While the calendar may have just turned officially from winter to spring this past week, for us, this next week's spring break couldn't come fast enough.
With family visits, trips for work, and plenty of meetings to attend, the first three months of 2012 have been anything but slow. This past week alone has seen the worst punishment by the NFL in its history, a groundswell of public opinion driving justice forward in Florida, and another GOP primary win by Mitt Romney - which, like many of the other primary wins by Romney, was spoiled less than 24 hours later by something he or someone linked to his campaign said.
That doesn't even include the damage the conservative-leaning Supreme Court did this week, or the shocking fact that Congress appears to actually be accomplishing a few things.
Of course, this week, there were also a few bits of shocking speech too, including leading GOP political operative Karl Rove's false claim that killing Bin Laden was no big deal, or Mitt Romney's Communications Director claiming that Romney will be able to get rid of his extremist right-wing positions just like shaking an Etch A Sketch.
With all these different divisive ideas, and certain political and media folks attempting to use every one of them as a wedge issue, we're very glad to be taking sort of a break from our usual production schedule next week.
Admittedly, some of our time will be spent at home, TV off, talk radio off, and newspapers and magazines... only gently skimmed. We love reading though, so we'll certainly be picking up a book or two - or three. We also plan on visiting a few old friends, having some dinner at great restaurants, maybe even going to see a museum or two.
Don't expect us to be completely cut off from the world, though.
Paul will also still be working, just a bit, drawing a few new cartoons for his syndicate, and the great folks at the American Association of Editorial Cartoonists. You can check out the AAEC's daily cartoon blog to get your Paul Fell fix - and while you're there, you can also check out the work of some of the other great cartoonists we know.
Amy, of course, is a mom - so she never really gets a complete day off. Still, we hope that she has a chance to enjoy a few more days at the park with her young child this week.
Our workaholic webmaster will be traveling back and forth along the East Coast, though he's promised us he'll take at least a few hours off each day and disconnect. Truthfully, we think he'll probably just turn off the ringer on his smartphone - but even that's more disconnected than he usually gets, so we'll give him that one.
Spring break, when one gets older, may not exactly be the wild, hedonistic, week-long party that some college kids experience. It's usually not even the family trip to see relatives, or the week of time watching cartoons that it might have been when we were kids.
What it is, is a chance for us to re-energize, to sleep in, to take a step back and realize that not everyone is a Cro-Magnon caveman constantly trying to divide us all from one another.
We'll hope you have a good week. We'll resume publication April 2, 2012. Enjoy your Spring Break too.
Friday, March 23, 2012
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Good To Be Right, Better To Be Good
For the second time in a month, we're diverging from our usual discussion of politics during the workweek to focus on events happening in the NFL - but if you're a political fan, don't worry. There's something in this for you, too.
If you're a fan of professional football, or football in general, it's likely that by now you've heard that eventual Hall-of-Fame quarterback Payton Manning is joining the Denver Broncos, after the Indianapolis Colts let him out of his contract earlier this year. For Broncos fans that we know, this led to a temporary crisis, as Tim Tebow was already on the team, and was expected to be the Broncos quarterback this fall.
Tebow - who became a focus of popular culture last year, not just for his on-field football performance, but also for his religious stance - is too good a player to relegate to second tier status. It's also too expensive for Denver to keep both Tebow and Manning.
So as of last night, the Broncos traded Tebow to the New York Jets. That trade could make a big difference to the Jets this next year, and Jets fans are already excited about their new QB. It's a feeling that New Orleans Saints fans won't be having for at least the next few years.
As we commented near the beginning of March, we thought that NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell would do exactly what he began doing yesterday, when he laid out the first of many punishments for the 'BountyGate" scandal.
To start with, Goodell suspended the Saints head coach, Sean Payton, without pay, for the entire 2012 season, effective immediately. Goodell also banned Saints general manager Mickey Loomis for the first eight games of the regular season. Neither of these actions has ever been taken by ANY NFL commissioner in the history of the sport. The Commissioner's punishments didn't stop there.
The man at the heart of the scandal, coach Gregg Williams, was banned indefinitely from the NFL. Since Williams had already moved to the St. Louis Rams, the Rams also have to suffer for "BountyGate". But that's not all. Goodell also fined the Saints half a million dollars - and took away their second round draft picks for 2012 and 2013. For those of you that don't know pro football, losing those draft picks means the Saints will have to pay more to acquire players that other teams didn't really want for the next two years. In other words, their team will be worse, and will cost them more, every day, as their players age and get hurt.
Goodell punished the Saints more severely than any other team in the history of the NFL - and he's nowhere near done. Punishments for players and lower level coaches are expected to come down soon, and could be equally as harsh.
As we told you when we first covered "BountyGate," winning is NOT the only thing - and this is why.
If people think they can cheat and get away with it, they're wrong. Cheating always catches up to the cheater in the end.
While Tim Tebow's on-field prayers can seem to ring false to some, there are many in the NFL who say Tebow really is someone who appreciates his faith, and tries to live it fully every day. As big a star as Payton Manning is, and as much as some Husker fans still hold a grudge against him from his college days, many pros have said that Manning - like Tebow - is an honestly good person who also chooses to do the ethical thing, and nearly always shuns unethical behavior.
There is a reward for doing things the right way. Even if that path is hard and doesn't always take you where you want to go, as fast as you wish you could get there, in the end, we believe it's the best way to live. Sometimes, you may feel like the powers that be are just moving you around, shuffling you from place to place.
Even if that's true right now, we hope that you'll do the right thing, even when no one else is looking. Trust us - it's worth it in the end.
If you're a fan of professional football, or football in general, it's likely that by now you've heard that eventual Hall-of-Fame quarterback Payton Manning is joining the Denver Broncos, after the Indianapolis Colts let him out of his contract earlier this year. For Broncos fans that we know, this led to a temporary crisis, as Tim Tebow was already on the team, and was expected to be the Broncos quarterback this fall.
Tebow - who became a focus of popular culture last year, not just for his on-field football performance, but also for his religious stance - is too good a player to relegate to second tier status. It's also too expensive for Denver to keep both Tebow and Manning.
So as of last night, the Broncos traded Tebow to the New York Jets. That trade could make a big difference to the Jets this next year, and Jets fans are already excited about their new QB. It's a feeling that New Orleans Saints fans won't be having for at least the next few years.
As we commented near the beginning of March, we thought that NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell would do exactly what he began doing yesterday, when he laid out the first of many punishments for the 'BountyGate" scandal.
To start with, Goodell suspended the Saints head coach, Sean Payton, without pay, for the entire 2012 season, effective immediately. Goodell also banned Saints general manager Mickey Loomis for the first eight games of the regular season. Neither of these actions has ever been taken by ANY NFL commissioner in the history of the sport. The Commissioner's punishments didn't stop there.
The man at the heart of the scandal, coach Gregg Williams, was banned indefinitely from the NFL. Since Williams had already moved to the St. Louis Rams, the Rams also have to suffer for "BountyGate". But that's not all. Goodell also fined the Saints half a million dollars - and took away their second round draft picks for 2012 and 2013. For those of you that don't know pro football, losing those draft picks means the Saints will have to pay more to acquire players that other teams didn't really want for the next two years. In other words, their team will be worse, and will cost them more, every day, as their players age and get hurt.
Goodell punished the Saints more severely than any other team in the history of the NFL - and he's nowhere near done. Punishments for players and lower level coaches are expected to come down soon, and could be equally as harsh.
As we told you when we first covered "BountyGate," winning is NOT the only thing - and this is why.
If people think they can cheat and get away with it, they're wrong. Cheating always catches up to the cheater in the end.
While Tim Tebow's on-field prayers can seem to ring false to some, there are many in the NFL who say Tebow really is someone who appreciates his faith, and tries to live it fully every day. As big a star as Payton Manning is, and as much as some Husker fans still hold a grudge against him from his college days, many pros have said that Manning - like Tebow - is an honestly good person who also chooses to do the ethical thing, and nearly always shuns unethical behavior.
There is a reward for doing things the right way. Even if that path is hard and doesn't always take you where you want to go, as fast as you wish you could get there, in the end, we believe it's the best way to live. Sometimes, you may feel like the powers that be are just moving you around, shuffling you from place to place.
Even if that's true right now, we hope that you'll do the right thing, even when no one else is looking. Trust us - it's worth it in the end.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Barrel Full O' Stupid
Even when we already know the likely outcome of some events, we can still be amazed at how some of those events unfold - and how persons involved in those events can justify horrible outcomes as acceptable.
Take the case we looked at Tuesday, of the young man who was murdered in Florida. Trayvon Martin was killed by George Zimmerman, a man with a history of violent arrest, disturbing the police, and racism. With all these strikes against him, Mr. Zimmerman was still allowed to have a concealed weapons permit, in the state that originated the '"Stand Your Ground' law. In the first five years since that law was enacted, "justifiable homicides" tripled in Florida - often because people who were unstable and prone to paranoia are allowed to carry guns.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that even if Trayvon Martin hadn't been the victim of George Zimmerman's paranoia and racism, another unlucky young person might have been.
In that same spirit of insane stupidity, Congressional Republicans, led by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, announced their budget plan for 2013 on Tuesday. To say that this year's version of the Ryan Plan is insanely stupid would almost be an insult to how brilliantly bad it is.
The all-new Ryan Plan has some similarities to the original "Path To Prosperity" that Rep. Ryan released last year - for example, significantly raising the cost of health care for the elderly, through a voucher system. Although that idea went over like a lead balloon last year - even with Republicans - Ryan put nearly the same points in his plan this year.
Of course, that one bad idea isn't nearly enough for us to call the Ryan Plan "insanely stupid."
On top of a plan that would significantly increase medical costs - especially for the elderly - the new Ryan Plan would also raise taxes on the poor, and freeze the pay of Federal workers for five years, while giving a $3 trillion tax cut to the rich and big corporations. It would also cut most parts of the safety net, while massively boosting military spending - which means that the Republican Congress also would break the budget and deficit control agreement they made with Democrats in August of 2011.
That doesn't seem to really be a concern, however, for Rep. Ryan or the Republican talking heads who support him on this, as the new Ryan plan would also blow a massive hole in the deficit, with no real way to control spending at any time in the foreseeable future.
All this in an election year, when Congressional Republicans need political successes to run on, if they expect to be successful in this fall's elections.
Of course, that assumes Republican voters will turn out to vote for their candidates this fall. If Republican turnout this autumn is like that in the Illinois primary on Tuesday - where only 24 percent of Republicans turned out to vote, the worst turnout in 70 years - having a successful political platform to stand on will be the least of the GOP's problems.
Let's make it perfectly clear - this "budget" put forth by Rep. Ryan was never meant to be an actual budgetary document. Not only was this version of the Ryan Plan missing all kinds of specifics - including one of the most important details... an honest accounting of how to pay for the thing. This document was in no way a compromise - and it wasn't meant to be.
Real budgets have details, they figure out how to pay for everything - and they're configured in a way designed to win enough votes to become law. This "plan" was nothing more than a statement of dogma that now guarantees Republicans in both the House and Senate will have no significant budget successes to show their constituents this fall.
Politically, for Republicans, the new Ryan Plan is a cannon full of stupid, aimed right at the heads of the GOP.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure how this one is likely to end either.
Take the case we looked at Tuesday, of the young man who was murdered in Florida. Trayvon Martin was killed by George Zimmerman, a man with a history of violent arrest, disturbing the police, and racism. With all these strikes against him, Mr. Zimmerman was still allowed to have a concealed weapons permit, in the state that originated the '"Stand Your Ground' law. In the first five years since that law was enacted, "justifiable homicides" tripled in Florida - often because people who were unstable and prone to paranoia are allowed to carry guns.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that even if Trayvon Martin hadn't been the victim of George Zimmerman's paranoia and racism, another unlucky young person might have been.
