocation of "state secrets." We appear to be on the verge of doing the same with national security surveillance.

"Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee seemed to abandon hope of bringing any real change to the Patriot Act. A lopsided and depressingly bipartisan majority approved legislation that would reauthorize a series of expanded surveillance powers set to expire at the end of the year. Several senators had proposed that reauthorization be wedded to safeguards designed to protect the privacy of innocent Americans from indiscriminate data dragnets--but behind-the-scenes maneuvering by the Obama administration ensured that even the most modest of these were stripped from the final bill now being sent to the full Senate."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091102/sanchez