In that same spirit of insane stupidity, Congressional Republicans, led by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, announced their budget plan for 2013 on Tuesday. To say that this year's version of the Ryan Plan is insanely stupid would almost be an insult to how brilliantly bad it is.
The all-new Ryan Plan has some similarities to the original "Path To Prosperity" that Rep. Ryan released last year - for example, significantly raising the cost of health care for the elderly, through a voucher system. Although that idea went over like a lead balloon last year - even with Republicans - Ryan put nearly the same points in his plan this year.
Of course, that one bad idea isn't nearly enough for us to call the Ryan Plan "insanely stupid."
On top of a plan that would significantly increase medical costs - especially for the elderly - the new Ryan Plan would also raise taxes on the poor, and freeze the pay of Federal workers for five years, while giving a $3 trillion tax cut to the rich and big corporations. It would also cut most parts of the safety net, while massively boosting military spending - which means that the Republican Congress also would break the budget and deficit control agreement they made with Democrats in August of 2011.
That doesn't seem to really be a concern, however, for Rep. Ryan or the Republican talking heads who support him on this, as the new Ryan plan would also blow a massive hole in the deficit, with no real way to control spending at any time in the foreseeable future.
All this in an election year, when Congressional Republicans need political successes to run on, if they expect to be successful in this fall's elections.
Of course, that assumes Republican voters will turn out to vote for their candidates this fall. If Republican turnout this autumn is like that in the Illinois primary on Tuesday - where only 24 percent of Republicans turned out to vote, the worst turnout in 70 years - having a successful political platform to stand on will be the least of the GOP's problems.
Let's make it perfectly clear - this "budget" put forth by Rep. Ryan was never meant to be an actual budgetary document. Not only was this version of the Ryan Plan missing all kinds of specifics - including one of the most important details... an honest accounting of how to pay for the thing. This document was in no way a compromise - and it wasn't meant to be.
Real budgets have details, they figure out how to pay for everything - and they're configured in a way designed to win enough votes to become law. This "plan" was nothing more than a statement of dogma that now guarantees Republicans in both the House and Senate will have no significant budget successes to show their constituents this fall.
Politically, for Republicans, the new Ryan Plan is a cannon full of stupid, aimed right at the heads of the GOP.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure how this one is likely to end either.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Perspectives On Injustice
Many of you who follow the NCAA basketball tournament more closely than our small group does were probably pulling your hair out - or tearing up your brackets - after this past weekend's games. For those of you that have a bracket you pass around your workplace, chances are good you came back to work on Monday to the news that a colleague who doesn't even care about basketball is beating nearly everyone else.
At the time, this may seem like a cosmic injustice to you - but we know it's one that you'll live with, and even forget soon.
Sadly, though, the family of 17–year-old Trayvon Martin won't soon be forgetting what appears to be the unjust murder of their young son.
While we've been reading about the story in the local Florida news for a few weeks now, we chose to wait to focus on it until more of the facts had come out. Here's the quick version, according to multiple legitimate sources, in case you haven't heard it yet.
Trayvon Martin, a seventeen-year-old from Miami, was visiting his father's house in a gated community, in Sanford, Florida, in February of this year. Trayvon was watching the NBA All-Star game when he decided he would run down to the corner 7-Eleven, at halftime to get some candy and iced tea.
On the way back, Martin crossed paths with George Zimmerman, a "neighborhood watch leader," who had a history of violence and abusing the cops, as well as questionable behavior. Zimmerman focused on Martin, followed the young man, even calling 9-1-1, saying Martin looked "like he's up to no good." Witnesses said Martin seemed to be trying to run away from Zimmerman, even as the Sanford police dispatch told Zimmerman to stop following the young man.
Zimmerman didn't stop following Martin. In fact, Zimmerman appears to have hunted the seventeen year old down, shooting and then killing him.
While the incident is an injustice by itself, what has happened after - or rather, what has NOT happened after the killing - is the real injustice.
Zimmerman used a law that originated in Florida, and has since spread to sixteen other states, known as a "Stand Your Ground" law - though to civil justice proponents, the law has become known as a "shoot first" law. In short, the law extends the traditional "castle law" provisions that most states have regarding their home to an individual, and the area around that person. If you believe that your life and safety is in danger, you can use deadly force to defend yourself, even if no one else has attacked you first.
So even though law enforcement knew that Zimmerman had shot and killed the young Mr. Martin, since Zimmerman claimed he felt his life was in danger, the police didn't arrest Zimmerman. The Sanford police also didn't drug test the shooter, or test him for virtually any other reason either. Even though Zimmerman had a history of repetitive, abusive, and even violent confrontations with the police, the local officials did nothing.
Did we mention that Zimmerman is white, while Martin was black?
In today's America, where a sizable contingent of one of our two major political parties seems intent on returning us to the social mores prevalent in the 1950s, including racism and virtually nonexistent access to birth control, this story ultimately isn't a surprising one. The story of Trayvon Martin is one that few honest Americans would be have been surprised to see coming from the Deep South, in the 1950s.
This isn't the 1950s, though - or the Wild, Wild West.
The idea that someone saying their life is in danger gives them the power to kill anyone they choose, without repercussion, is - on its face face - an unjust law, not befitting a modern society like ours.
Since the local Florida police appear incapable of doing this case any justice, the Justice Department is now looking into the case. Zimmerman may yet prove not to be completely guilty - but that won't change the injustice of the "Stand Your Ground" law.
It won't bring back Trayvon Martin either.
At the time, this may seem like a cosmic injustice to you - but we know it's one that you'll live with, and even forget soon.
Sadly, though, the family of 17–year-old Trayvon Martin won't soon be forgetting what appears to be the unjust murder of their young son.
While we've been reading about the story in the local Florida news for a few weeks now, we chose to wait to focus on it until more of the facts had come out. Here's the quick version, according to multiple legitimate sources, in case you haven't heard it yet.
Trayvon Martin, a seventeen-year-old from Miami, was visiting his father's house in a gated community, in Sanford, Florida, in February of this year. Trayvon was watching the NBA All-Star game when he decided he would run down to the corner 7-Eleven, at halftime to get some candy and iced tea.
On the way back, Martin crossed paths with George Zimmerman, a "neighborhood watch leader," who had a history of violence and abusing the cops, as well as questionable behavior. Zimmerman focused on Martin, followed the young man, even calling 9-1-1, saying Martin looked "like he's up to no good." Witnesses said Martin seemed to be trying to run away from Zimmerman, even as the Sanford police dispatch told Zimmerman to stop following the young man.
Zimmerman didn't stop following Martin. In fact, Zimmerman appears to have hunted the seventeen year old down, shooting and then killing him.
While the incident is an injustice by itself, what has happened after - or rather, what has NOT happened after the killing - is the real injustice.
Zimmerman used a law that originated in Florida, and has since spread to sixteen other states, known as a "Stand Your Ground" law - though to civil justice proponents, the law has become known as a "shoot first" law. In short, the law extends the traditional "castle law" provisions that most states have regarding their home to an individual, and the area around that person. If you believe that your life and safety is in danger, you can use deadly force to defend yourself, even if no one else has attacked you first.
So even though law enforcement knew that Zimmerman had shot and killed the young Mr. Martin, since Zimmerman claimed he felt his life was in danger, the police didn't arrest Zimmerman. The Sanford police also didn't drug test the shooter, or test him for virtually any other reason either. Even though Zimmerman had a history of repetitive, abusive, and even violent confrontations with the police, the local officials did nothing.
Did we mention that Zimmerman is white, while Martin was black?
In today's America, where a sizable contingent of one of our two major political parties seems intent on returning us to the social mores prevalent in the 1950s, including racism and virtually nonexistent access to birth control, this story ultimately isn't a surprising one. The story of Trayvon Martin is one that few honest Americans would be have been surprised to see coming from the Deep South, in the 1950s.
This isn't the 1950s, though - or the Wild, Wild West.
The idea that someone saying their life is in danger gives them the power to kill anyone they choose, without repercussion, is - on its face face - an unjust law, not befitting a modern society like ours.
Since the local Florida police appear incapable of doing this case any justice, the Justice Department is now looking into the case. Zimmerman may yet prove not to be completely guilty - but that won't change the injustice of the "Stand Your Ground" law.
It won't bring back Trayvon Martin either.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Who's Really Afraid Of The Coming Storm?
While the weather the past week has been unusually and ridiculously warm, the week ahead appears to be filled with storms and rain for much of the United States. In a similar way, the political storm that's been brewing in the GOP for most of the last quarter century appears to be breaking open and raining political cats and dogs all over the 2012 hopes of the GOP.
The fact is, we've been telling you for most of the last four years that there would come a day when the moderate Republicans would have to fight the insane, extremist faction of the GOP for control of their party. So it would be easy for us to simply laugh and point at the Republican Party, say "We told you so," and walk away.
That's not who we are, though. So we're going to help you see today which major political party has really put aside some of its more extreme tendencies for the good of the people - and which side is still putting party before country.
In Nebraska, for example, it's been interesting watching how each major political party has operated with respect to the soon-to-be open U.S. Senate Seat currently held by Sen. Ben Nelson.
For the Democratic side, even though former NU Regent Chuck Hassebrook originally was running for the Democratic nomination, after some careful consideration, he decided to drop out and support former U.S. Senator Bob Kerrey. Instead of raining massive amounts of money on a pointless primary campaign against Kerrey, Hassebrook did the sensible, logical, and respectable thing, and did what was best for both himself and Nebraskans. After all, Hassebrook himself acknowledged that Kerrey holds most of the same core beliefs, to "make the tough choices for hard-working families, the poor and those who are struggling to hold their grip on the middle class or trying to claw their way into the middle class."
That's exactly the opposite of what Nebraska Republicans are doing.
Even the fairly conservative Omaha World-Herald openly admits - there aren't many significant differences between the three major candidates on the Republican side. Yet the three GOP candidates - who, like the Democrats, agree on most of their core beliefs - have all been trying to either openly or quietly undercut their primary competition in very questionable ways.
The three Republicans match up with each other in many ways. Current Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning is young, has made many mistakes, and is politically unseasoned. However, Bruning has a significant history in Nebraska politics, and has even made a national name for himself a few times - though not always in a good way. Nebraska State Treasurer Don Stenberg has plenty of political experience, even running a close race with Ben Nelson in 2000. But Stenberg has run for U.S. Senate three times, and has lost all three races. State Senator Deb Fischer has plenty of state experience, and solid connections with many in Nebraska's third congressional district. Bruning has a dominant lead in both direct and indirect campaign finance support, however - much of that money coming from sources outside Nebraska.
For Republicans like Mark Fahelson, Nebraska state GOP Chair, this political season is the perfect storm for Republicans. Fahelson is the one currently holding the lightning rod for the Nebraska Republican Party, in the middle of this political storm. If the state fails to elect a Republican for virtually any position - but especially a high-profile position like U.S. Senate - the extremist Republicans will want someone to pay for losing a seat they believe belongs to them. Fahelson will be the one they'll likely zap.
Much like the national Democratic and Republican presidential races, while the Democrats may not always agree with each other on every topic, it's quite obvious most Democrats are willing to put the needs of the American people before their own personal political goals - which continues to give them more confidence. On the Republican side, however, every candidate is out for themselves in the hopes of controlling a party being torn apart in this political storm.
Meanwhile, candidates like Bob Kerrey and Barack Obama just keep steadily working towards the nomination of their political party, ducking the rain of the falling GOP candidates.
There's a lesson in this for the GOP, on virtually every level this year. We have extreme doubts, however, that the egos of their candidates will allow them to weather this storm very easily.
The fact is, we've been telling you for most of the last four years that there would come a day when the moderate Republicans would have to fight the insane, extremist faction of the GOP for control of their party. So it would be easy for us to simply laugh and point at the Republican Party, say "We told you so," and walk away.
That's not who we are, though. So we're going to help you see today which major political party has really put aside some of its more extreme tendencies for the good of the people - and which side is still putting party before country.
In Nebraska, for example, it's been interesting watching how each major political party has operated with respect to the soon-to-be open U.S. Senate Seat currently held by Sen. Ben Nelson.
For the Democratic side, even though former NU Regent Chuck Hassebrook originally was running for the Democratic nomination, after some careful consideration, he decided to drop out and support former U.S. Senator Bob Kerrey. Instead of raining massive amounts of money on a pointless primary campaign against Kerrey, Hassebrook did the sensible, logical, and respectable thing, and did what was best for both himself and Nebraskans. After all, Hassebrook himself acknowledged that Kerrey holds most of the same core beliefs, to "make the tough choices for hard-working families, the poor and those who are struggling to hold their grip on the middle class or trying to claw their way into the middle class."
That's exactly the opposite of what Nebraska Republicans are doing.
Even the fairly conservative Omaha World-Herald openly admits - there aren't many significant differences between the three major candidates on the Republican side. Yet the three GOP candidates - who, like the Democrats, agree on most of their core beliefs - have all been trying to either openly or quietly undercut their primary competition in very questionable ways.
The three Republicans match up with each other in many ways. Current Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning is young, has made many mistakes, and is politically unseasoned. However, Bruning has a significant history in Nebraska politics, and has even made a national name for himself a few times - though not always in a good way. Nebraska State Treasurer Don Stenberg has plenty of political experience, even running a close race with Ben Nelson in 2000. But Stenberg has run for U.S. Senate three times, and has lost all three races. State Senator Deb Fischer has plenty of state experience, and solid connections with many in Nebraska's third congressional district. Bruning has a dominant lead in both direct and indirect campaign finance support, however - much of that money coming from sources outside Nebraska.
For Republicans like Mark Fahelson, Nebraska state GOP Chair, this political season is the perfect storm for Republicans. Fahelson is the one currently holding the lightning rod for the Nebraska Republican Party, in the middle of this political storm. If the state fails to elect a Republican for virtually any position - but especially a high-profile position like U.S. Senate - the extremist Republicans will want someone to pay for losing a seat they believe belongs to them. Fahelson will be the one they'll likely zap.
Much like the national Democratic and Republican presidential races, while the Democrats may not always agree with each other on every topic, it's quite obvious most Democrats are willing to put the needs of the American people before their own personal political goals - which continues to give them more confidence. On the Republican side, however, every candidate is out for themselves in the hopes of controlling a party being torn apart in this political storm.
Meanwhile, candidates like Bob Kerrey and Barack Obama just keep steadily working towards the nomination of their political party, ducking the rain of the falling GOP candidates.
There's a lesson in this for the GOP, on virtually every level this year. We have extreme doubts, however, that the egos of their candidates will allow them to weather this storm very easily.
Friday, March 16, 2012
Friday Funday: If It Isn't One Thing...
After a week filled with our normal workloads, a bit of travel, some family visits, and unseasonably warm conditions in all three of our office locations, we're more than ready to get some time to ourselves this weekend to relax, spend some time at home, and enjoy some time with friends.
In a week where the news came at a steady, but not unusually rapid pace, we're still a bit more intellectually tired than we normally might have been. The continuing right-wing war on women, the unfortunate events in Afghanistan, the foreign visit by England's Prime Minister - and of course, the NCAA basketball and hockey tournaments - are all topics that we've been keeping an eye on, right along with the 2012 political races.
There was an odd story that caught our attention this week, though - especially because every member of our staff enjoys a good, thick, juicy Omaha Steak on occasion.
According to the results of a Harvard study, released this week in the publication 'Archives of Internal Medicine', people who eat a lot of red meat are "more likely to die at any given time" over a span of 20 years than those who eat less red meat.
There are a lot of things you can call our staff without us complaining too much; Progressives. intellectuals, feminists - you can even call us crazy, if it'll make you feel better. But when we've had a busy week, and the weather has been as beautiful and unseasonably warm as it has, we sure hope you don't call us late to dinner, when you've been putting a few choice burgers and steaks on the grill.
We're aware of some of the less-than-appetizing food stories that have found their way to the front page of many newspapers lately, including the news about 'pink slime' - which we agree is pretty nasty stuff. We're not as worried about some of these things as some of our friends and family, however.
The key note to focus on in the Harvard study is one that several nutrition experts, including Alan Aragon, also caught when looking at the study data: that the correlation made by the researchers really wasn't 100% valid. The initial research paper mostly ignored the fact that all the study participants were nurses. The Harvard study also didn't mention what the study participants' intake of grains, fruits, and vegetables were, in comparison to how much meat they consumed.
In other words, no one focused on how much moderation the study participants actually practiced, with respect to how much meat they were eating.
It's proven science that measured, appropriate amounts of red meat - including steak and hamburgers - are actually a good thing for human beings. Moderate amounts of alcohol, proper medications, and even occasional inhaled stimulants - like those in certain kinds of incense - are all beneficial for humans.
So while we don't recommend eating steak for every meal, or gorging on burgers all day every day, we don't think there's any real reason to freak out about red meat. We think the same approach to red meat we had at the beginning of the week is one we'll keep going into the weekend: moderation.
We hope you have a moderately fantastic weekend, whatever you choose to eat.
In a week where the news came at a steady, but not unusually rapid pace, we're still a bit more intellectually tired than we normally might have been. The continuing right-wing war on women, the unfortunate events in Afghanistan, the foreign visit by England's Prime Minister - and of course, the NCAA basketball and hockey tournaments - are all topics that we've been keeping an eye on, right along with the 2012 political races.
There was an odd story that caught our attention this week, though - especially because every member of our staff enjoys a good, thick, juicy Omaha Steak on occasion.
According to the results of a Harvard study, released this week in the publication 'Archives of Internal Medicine', people who eat a lot of red meat are "more likely to die at any given time" over a span of 20 years than those who eat less red meat.
There are a lot of things you can call our staff without us complaining too much; Progressives. intellectuals, feminists - you can even call us crazy, if it'll make you feel better. But when we've had a busy week, and the weather has been as beautiful and unseasonably warm as it has, we sure hope you don't call us late to dinner, when you've been putting a few choice burgers and steaks on the grill.
We're aware of some of the less-than-appetizing food stories that have found their way to the front page of many newspapers lately, including the news about 'pink slime' - which we agree is pretty nasty stuff. We're not as worried about some of these things as some of our friends and family, however.
The key note to focus on in the Harvard study is one that several nutrition experts, including Alan Aragon, also caught when looking at the study data: that the correlation made by the researchers really wasn't 100% valid. The initial research paper mostly ignored the fact that all the study participants were nurses. The Harvard study also didn't mention what the study participants' intake of grains, fruits, and vegetables were, in comparison to how much meat they consumed.
In other words, no one focused on how much moderation the study participants actually practiced, with respect to how much meat they were eating.
It's proven science that measured, appropriate amounts of red meat - including steak and hamburgers - are actually a good thing for human beings. Moderate amounts of alcohol, proper medications, and even occasional inhaled stimulants - like those in certain kinds of incense - are all beneficial for humans.
So while we don't recommend eating steak for every meal, or gorging on burgers all day every day, we don't think there's any real reason to freak out about red meat. We think the same approach to red meat we had at the beginning of the week is one we'll keep going into the weekend: moderation.
We hope you have a moderately fantastic weekend, whatever you choose to eat.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Overreaching
After several months of political misogyny, capped off by two weeks of continued verbal attacks by the nominal head of the regressive wing of the Republican Party, we had to shake our heads yesterday when even more extremist Republican state legislators across the country decided to go after women again.
We think it's important to note - there is a massive and growing number of sane, moderate Republicans in America who simply can't understand what kind of crazy thoughts have been going through the minds of their so-called Republican leaders these days. We feel for them, as the political party they claim wants virtually nothing to do with them.
In Wisconsin - a state that's become known more for extremist Republican legislation than cheese or their NFL team - the Republican controlled state assembly passed an anti-women's bill EARLY on Wednesday morning (around 2 AM) that was at exact counter-purposes with its stated goal. The bill would limit insurance coverage for abortions - making it more likely that those wanting abortions would be forced to go to disreputable providers, like the old pre-Roe vs. Wade back alley butchers who killed or maimed so many women. At the same time the Wisconsin bill mandated that schools teach abstinence-only in sex-education classes - which, it's statistically proven, is an almost certain way to increase, not decrease, the number of unwanted teen pregnancies.
Arizona's insane Republicans didn't want to be outdone, however. So on Wednesday, Arizona legislators in the Arizona Senate judiciary committee endorsed a bill that would require a woman to get an affidavit that she takes birth control pills to treat medical conditions, if she wants it covered by her insurance. The bill also makes it so that an employer can fire a woman for using birth control to prevent pregnancy, if the woman has no other medical reason to take the medication, and the employer decides they have a "moral issue" with the employee taking birth control to prevent pregnancy.
The depth of regressive Republican depravity and disrespect goes farther than just toward women, though. As former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich noted Tuesday, the breakdown in public morality for those who carry the Republican label has extended far beyond women, deep into Wall Street, and even throughout the daily business of our government - even at the highest levels.
On Wednesday, in order to be able to bring up a small business jobs bill that was buried on the Senate docket, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid had to threaten to force a series of cloture votes on approving seventeen judicial nominees chosen by President Obama. Republicans had already admitted they had no problems with the nominees - yet they were still going to block the appointments anyway, and continue stalling the debate on the small business jobs bill. After Reid appeared to be going through with the threat, Republican Mitch McConnell finally caved, and agreed to work out a compromise with Senate Democrats, so that both sides could get to work on the latest jobs bill.
We don't recommend that Reid trust McConnell too deeply, however.
In the same hour we got word of Senate Republicans agreeing to compromise with Senate Democrats, House Republicans announced they were going back on the hard-won agreement Republican extremists were forced into making on the budget with House Democrats last summer.
Yes, that's right; House Republicans are threatening to shut down the government again, in the middle of an election year, unless they get their way - on another topic that was already litigated, where they lost.
For a long time now, we've wondered if the only way to get through the thick skulls of the extremist regressive Republicans who've hijacked their political party, was to beat on their heads with stacks of facts, while angry constituents beat on their doors. However, after observing the recent conduct of these so-called conservatives, we think that maybe the best method of reaching these folks might be to take a page from their own textbook, and reach out to them through men's health issues.
We think starting by mandating digital prostate exams, conducted by angry female doctors wearing chain-mail gloves, might finally get their attention, and help them understand how disrespectful and stupid their actions have become.
We think it's important to note - there is a massive and growing number of sane, moderate Republicans in America who simply can't understand what kind of crazy thoughts have been going through the minds of their so-called Republican leaders these days. We feel for them, as the political party they claim wants virtually nothing to do with them.
In Wisconsin - a state that's become known more for extremist Republican legislation than cheese or their NFL team - the Republican controlled state assembly passed an anti-women's bill EARLY on Wednesday morning (around 2 AM) that was at exact counter-purposes with its stated goal. The bill would limit insurance coverage for abortions - making it more likely that those wanting abortions would be forced to go to disreputable providers, like the old pre-Roe vs. Wade back alley butchers who killed or maimed so many women. At the same time the Wisconsin bill mandated that schools teach abstinence-only in sex-education classes - which, it's statistically proven, is an almost certain way to increase, not decrease, the number of unwanted teen pregnancies.
Arizona's insane Republicans didn't want to be outdone, however. So on Wednesday, Arizona legislators in the Arizona Senate judiciary committee endorsed a bill that would require a woman to get an affidavit that she takes birth control pills to treat medical conditions, if she wants it covered by her insurance. The bill also makes it so that an employer can fire a woman for using birth control to prevent pregnancy, if the woman has no other medical reason to take the medication, and the employer decides they have a "moral issue" with the employee taking birth control to prevent pregnancy.
The depth of regressive Republican depravity and disrespect goes farther than just toward women, though. As former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich noted Tuesday, the breakdown in public morality for those who carry the Republican label has extended far beyond women, deep into Wall Street, and even throughout the daily business of our government - even at the highest levels.
On Wednesday, in order to be able to bring up a small business jobs bill that was buried on the Senate docket, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid had to threaten to force a series of cloture votes on approving seventeen judicial nominees chosen by President Obama. Republicans had already admitted they had no problems with the nominees - yet they were still going to block the appointments anyway, and continue stalling the debate on the small business jobs bill. After Reid appeared to be going through with the threat, Republican Mitch McConnell finally caved, and agreed to work out a compromise with Senate Democrats, so that both sides could get to work on the latest jobs bill.
We don't recommend that Reid trust McConnell too deeply, however.
In the same hour we got word of Senate Republicans agreeing to compromise with Senate Democrats, House Republicans announced they were going back on the hard-won agreement Republican extremists were forced into making on the budget with House Democrats last summer.
Yes, that's right; House Republicans are threatening to shut down the government again, in the middle of an election year, unless they get their way - on another topic that was already litigated, where they lost.
For a long time now, we've wondered if the only way to get through the thick skulls of the extremist regressive Republicans who've hijacked their political party, was to beat on their heads with stacks of facts, while angry constituents beat on their doors. However, after observing the recent conduct of these so-called conservatives, we think that maybe the best method of reaching these folks might be to take a page from their own textbook, and reach out to them through men's health issues.
We think starting by mandating digital prostate exams, conducted by angry female doctors wearing chain-mail gloves, might finally get their attention, and help them understand how disrespectful and stupid their actions have become.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Reign of Errors: Climbing Out Of The Hole
As we began gathering articles and data for today's commentary, more than a few painful facts kept falling on our heads as we climbed through our research.
For example, when the mess that is now Afghanistan began in earnest in late 2000, there were children who were barely going through their terrible twos - who now are going through puberty. A dozen years ago, alphabet phrases like 'IED', 'TBI' and 'PTSD' were rarely heard in popular culture. The idea back then that members of the regular U.S. military - let alone members of the National Guard - would be sent to multiple foreign countries for three, or four, or more tours in a four-to-six year time span was almost unheard of.
Now, after America has been involved in a war that has been going on for a dozen years, every one of those things has become all-too common for most Americans.
Sadly, some Americans still haven't seemed to grasp the rules, and don't know how to act with respect when they're in another country. Further, some of our military leaders still don't seem to understand our service members are human beings, not machines.
We admit; though we touched on it on Monday, we've been a bit loathe this week to talk about the shooting massacre in Afghanistan over the last weekend. Too many facts are still unknown - and will likely remain so for who knows how long.
What we do know is this: Last weekend, a U.S. soldier, trained as a sniper, with a history of TBI - Traumatic Brain Injury, suffered in a attack from an IED in Iraq - disappeared from his base in Afghanistan. He had been through four tours of duty over the last eight years in both Iraq and Afghanistan. This soldier walked into the homes of at least two Afghan families, in the midle of the night, and killed sixteen people including nine children. While U.S. military forces insist the soldier was alone, Afghan witnesses still say there were multiple shooters, though claims appear to focus on only one soldier doing the killing. The suspect soldier now faces trial within the military justice system, and will be prosecuted under the death penalty statutes of the UCMJ - the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice.
For war-weary populations, in both the U.S. and Afghanistan, this has been just the latest sign in a series of small but shameful actions by U.S. and NATO personnel, that it is time for the Americans to leave.
A year ago - or even two - many hawkish Republicans were still saying that America had far too much to do in Afghanistan for the U.S. to begin making plans to leave. The howls from the American political right were at times loud, and the claims that President Obama didn't know what he was doing were still rampant, as the President began trying to get us out of Afghanistan.
Now, one of the GOP's biggest critics of Obama, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, said he supports the President's efforts to transition our nation out of Afghanistan. McConnell isn't the only one who now wants the U.S. out of Afghanistan. In the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll, even traditionally hawkish Republicans have soured on the war - and most Americans believe even the Afghans no longer want us there.
In the depths of all this dark news, the light at the top of the hole, dug by our nation's leaders a dozen years ago, may finally be coming into view.
The calls to end the war have grown loud enough - even from Republicans - that President Obama may be able to speed up our withdrawal from Afghanistan, as he originally wanted to do years ago. Major businesses like Disney are already pledging to hire thousands of veterans when they return, which is another good sign - both for the veterans and the economy.
Whether you believe we were persuaded into this dozen years of disaster by the Bush administration, or whether we collectively just incompetently stumbled America down this deep hole, the fact remains - we're not out yet. There will likely be more small disasters that will fall on our collective heads before we finish clawing our way out. This latest massacre is sadly another one of those.
We hope that once our nation is out of this hole, America - and those who lead it - finally learn not to do anything even remotely like it ever again.
For example, when the mess that is now Afghanistan began in earnest in late 2000, there were children who were barely going through their terrible twos - who now are going through puberty. A dozen years ago, alphabet phrases like 'IED', 'TBI' and 'PTSD' were rarely heard in popular culture. The idea back then that members of the regular U.S. military - let alone members of the National Guard - would be sent to multiple foreign countries for three, or four, or more tours in a four-to-six year time span was almost unheard of.
Now, after America has been involved in a war that has been going on for a dozen years, every one of those things has become all-too common for most Americans.
Sadly, some Americans still haven't seemed to grasp the rules, and don't know how to act with respect when they're in another country. Further, some of our military leaders still don't seem to understand our service members are human beings, not machines.
We admit; though we touched on it on Monday, we've been a bit loathe this week to talk about the shooting massacre in Afghanistan over the last weekend. Too many facts are still unknown - and will likely remain so for who knows how long.
What we do know is this: Last weekend, a U.S. soldier, trained as a sniper, with a history of TBI - Traumatic Brain Injury, suffered in a attack from an IED in Iraq - disappeared from his base in Afghanistan. He had been through four tours of duty over the last eight years in both Iraq and Afghanistan. This soldier walked into the homes of at least two Afghan families, in the midle of the night, and killed sixteen people including nine children. While U.S. military forces insist the soldier was alone, Afghan witnesses still say there were multiple shooters, though claims appear to focus on only one soldier doing the killing. The suspect soldier now faces trial within the military justice system, and will be prosecuted under the death penalty statutes of the UCMJ - the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice.
For war-weary populations, in both the U.S. and Afghanistan, this has been just the latest sign in a series of small but shameful actions by U.S. and NATO personnel, that it is time for the Americans to leave.
A year ago - or even two - many hawkish Republicans were still saying that America had far too much to do in Afghanistan for the U.S. to begin making plans to leave. The howls from the American political right were at times loud, and the claims that President Obama didn't know what he was doing were still rampant, as the President began trying to get us out of Afghanistan.
Now, one of the GOP's biggest critics of Obama, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, said he supports the President's efforts to transition our nation out of Afghanistan. McConnell isn't the only one who now wants the U.S. out of Afghanistan. In the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll, even traditionally hawkish Republicans have soured on the war - and most Americans believe even the Afghans no longer want us there.
In the depths of all this dark news, the light at the top of the hole, dug by our nation's leaders a dozen years ago, may finally be coming into view.
The calls to end the war have grown loud enough - even from Republicans - that President Obama may be able to speed up our withdrawal from Afghanistan, as he originally wanted to do years ago. Major businesses like Disney are already pledging to hire thousands of veterans when they return, which is another good sign - both for the veterans and the economy.
Whether you believe we were persuaded into this dozen years of disaster by the Bush administration, or whether we collectively just incompetently stumbled America down this deep hole, the fact remains - we're not out yet. There will likely be more small disasters that will fall on our collective heads before we finish clawing our way out. This latest massacre is sadly another one of those.
We hope that once our nation is out of this hole, America - and those who lead it - finally learn not to do anything even remotely like it ever again.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Cheering For The Wrong Team
If anything is for sure in the world these days, one of the more certain items happens to be the behavior of the extremists who currently control the GOP.
With that in mind, our staff was unsurprised on Monday when we started seeing headlines roll across our computer and iPad screens like, "Obama's ratings drop as gas prices soar," or "Gas Prices Fuel GOP Pushback." The Obama administration knew it was coming too, as they had all the facts lined up to push back against the propaganda of the right.
As the White House noted in their energy progress report, and as we've noted here previously, in 2011, the U.S. was a net exporter of oil for the first time in 60 years. Further, domestic oil production is at its highest level since 2003. The fuel efficiency standards for vehicles - commonly known as the CAFE standards - have been raised significantly by the Obama Administration, and renewable energy has doubled since 2008, thanks to investment into clean energy projects by government at all levels.
Still, some of the chattering class were carrying on Monday and early Tuesday morning about the latest polling on President Obama. Most of them were chatting up a storm - without actually understanding the polls or paying attention to how the poll numbers interact with real life factors.
This is why we continue to look to people like Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com, and the Wonkblog group, headed by Ezra Klein, over at The Washington Post.
As Nate noted late yesterday, while the New York Times/CBS approval poll had an unusual drop in the President's numbers, the Gallup poll had a significant rise in the same approval number, in direct opposition to the NYT/CBS poll. As Nate noted previously - and as we pointed out when he did - "there’s not a lot of evidence that oil prices are all that important" in determining the outcome of an election. As Nate also pointed out on Monday, looking at just one snapshot of a few scattered polls will give you a lot of noise - unless you also look at surrounding factors and trends over time.
That's where Brad Plumer and the Wonkblog team jumped into the numbers, asking other statisticians and political scientists and confirmed what Nate said - that gas prices really aren't likely to decide the 2012 election.
So why were Republicans and right-wing media almost cheering higher prices at the pump, and blaming the President for them?
Because most Americans are idiots when it comes to understanding the price of oil, even if we've explained it a thousand times. In fact, in that same New York Times/CBS Poll that had the President's approval dropping, 54 percent of Americans thought the President could "do a lot about" gas prices.
Once again, for the record, professional energy analysts - who know FAR more about how energy and oil prices are actually set - confirmed over last weekend that neither the White House or Congress have any real control over the price of oil.
Unsurprisingly, that didn't stop the Republicans from cheering on increased oil and gas prices. After all, if they'll continue to defend a world-class champion liar like Rush Limbaugh, why would they tell the truth about Obama and gas prices?
If they didn't look so ridiculous betting against the best interests of Americans, the extremists on the right might be almost entertaining as they dance around, holler, and try to grab people's attention.
We have a feeling that when most of that 54 percent figures out the GOP has been cheering against America, the Republicans will be brought up short by more than just their waistbands.
With that in mind, our staff was unsurprised on Monday when we started seeing headlines roll across our computer and iPad screens like, "Obama's ratings drop as gas prices soar," or "Gas Prices Fuel GOP Pushback." The Obama administration knew it was coming too, as they had all the facts lined up to push back against the propaganda of the right.
As the White House noted in their energy progress report, and as we've noted here previously, in 2011, the U.S. was a net exporter of oil for the first time in 60 years. Further, domestic oil production is at its highest level since 2003. The fuel efficiency standards for vehicles - commonly known as the CAFE standards - have been raised significantly by the Obama Administration, and renewable energy has doubled since 2008, thanks to investment into clean energy projects by government at all levels.
Still, some of the chattering class were carrying on Monday and early Tuesday morning about the latest polling on President Obama. Most of them were chatting up a storm - without actually understanding the polls or paying attention to how the poll numbers interact with real life factors.
This is why we continue to look to people like Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com, and the Wonkblog group, headed by Ezra Klein, over at The Washington Post.
As Nate noted late yesterday, while the New York Times/CBS approval poll had an unusual drop in the President's numbers, the Gallup poll had a significant rise in the same approval number, in direct opposition to the NYT/CBS poll. As Nate noted previously - and as we pointed out when he did - "there’s not a lot of evidence that oil prices are all that important" in determining the outcome of an election. As Nate also pointed out on Monday, looking at just one snapshot of a few scattered polls will give you a lot of noise - unless you also look at surrounding factors and trends over time.
That's where Brad Plumer and the Wonkblog team jumped into the numbers, asking other statisticians and political scientists and confirmed what Nate said - that gas prices really aren't likely to decide the 2012 election.
So why were Republicans and right-wing media almost cheering higher prices at the pump, and blaming the President for them?
Because most Americans are idiots when it comes to understanding the price of oil, even if we've explained it a thousand times. In fact, in that same New York Times/CBS Poll that had the President's approval dropping, 54 percent of Americans thought the President could "do a lot about" gas prices.
Once again, for the record, professional energy analysts - who know FAR more about how energy and oil prices are actually set - confirmed over last weekend that neither the White House or Congress have any real control over the price of oil.
Unsurprisingly, that didn't stop the Republicans from cheering on increased oil and gas prices. After all, if they'll continue to defend a world-class champion liar like Rush Limbaugh, why would they tell the truth about Obama and gas prices?
If they didn't look so ridiculous betting against the best interests of Americans, the extremists on the right might be almost entertaining as they dance around, holler, and try to grab people's attention.
We have a feeling that when most of that 54 percent figures out the GOP has been cheering against America, the Republicans will be brought up short by more than just their waistbands.
Monday, March 12, 2012
The Beatings Will Continue...
For much of the last twenty years - especially since the internet blossomed beyond simple websites and bulletin boards - communicating news and facts successfully through mass media has become a task of near constant repetition.
For local television stations this has been a large part of why stations that once had noon, five, and ten o'clock newscasts keep expanding, and now feature news at eleven in the morning, noon, four, five, maybe six, and a nine or ten o'clock newscast as well.
On the radio, news and infotainment programs - especially the ones filled with hate and based in propaganda - have taken to using the same techniques. As President Bush once said, "...you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."
To the detriment of people all over the world - including themselves - the extremists who currently lead the Republican party have gotten very good at beating their propaganda drums on issues like cutting funding to social programs and giving unnecessary tax cuts to the wealthy.
Sadly, the latest drum beat from the far right is one they began quietly during the Presidential contest at the end of the last Bush Administration, four years ago - that America may need to go to war with Iran.
The ignorance of facts and blustering cocksure stupidity of the right when it comes to nuanced topics like diplomacy in the Middle East has been proven over and over again during the last ten or eleven years. Wisdom and concern for accurate intelligence should have been truly considered, and followed through, before the U.S. jumped from Afghanistan into Iraq. If that had been the case, then maybe a U.S. soldier who had been through four tours of duty in those war zones in the last eight years wouldn't have murdered two Afghan families in their homes over weekend, killing sixteen people - including nine children.
Maybe thousands of Americans, Iraqis, Afghanis and Pakistanis would still be alive or un-maimed, and American diplomacy in the Middle East might be given more respect.
Those obvious failures haven't prevented the right - including three of the four Republican candidates for President - from beating war drums and using dog-whistle politics to signal to their base that they'd like to take on Iran.
Americans, however, are in no mood to go to war again. They don't even want to finish the rebuilding efforts in Afghanistan right now.
In fact, last week, President Obama blasted the Republicans for talking so casually about potential conflict with Iran. This President has multiple reasons for not wanting war, not the least of which include the cost - both in dollars and blood - of what such a conflict would bring.
Obama also has significant support for not going to war with Iran from someone who knows the Iranians far better than any American - the former head of Mossad, Israel's intelligence service. Ex-Mossad Chief Meir Dagan said in a weekend interview with Lesley Stahl on 60 Minutes that Iran's current leadership is not only rational but logical. Dagan also points out that if anyone wants the price of oil and gas to go up quickly, nothing will do that faster than sabre-ratling against Iran - which is exactly what the Republicans have been doing.
We understand why the current leaders of the Republican Party keep doing this. GOP leader Mitch McConnell said himself, more than once: their top goal is to make Obama a one term President. If that means they have to beat the drums of war with Iran and drive gas prices up, so what? To them, that seems to be a small price to pay to win the White House.
To many moderate Republicans, however, that kind of drumbeat may have put the radicals who currently control the Republican Party in the same category as their rhetorical leader, Rush Limbaugh - and is already leading moderate and sane Republicans to abandon their party.
If we're lucky, this fall, moderate Republicans may join the rest of us, including President Obama, in silencing the insane noisemakers at the polls.
For local television stations this has been a large part of why stations that once had noon, five, and ten o'clock newscasts keep expanding, and now feature news at eleven in the morning, noon, four, five, maybe six, and a nine or ten o'clock newscast as well.
On the radio, news and infotainment programs - especially the ones filled with hate and based in propaganda - have taken to using the same techniques. As President Bush once said, "...you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."
To the detriment of people all over the world - including themselves - the extremists who currently lead the Republican party have gotten very good at beating their propaganda drums on issues like cutting funding to social programs and giving unnecessary tax cuts to the wealthy.
Sadly, the latest drum beat from the far right is one they began quietly during the Presidential contest at the end of the last Bush Administration, four years ago - that America may need to go to war with Iran.
The ignorance of facts and blustering cocksure stupidity of the right when it comes to nuanced topics like diplomacy in the Middle East has been proven over and over again during the last ten or eleven years. Wisdom and concern for accurate intelligence should have been truly considered, and followed through, before the U.S. jumped from Afghanistan into Iraq. If that had been the case, then maybe a U.S. soldier who had been through four tours of duty in those war zones in the last eight years wouldn't have murdered two Afghan families in their homes over weekend, killing sixteen people - including nine children.
Maybe thousands of Americans, Iraqis, Afghanis and Pakistanis would still be alive or un-maimed, and American diplomacy in the Middle East might be given more respect.
Those obvious failures haven't prevented the right - including three of the four Republican candidates for President - from beating war drums and using dog-whistle politics to signal to their base that they'd like to take on Iran.
Americans, however, are in no mood to go to war again. They don't even want to finish the rebuilding efforts in Afghanistan right now.
In fact, last week, President Obama blasted the Republicans for talking so casually about potential conflict with Iran. This President has multiple reasons for not wanting war, not the least of which include the cost - both in dollars and blood - of what such a conflict would bring.
Obama also has significant support for not going to war with Iran from someone who knows the Iranians far better than any American - the former head of Mossad, Israel's intelligence service. Ex-Mossad Chief Meir Dagan said in a weekend interview with Lesley Stahl on 60 Minutes that Iran's current leadership is not only rational but logical. Dagan also points out that if anyone wants the price of oil and gas to go up quickly, nothing will do that faster than sabre-ratling against Iran - which is exactly what the Republicans have been doing.
We understand why the current leaders of the Republican Party keep doing this. GOP leader Mitch McConnell said himself, more than once: their top goal is to make Obama a one term President. If that means they have to beat the drums of war with Iran and drive gas prices up, so what? To them, that seems to be a small price to pay to win the White House.
To many moderate Republicans, however, that kind of drumbeat may have put the radicals who currently control the Republican Party in the same category as their rhetorical leader, Rush Limbaugh - and is already leading moderate and sane Republicans to abandon their party.
If we're lucky, this fall, moderate Republicans may join the rest of us, including President Obama, in silencing the insane noisemakers at the polls.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Friday Funday: Singing The Praises Of Women
While today may be Friday, we thought it important to focus on yesterday - or more importantly, focus on women.
In case you missed it, yesterday was International Women's Day, a date set aside to specifically point out the disparities between women and men, and to celebrate the successes of women. While the day is less a holiday, and more a day of awareness, we have to admit - we're incredibly proud of the women we work with and those we know in our lives.
Over the last few years - and especially over the past few months - the kinds of political and media attacks being thrown at women in general, and even specific women, have reminded us of how recently the idea of gender equality has come even anywhere close to reality.
Even saying that things are close is still exaggerating quite a bit.
According to the OECD, women perform 66% of the world’s work, produce 50% of the food, earn 10% of the income and own 1% of the property. While we're not sure exactly how the categories break down, we certainly agree with the fact that women get less compensation than men for the same amount of work.
Even though the first bill President Obama signed into law was the Lilly Ledbetter Equal Pay Act, women still only earn 77 cents for every dollar men earn - a pay gap that remains statistically unchanged in the last decade.
There have been a number of successes for women, however - and we're very proud of these numbers.
Eighty-seven percent of women in the U.S. now have at least four years of high school education, and often significantly more education than that. In fact, nearly 60% of all college degrees awarded in 2010 were earned by women, while half of all women in the U.S. are now college educated.
The women in our own lives and on our staff all have their own successful careers, and have at times been more successful than the men on our staff. We're pretty proud of women, in general.
We still think there are some things persons of each sex can generally do better - but we're all in favor of treating everyone with the same level of respect, and giving everyone the same opportunities, regardless of what sex they may be.
That commitment to equality is one of the many reasons it's been so disgusting to hear the loud, pompous, arrogant, misogynist Rush Limbaugh denigrate and trash women day after day. The only consolation we have for the disgusting display by Mr. Limbaugh is the number of his advertisers who have abandoned him.
Still - as fellow media member Keith Olbermann noted on his Countdown show earlier this week, if any good can be salvaged from Limbaugh's actions, it may be that Rush pointed out a low bar many of our media colleagues have ignored for too long.
We made a commitment at the beginning of 2012 to be better, and hold ourselves to higher standards, for you, our readers. Olbermann himself took a similar oath, and expanded on it this week, saying, "...from now on, we all need to be extra vigilant and dial the filter up [on being civil] a few more notches."
We firmly agree, and proudly join him in that effort. The women - and men - who enjoy our work deserve that kind of respect.
You can't expect to help everyone to soar if your're bogged down by throwing mud.
In case you missed it, yesterday was International Women's Day, a date set aside to specifically point out the disparities between women and men, and to celebrate the successes of women. While the day is less a holiday, and more a day of awareness, we have to admit - we're incredibly proud of the women we work with and those we know in our lives.
Over the last few years - and especially over the past few months - the kinds of political and media attacks being thrown at women in general, and even specific women, have reminded us of how recently the idea of gender equality has come even anywhere close to reality.
Even saying that things are close is still exaggerating quite a bit.
According to the OECD, women perform 66% of the world’s work, produce 50% of the food, earn 10% of the income and own 1% of the property. While we're not sure exactly how the categories break down, we certainly agree with the fact that women get less compensation than men for the same amount of work.
Even though the first bill President Obama signed into law was the Lilly Ledbetter Equal Pay Act, women still only earn 77 cents for every dollar men earn - a pay gap that remains statistically unchanged in the last decade.
There have been a number of successes for women, however - and we're very proud of these numbers.
Eighty-seven percent of women in the U.S. now have at least four years of high school education, and often significantly more education than that. In fact, nearly 60% of all college degrees awarded in 2010 were earned by women, while half of all women in the U.S. are now college educated.
The women in our own lives and on our staff all have their own successful careers, and have at times been more successful than the men on our staff. We're pretty proud of women, in general.
We still think there are some things persons of each sex can generally do better - but we're all in favor of treating everyone with the same level of respect, and giving everyone the same opportunities, regardless of what sex they may be.
That commitment to equality is one of the many reasons it's been so disgusting to hear the loud, pompous, arrogant, misogynist Rush Limbaugh denigrate and trash women day after day. The only consolation we have for the disgusting display by Mr. Limbaugh is the number of his advertisers who have abandoned him.
Still - as fellow media member Keith Olbermann noted on his Countdown show earlier this week, if any good can be salvaged from Limbaugh's actions, it may be that Rush pointed out a low bar many of our media colleagues have ignored for too long.
We made a commitment at the beginning of 2012 to be better, and hold ourselves to higher standards, for you, our readers. Olbermann himself took a similar oath, and expanded on it this week, saying, "...from now on, we all need to be extra vigilant and dial the filter up [on being civil] a few more notches."
We firmly agree, and proudly join him in that effort. The women - and men - who enjoy our work deserve that kind of respect.
You can't expect to help everyone to soar if your're bogged down by throwing mud.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Jobs, By A Nose
We hope that our loyal readers don't think we're crossing the line today, if we talk a little about the horse race. We're aware of the promise we made at the beginning of the year - but we don't think today's topic breaks that spell.
Because the kind of horse race we're talking about today has nothing to do with Mitt or Rick or Newt. And while we may be talking about the shifting winds of technology and industry, we're not talking about that blowhard Rush Limbaugh either.
We're actually talking about horseracing, as an industry - one that like so many industries, is struggling to stay alive, relevant, and affordable in 2012 and beyond.
Like so many industries - including the media industry we work in - technology has made things both easier and harder in the horse racing industry. Tracks in some states - like some in New York and New Jersey - have used new technology like remote track and historical racing to bolster and even improve the status of the horse racing industry in their states. Tracks in those states have also added other kinds of digital gambling, like video lottery terminals.
Those two states are the exception, though - not the rule.
From Maryland, to Kentucky, to Florida and Nebraska, horse racing has been on a long slide, like many other American industries. Like so many other industries, the costs of the business have just kept rising, while the profit on the business just isn't there anymore.
So, like many other short-sighted business sectors in America, those who own the horse racing industry have closed facilities, cut back amenities, cut back staff, and cut wages and benefits whenever they could. Unsurprisingly, the austerity business plan of cutting everything hasn't led to better profits for the horse racing industry any more than it's led to successful economic recoveries in Europe, or at the state level in many American states.
So-called "free market conservatives" always claim that when an industry is on a severe decline, what's needed to bring the industry back to life is innovation.
That's exactly what the horse racing industry in Nebraska has been attempting to do with an amendment to a bill before the state legislature. The amendment went through heavy debate for two days this week. Folks like well-known Nebraska Republican Scott Lautenbaugh - the sponsor of the bill - teamed up with powerful Nebraska Democrats like Health Mello, Amanda McGill, and Danielle Conrad to fight for its passage.
Opponents were worried the bill would expand gambling temptations in Nebraska. Supporters were hoping that it might expand opportunities back to what they once were in Nebraska for horse racing fans - and in doing so, keep or even create a few more jobs.
The amendment passed last night, around 7:30 - by a nose, as they say in the horse racing industry. Its passage is a testament to what can be achieved by working together across the aisle - instead of labeling all members of the opposing political party as enemies who need to be taken out back and put down.
Even with Wednesday's vote, we're not sure if the Nebraska Legislature gave an horse racing one more shot at the prize - or if their efforts will only help serve up a dying industry on a platter to banks and creditors who are always chomping at the bit. The bill itself still needs to be voted on, and we have doubts it'll even get out of the gate.
What we do know is that those senators who voted in favor of the amendment did it in an attempt to save and create jobs, while many of those who voted against the amendment let their unproven fears of gambling stampeding throughout Nebraska drive their decision making.
In an economy still trying to shake off the memories of the last few years, we'll place our bets with those willing to try and save local jobs, over those driven by fear, just about every time.
Because the kind of horse race we're talking about today has nothing to do with Mitt or Rick or Newt. And while we may be talking about the shifting winds of technology and industry, we're not talking about that blowhard Rush Limbaugh either.
We're actually talking about horseracing, as an industry - one that like so many industries, is struggling to stay alive, relevant, and affordable in 2012 and beyond.
Like so many industries - including the media industry we work in - technology has made things both easier and harder in the horse racing industry. Tracks in some states - like some in New York and New Jersey - have used new technology like remote track and historical racing to bolster and even improve the status of the horse racing industry in their states. Tracks in those states have also added other kinds of digital gambling, like video lottery terminals.
Those two states are the exception, though - not the rule.
From Maryland, to Kentucky, to Florida and Nebraska, horse racing has been on a long slide, like many other American industries. Like so many other industries, the costs of the business have just kept rising, while the profit on the business just isn't there anymore.
So, like many other short-sighted business sectors in America, those who own the horse racing industry have closed facilities, cut back amenities, cut back staff, and cut wages and benefits whenever they could. Unsurprisingly, the austerity business plan of cutting everything hasn't led to better profits for the horse racing industry any more than it's led to successful economic recoveries in Europe, or at the state level in many American states.
So-called "free market conservatives" always claim that when an industry is on a severe decline, what's needed to bring the industry back to life is innovation.
That's exactly what the horse racing industry in Nebraska has been attempting to do with an amendment to a bill before the state legislature. The amendment went through heavy debate for two days this week. Folks like well-known Nebraska Republican Scott Lautenbaugh - the sponsor of the bill - teamed up with powerful Nebraska Democrats like Health Mello, Amanda McGill, and Danielle Conrad to fight for its passage.
Opponents were worried the bill would expand gambling temptations in Nebraska. Supporters were hoping that it might expand opportunities back to what they once were in Nebraska for horse racing fans - and in doing so, keep or even create a few more jobs.
The amendment passed last night, around 7:30 - by a nose, as they say in the horse racing industry. Its passage is a testament to what can be achieved by working together across the aisle - instead of labeling all members of the opposing political party as enemies who need to be taken out back and put down.
Even with Wednesday's vote, we're not sure if the Nebraska Legislature gave an horse racing one more shot at the prize - or if their efforts will only help serve up a dying industry on a platter to banks and creditors who are always chomping at the bit. The bill itself still needs to be voted on, and we have doubts it'll even get out of the gate.
What we do know is that those senators who voted in favor of the amendment did it in an attempt to save and create jobs, while many of those who voted against the amendment let their unproven fears of gambling stampeding throughout Nebraska drive their decision making.
In an economy still trying to shake off the memories of the last few years, we'll place our bets with those willing to try and save local jobs, over those driven by fear, just about every time.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Winning Is NOT The Only Thing... Period.
As we sit here still digesting and sifting through the results from last night's GOP Super Tuesday contests, some of the attitudes of certain candidates - as well as certain talking heads - lead us to focus on another story today, one that's been overlooked by many outside of sports media.
If you're not a rabid NFL fan, you might have missed the scandal that recently blew up in the face of the NFL. What we're talking about isn't cheating on football. It could just as easily be called death-ball, or stretcher-ball - or more accurately, bounty ball.
Put bluntly, NFL players were given bonus money for purposely injuring opponents, and even knocking them out of games.
The Saints' defensive coordinator, Gregg Williams, was the first person the investigation focused on, though it's now clear that several other teams, coaches, and players all broke the rules of the National Football League. They also violated the terms of their own player and coaching contracts, and the bylaws of the NFL Players Union.
To some people, this scandal in the NFL may not seem to be a surprise, any more than when politicians are caught cheating to win elections.
That, sadly, is our point - one that we've made a number of times in this space.
The attitudes that we've seen take over the GOP Presidential primaries and caucuses this year, and throughout politics - especially over the last few years - has been a take-no-prisioners, kill 'em all, win at all costs attitude, we've previously described as "Winner-ment". It's an attitude we've warned about for years, especially leading up to the 2010 midterm elections.
Sadly, over the last two years, we've been proven right - as anyone from any political background can see.
In 2010, the Republican Party did the same thing the New Orleans Saints did - whatever it took to win, ethics, morals, and legality be damned. Because of that attitude, the Republicans won, and won big in 2010. But what did they do with that win? Not one damn thing. Why? Because we don't have Winner-ments guiding the actions of our cities, states, and nations. We have GOVERNments.
That "winning at all costs" theory is one that's all too familiar to kids who break their parent's rules: As long as no one gets caught, no one will get in trouble, and no one will know, right?
Of course, in the case of the NFL, it's obvious people now know what happened - and people will get hurt. Players, coaches, and teams will be fined, likely to the tune of millions of dollars. Fans will have to see teams, coaches, and players they respected revealed as cheats & frauds. With suspensions and distrust, teams will likely underperform, and sell less tickets, harming the paychecks of everyone associated with the team.
Even if the Saints bounty scheme hadn't been discovered, don't think no one knew. As Gregg Easterbrook of ESPN recently reported, he saw the same game plan used in the NFL implemented by a high school coach in our DC area - injure the opponents and win at all costs. That coach obviously thought his methods were ok - and after all, his team won, so no harm, right? Except, of course, to the kids on the opposing team who were taken off the field on stretchers - and to the minds of the young men on the team who now think that the ends always justify the means.
To us, Easterbrook's integrity was damaged too, by not telling others what the high school coach did, and doing nothing with that knowledge.
The lesson from this NFL scandal - and the ongoing political battle - is the same: When we compete with one another, regardless of the contest, winning at all costs has the highest price of all.
If we don't have our integrity, winning isn't the only thing. In fact, it's not anything worth having.
If you're not a rabid NFL fan, you might have missed the scandal that recently blew up in the face of the NFL. What we're talking about isn't cheating on football. It could just as easily be called death-ball, or stretcher-ball - or more accurately, bounty ball.
Put bluntly, NFL players were given bonus money for purposely injuring opponents, and even knocking them out of games.
The Saints' defensive coordinator, Gregg Williams, was the first person the investigation focused on, though it's now clear that several other teams, coaches, and players all broke the rules of the National Football League. They also violated the terms of their own player and coaching contracts, and the bylaws of the NFL Players Union.
To some people, this scandal in the NFL may not seem to be a surprise, any more than when politicians are caught cheating to win elections.
That, sadly, is our point - one that we've made a number of times in this space.
The attitudes that we've seen take over the GOP Presidential primaries and caucuses this year, and throughout politics - especially over the last few years - has been a take-no-prisioners, kill 'em all, win at all costs attitude, we've previously described as "Winner-ment". It's an attitude we've warned about for years, especially leading up to the 2010 midterm elections.
Sadly, over the last two years, we've been proven right - as anyone from any political background can see.
In 2010, the Republican Party did the same thing the New Orleans Saints did - whatever it took to win, ethics, morals, and legality be damned. Because of that attitude, the Republicans won, and won big in 2010. But what did they do with that win? Not one damn thing. Why? Because we don't have Winner-ments guiding the actions of our cities, states, and nations. We have GOVERNments.
That "winning at all costs" theory is one that's all too familiar to kids who break their parent's rules: As long as no one gets caught, no one will get in trouble, and no one will know, right?
Of course, in the case of the NFL, it's obvious people now know what happened - and people will get hurt. Players, coaches, and teams will be fined, likely to the tune of millions of dollars. Fans will have to see teams, coaches, and players they respected revealed as cheats & frauds. With suspensions and distrust, teams will likely underperform, and sell less tickets, harming the paychecks of everyone associated with the team.
Even if the Saints bounty scheme hadn't been discovered, don't think no one knew. As Gregg Easterbrook of ESPN recently reported, he saw the same game plan used in the NFL implemented by a high school coach in our DC area - injure the opponents and win at all costs. That coach obviously thought his methods were ok - and after all, his team won, so no harm, right? Except, of course, to the kids on the opposing team who were taken off the field on stretchers - and to the minds of the young men on the team who now think that the ends always justify the means.
To us, Easterbrook's integrity was damaged too, by not telling others what the high school coach did, and doing nothing with that knowledge.
The lesson from this NFL scandal - and the ongoing political battle - is the same: When we compete with one another, regardless of the contest, winning at all costs has the highest price of all.
If we don't have our integrity, winning isn't the only thing. In fact, it's not anything worth having.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Dragging Them Down
We hope that by the end of today – which, by the way, is Super Tuesday in the GOP Presidential primary – that maybe the primary topic of political discussion in the U.S. won't be the insulting and slanderous behavior of a talk radio host. We'd even love to see the moment when Rush Limbaugh would honestly, truthfully, and unabashedly apologize, as Ed Schultz did when he crossed a similar line last year.
Of course, we'd also like to be able to eat 6,000 calories a day and look like slim, fit, Olympic-caliber athletes, but that ain't happening either.
We understand those of you who are tired of hearing about this controversy. There's plenty of other political news, including Super Tuesday news, and news about the White House and campaign funding. There's also news about how the rich are doing in this recovery – even news of yet another "Grand Bargain" budget attempt to Capitol Hill in our links for today.
There are still a few more things to say, however, about the Limbaugh comments, and what he continues to do about them– or not do.
Sadly, what the chattering classes in the media have been covering for the most part has been of no more substance than the usual horse race baloney that we've mostly eschewed this year. They've been focused on how many advertisers have permanently or temporarily left Limbaugh (fiftteen, as of this morning), and how many radio stations have dropped him (two so far, in Hawaii and Massachusetts).
From the right, the number of ad hominem defenses of Mr. Limbaugh have been too numerous to count. Most often the frothing, wild-eyed comments and defenses of Mr. Limbaugh have devolved into a "So's your old man" kind of defense - which Ed Kilgore of Washington Monthly points out simply can't work. Limbaugh himself blamed his actions on the political left, and trashed the advertisers who have chosen to leave him - which appears to us like the actions of either a coward or a madman.
In a nutshell, here's why people of many political backgrounds are still so angry - and deservedly so.
Rush Limbaugh chose to verbally attack and slander a non-public, semi-private woman, with misogynistic comments FIFTY-THREE TIMES, in three days, with more sideways insults on Monday. As someone who boasts regularly to be one of the best professionals that the media world has to offer, Rush acted like the most ignorant of amateurs.
He disrespected and/or caused significant headaches to the following: Ms. Fluke; women, in general; the people Rush works with directly, who will be directly affected by his actions; the people who work at Premiere Radio, and will be similarly affected; the advertisers, who he directly or indirectly represents; the HUGE number of Republicans he represents, who disagree with his misogynist comments; and last but not least, his family. He owes all of those people a heartfelt apology - which we doubt ANY of them will ever receive.
There ARE places for off-color comments in our U.S. media – for example, a private comedy club, on satellite radio, or on a pay cable channel. While we find some things at these places offensive, Americans still have the First Amendment. People like Rush can spew nearly any kind of trash he wants to in these venues - and we don't have to listen, watch, or be presented with "entertainment" like this if we choose.
The problem is, Mr. Limbaugh is more than just an "entertainer" as he's attempted to claim in his defense. Elected or not, he's effectively the head of the modern Republican party. He yanks the trunk, and the rest of the animal follows. That's exactly what America doesn't need. What America does need right now, more than ever, are at least two solid, strong, sane, honorable major political parties. Right now, we have one party that mostly - but not always - fits that label.
Instead of trying to fix this gulf in our political discourse, by advocating for a strong and respectful opposition party, Mr. Limbaugh chose to throw women, his co-workers, his employer, his advertisers, and even the political party he claims to support, under the proverbial bus. He trashed a young woman - and women in general - as a major political and media force, all in order to protect his ability to bully anyone he wants.
If you want to know who's really dragging down the American political system? Try looking at the rat who thinks he's too big to admit he's wrong.
***Full disclosure*** Members of our staff include an alumna of Georgetown, and an employee of Premiere Radio Networks, who is also Mr. Limbaugh's current employer.
Of course, we'd also like to be able to eat 6,000 calories a day and look like slim, fit, Olympic-caliber athletes, but that ain't happening either.
We understand those of you who are tired of hearing about this controversy. There's plenty of other political news, including Super Tuesday news, and news about the White House and campaign funding. There's also news about how the rich are doing in this recovery – even news of yet another "Grand Bargain" budget attempt to Capitol Hill in our links for today.
There are still a few more things to say, however, about the Limbaugh comments, and what he continues to do about them– or not do.
Sadly, what the chattering classes in the media have been covering for the most part has been of no more substance than the usual horse race baloney that we've mostly eschewed this year. They've been focused on how many advertisers have permanently or temporarily left Limbaugh (fiftteen, as of this morning), and how many radio stations have dropped him (two so far, in Hawaii and Massachusetts).
From the right, the number of ad hominem defenses of Mr. Limbaugh have been too numerous to count. Most often the frothing, wild-eyed comments and defenses of Mr. Limbaugh have devolved into a "So's your old man" kind of defense - which Ed Kilgore of Washington Monthly points out simply can't work. Limbaugh himself blamed his actions on the political left, and trashed the advertisers who have chosen to leave him - which appears to us like the actions of either a coward or a madman.
In a nutshell, here's why people of many political backgrounds are still so angry - and deservedly so.
Rush Limbaugh chose to verbally attack and slander a non-public, semi-private woman, with misogynistic comments FIFTY-THREE TIMES, in three days, with more sideways insults on Monday. As someone who boasts regularly to be one of the best professionals that the media world has to offer, Rush acted like the most ignorant of amateurs.
He disrespected and/or caused significant headaches to the following: Ms. Fluke; women, in general; the people Rush works with directly, who will be directly affected by his actions; the people who work at Premiere Radio, and will be similarly affected; the advertisers, who he directly or indirectly represents; the HUGE number of Republicans he represents, who disagree with his misogynist comments; and last but not least, his family. He owes all of those people a heartfelt apology - which we doubt ANY of them will ever receive.
There ARE places for off-color comments in our U.S. media – for example, a private comedy club, on satellite radio, or on a pay cable channel. While we find some things at these places offensive, Americans still have the First Amendment. People like Rush can spew nearly any kind of trash he wants to in these venues - and we don't have to listen, watch, or be presented with "entertainment" like this if we choose.
The problem is, Mr. Limbaugh is more than just an "entertainer" as he's attempted to claim in his defense. Elected or not, he's effectively the head of the modern Republican party. He yanks the trunk, and the rest of the animal follows. That's exactly what America doesn't need. What America does need right now, more than ever, are at least two solid, strong, sane, honorable major political parties. Right now, we have one party that mostly - but not always - fits that label.
Instead of trying to fix this gulf in our political discourse, by advocating for a strong and respectful opposition party, Mr. Limbaugh chose to throw women, his co-workers, his employer, his advertisers, and even the political party he claims to support, under the proverbial bus. He trashed a young woman - and women in general - as a major political and media force, all in order to protect his ability to bully anyone he wants.
If you want to know who's really dragging down the American political system? Try looking at the rat who thinks he's too big to admit he's wrong.
***Full disclosure*** Members of our staff include an alumna of Georgetown, and an employee of Premiere Radio Networks, who is also Mr. Limbaugh's current employer.
Monday, March 5, 2012
Liars And Cowards And Truthtellers Exposed
Unless you were totally focused on multiple types of basketball this past weekend, you likely heard about the ongoing saga of one of the biggest blowhards in media, Rush Limbaugh, and his slanderous attack on a Georgetown University law student. You may have even seen yet another slanderous attack aimed squarely at Bob Kerrey.
These two things are connected, though you may not see it at first.
Last week, for three days in a row, one of the most widely distributed extremist conservative political talk radio hosts in America, Rush Limbaugh, decided to slander and slam a private citizen, 30 year old, third-year Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke. Fluke had been asked by House Democrats to testify at their hearing on female contraception, which she proudly did, after initially being denied a chance to do so by House Republicans. Fluke probably would have slipped back into obscurity after her testimony, as a private advocate for women's rights and women's health care, if it weren't for Mr. Limbaugh.
Instead, last week, on one of the largest free public radio platforms in the world, Limbaugh attacked Ms. Fluke for standing up for her principles. Limbaugh brazenly slandered Ms. Fluke as a "slut" and a "prostitute" saying that she should be forced to make and distribute sex tapes if she wanted to receive contraception, and even questioning the honor and loyalties of her family.
At about the same time Limbaugh was spewing his misogynistic bile, former Nebraska Governor and U.S. Senator Bob Kerrey changed his mind, and decided he would, in fact, run for U.S. Senate from Nebraska. Within days of Kerrey's decision, GOP candidate and current Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning began running a campaign ad slamming and smearing Mr. Kerrey as a carpetbagger. Sadly, this wasn't new behavior for Bruning, as his cowardly big money backers had already run a smear campaign against Kerrey in January. This was weeks before the former Senator had ever made his decision to run again. [As we noted internally at that time, the extremist Republicans must be incredibly scared of Kerrey, if they were willing to spend campaign funds against Kerrey even before he got into the race.]
Both the attacks by Limbaugh, and those against Mr. Kerrey are examples of the desperation, gutlessness and complete lack of class that have come to typify modern extremist Republicans, driven by the unlimited funds of their corporate masters.
We feel it's critical to make a STRONG note that not all Republicans are as craven and arrogant as those we've been describing here.
Many Nebraskans - even many Republicans - seem willing to give Mr. Kerrey a fair look, as opinion pieces in the usually very conservative Kearney Hub and North Platte Telegraph displayed over the weekend. Further, Nebraskans who aren't acting like puppets controlled by the Super PACS of the right, know that Kerrey has continued to own property and businesses in Nebraska - and has continued to pay Nebraska taxes - throughout the time he worked in New York as President of New School University.
For those Nebraskans who remain as independent individualists, we hope they investigate ALL the Democratic and Republican candidates running for office - and ignore the garbage and lies being spread by outside, big-money interests. They are the REAL carpetbaggers here.
As for Mr. Limbaugh, he is already feeling some significant heat for his hubris, as seven major advertisers have pulled their ads from his show, and others are still considering doing so. Limbaugh did release a weak apology on his website Saturday - and then proceeded to slander Ms. Fluke further in the so-called apology.
We hope that Limbaugh's employer treats him no differently than MSNBC treated liberal talker Ed Schultz when he used the same insult against another female right-wing talk show host in 2011 – by giving him a minimum of a one week unpaid suspension. Since Ms. Fluke is technically a private citizen, unlike Schultz' target, we'd recommend at least two weeks for Limbaugh to cool his heels, shut his mouth, and think about how professionals are supposed to act.
As we've warned you several times already, hold onto your hats, folks - this is only March. The election is still nine months away, and we've got a feeling the motley crew behind these attacks have no other plans besides spreading hate and lies.
***Full disclosure*** Members of our staff include an alumna of Georgetown, and an employee of Premiere Radio Networks, who is also Mr. Limbaugh's current employer.
These two things are connected, though you may not see it at first.
Last week, for three days in a row, one of the most widely distributed extremist conservative political talk radio hosts in America, Rush Limbaugh, decided to slander and slam a private citizen, 30 year old, third-year Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke. Fluke had been asked by House Democrats to testify at their hearing on female contraception, which she proudly did, after initially being denied a chance to do so by House Republicans. Fluke probably would have slipped back into obscurity after her testimony, as a private advocate for women's rights and women's health care, if it weren't for Mr. Limbaugh.
Instead, last week, on one of the largest free public radio platforms in the world, Limbaugh attacked Ms. Fluke for standing up for her principles. Limbaugh brazenly slandered Ms. Fluke as a "slut" and a "prostitute" saying that she should be forced to make and distribute sex tapes if she wanted to receive contraception, and even questioning the honor and loyalties of her family.
At about the same time Limbaugh was spewing his misogynistic bile, former Nebraska Governor and U.S. Senator Bob Kerrey changed his mind, and decided he would, in fact, run for U.S. Senate from Nebraska. Within days of Kerrey's decision, GOP candidate and current Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning began running a campaign ad slamming and smearing Mr. Kerrey as a carpetbagger. Sadly, this wasn't new behavior for Bruning, as his cowardly big money backers had already run a smear campaign against Kerrey in January. This was weeks before the former Senator had ever made his decision to run again. [As we noted internally at that time, the extremist Republicans must be incredibly scared of Kerrey, if they were willing to spend campaign funds against Kerrey even before he got into the race.]
Both the attacks by Limbaugh, and those against Mr. Kerrey are examples of the desperation, gutlessness and complete lack of class that have come to typify modern extremist Republicans, driven by the unlimited funds of their corporate masters.
We feel it's critical to make a STRONG note that not all Republicans are as craven and arrogant as those we've been describing here.
Many Nebraskans - even many Republicans - seem willing to give Mr. Kerrey a fair look, as opinion pieces in the usually very conservative Kearney Hub and North Platte Telegraph displayed over the weekend. Further, Nebraskans who aren't acting like puppets controlled by the Super PACS of the right, know that Kerrey has continued to own property and businesses in Nebraska - and has continued to pay Nebraska taxes - throughout the time he worked in New York as President of New School University.
For those Nebraskans who remain as independent individualists, we hope they investigate ALL the Democratic and Republican candidates running for office - and ignore the garbage and lies being spread by outside, big-money interests. They are the REAL carpetbaggers here.
As for Mr. Limbaugh, he is already feeling some significant heat for his hubris, as seven major advertisers have pulled their ads from his show, and others are still considering doing so. Limbaugh did release a weak apology on his website Saturday - and then proceeded to slander Ms. Fluke further in the so-called apology.
We hope that Limbaugh's employer treats him no differently than MSNBC treated liberal talker Ed Schultz when he used the same insult against another female right-wing talk show host in 2011 – by giving him a minimum of a one week unpaid suspension. Since Ms. Fluke is technically a private citizen, unlike Schultz' target, we'd recommend at least two weeks for Limbaugh to cool his heels, shut his mouth, and think about how professionals are supposed to act.
As we've warned you several times already, hold onto your hats, folks - this is only March. The election is still nine months away, and we've got a feeling the motley crew behind these attacks have no other plans besides spreading hate and lies.
***Full disclosure*** Members of our staff include an alumna of Georgetown, and an employee of Premiere Radio Networks, who is also Mr. Limbaugh's current employer.
Friday, March 2, 2012
Friday Funday: In Like A Lion
Since we have readers all over the country - and frankly, all over the world - the old weather adage often associated with March doesn't quite hold up as a direct metaphor for what's gone on this week. Still, as a generalization, it's not too far off the mark.
It's been a good but extremely busy week, as far as news stories go. Changes that we noted Thursday will likely happen in the U.S. Senate later this year, meaning the prospect that extremist conservatives will take over the Senate are considerably less than they were on Monday.
Progressive and liberal Democrats also teamed up to beat back some truly draconian legislative moves from the far right this week, including the Blunt/Rubio Amendment in the U.S. Senate, and the worst parts of the invasive transvaginal ultrasound bill in Virginia. President Obama also signed a bill waiving the indefinite detention of Americans, and the Dow and NASDAQ both reached highs that haven't been seen since before the crash of 2008. Jobless figures also continued to tick down slightly, giving the U.S. the best employment numbers we've seen in four years.
The Governor of Maryland signed a marriage equality bill into law on Thursday, making Maryland the eighth U.S. state or territory - including DC - to make the civil contract of marriage available to all of its citizens.
Sadly, not everything about the week was great. That offensive Virginia ultrasound bill was modified, and passed. In Oklahoma, an insane version of the "personhood" bill - one that's more restrictive than the one voters soundly defeated in Mississippi last year - looks set to pass. Republican Senator Olympia Snowe also announced her retirement from Congress, which - as we mentioned previously - disappoints our entire staff.
Of course, there were some GOP Primary contests too - which many Republicans don't seem all that thrilled with.
There were some horrible storms and some sad deaths too, which we were also saddened to see this week. Tornados should not be happening in Nebraska or the Midwest at the end of February and the beginning of March. But then, as some continue to tell us, climate change is just a hoax.
Last, but not least, extremist conservative activist Andrew Breitbart died just after midnight on Thursday of this week - and we send our condolences to his family.
That last news event might surprise some of our readers, that we categorize it as a negative for the week. For those who know us it best, it shouldn't.
Professionally, Andrew Breitbart was a loudmouthed, abusive, arrogant, ignorant, petulant, rumor-fueled, inaccurate, needlessly offensive person who gave anyone involved with the professional media a bad name. His failure to have even common courtesy was legendary, even among some of the conservatives we know.
He also happened to occasionally show kindness and rarely would surprise someone with an positive and energetic attempt to share what he thought of as his professional expertise.
We cannot and will not forgive him for the disaster he made of some corners of the media world. That said, he also helped to bring the aggregation part of modern media out of the professional closet - and for that, he deserves some small praise.
We didn't know Mr. Breitbart personally. We do know he had a young wife, and four kids, and several friends who will miss him. Like some of those taken in the tornado damage in Missouri and Illinois this week, he died far too young - and that's a fate we don't wish on our most vile opposition.
As you can see, this was not a week for light news coverage. March truly did come in like a lion, in terms of the news stories that happened this week.
With that in mind, we hope the rest of the axiom also holds true, so that things might be just a bit easier at the end of the month. What can we say? Call us optimists.
It's been a good but extremely busy week, as far as news stories go. Changes that we noted Thursday will likely happen in the U.S. Senate later this year, meaning the prospect that extremist conservatives will take over the Senate are considerably less than they were on Monday.
Progressive and liberal Democrats also teamed up to beat back some truly draconian legislative moves from the far right this week, including the Blunt/Rubio Amendment in the U.S. Senate, and the worst parts of the invasive transvaginal ultrasound bill in Virginia. President Obama also signed a bill waiving the indefinite detention of Americans, and the Dow and NASDAQ both reached highs that haven't been seen since before the crash of 2008. Jobless figures also continued to tick down slightly, giving the U.S. the best employment numbers we've seen in four years.
The Governor of Maryland signed a marriage equality bill into law on Thursday, making Maryland the eighth U.S. state or territory - including DC - to make the civil contract of marriage available to all of its citizens.
Sadly, not everything about the week was great. That offensive Virginia ultrasound bill was modified, and passed. In Oklahoma, an insane version of the "personhood" bill - one that's more restrictive than the one voters soundly defeated in Mississippi last year - looks set to pass. Republican Senator Olympia Snowe also announced her retirement from Congress, which - as we mentioned previously - disappoints our entire staff.
Of course, there were some GOP Primary contests too - which many Republicans don't seem all that thrilled with.
There were some horrible storms and some sad deaths too, which we were also saddened to see this week. Tornados should not be happening in Nebraska or the Midwest at the end of February and the beginning of March. But then, as some continue to tell us, climate change is just a hoax.
Last, but not least, extremist conservative activist Andrew Breitbart died just after midnight on Thursday of this week - and we send our condolences to his family.
That last news event might surprise some of our readers, that we categorize it as a negative for the week. For those who know us it best, it shouldn't.
Professionally, Andrew Breitbart was a loudmouthed, abusive, arrogant, ignorant, petulant, rumor-fueled, inaccurate, needlessly offensive person who gave anyone involved with the professional media a bad name. His failure to have even common courtesy was legendary, even among some of the conservatives we know.
He also happened to occasionally show kindness and rarely would surprise someone with an positive and energetic attempt to share what he thought of as his professional expertise.
We cannot and will not forgive him for the disaster he made of some corners of the media world. That said, he also helped to bring the aggregation part of modern media out of the professional closet - and for that, he deserves some small praise.
We didn't know Mr. Breitbart personally. We do know he had a young wife, and four kids, and several friends who will miss him. Like some of those taken in the tornado damage in Missouri and Illinois this week, he died far too young - and that's a fate we don't wish on our most vile opposition.
As you can see, this was not a week for light news coverage. March truly did come in like a lion, in terms of the news stories that happened this week.
With that in mind, we hope the rest of the axiom also holds true, so that things might be just a bit easier at the end of the month. What can we say? Call us optimists.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Who's Worried More - And Who Should Be Worried?
There are times in life when we're happy to be wrong, and today - or rather yesterday afternoon - was one of those times. As we mentioned near the beginning of last month, we thought - with some disappointment - that former Nebraska Senator and Governor Bob Kerrey would choose not to run for his old job in the U.S. Senate again.
In case you missed it, Mr. Kerrey reversed himself yesterday, filing to run in Nebraska for the seat currently held by Ben Nelson. As we've mentioned several times in the past few months, the last time anyone did non-secret polling on a potential Kerrey versus Republican contender matchup, Kerry beat all the potential GOP candidates by surprising margins.
Bob Kerrey's news isn't the only thing shaking up the U.S. Senate, however.
Senator Olympia Snowe, from Maine - someone our entire staff has varying degrees of positive opinions on - has decided that she is retiring this year, saying that she's had it with the partisan gridlock and extremism in Congress right now.
Snowe is a Republican, and frankly a generally good legislator. While we haven't always agreed with every decision she's made, we've generally thought of her as the kind of Republican that many Nebraskans would appreciate. Or at least, as many Nebraskans used to appreciate in saner times.
We're not so sure even our fellow Nebraskans would appreciate Sen. Snowe anymore - especially those who vote Republican.
As a recently released study by distinguished political science professor Keith Poole proves, Democrats - both Liberals and Progressives - in Congress hold roughly the same general political perspectives they've held for almost fifty years. In fact, between moderates of either party, and the more extreme members of either party, Liberal Democrats in the U.S. Senate have held the most consistent sets of principles, over the last fifty years.
Republicans, on the other hand, have made a HARD turn to the right - both those who used to be considered moderate and the extremists of the GOP.
Poole took the voting record of all Democrats and Republicans in both the House and Senate since 1879, and plotted both parties on a graph, on a liberal to conservative axis. Since 1980, when the extremists who now control the Republican party first began to come out of the metaphorical woodwork, Republicans in Congress have made a distinct and serious turn away from bipartisanship and in favor of strict ideological dogma.
In short, the average moderate Republican member of Congress now holds the same set of views as the extremist members of the far-right John Birch society did almost forty years ago.
Meanwhile, more conservative, moderately progressive Democrats - like Bob Kerrey - are only slightly more liberal than they were in 1970, if at all.
When it comes down to the facts, we're not trying to play with anyone's head, or play with the facts. Bob Kerrey is running for the U.S. Senate. That's a fact. Olympia Snowe is leaving the Senate. That too is a fact.
The American people are also about where they were, ideologically, forty years ago, if not further to the political left. Meanwhile, the GOP is fielding a group of candidates who are so extreme this year, Ronald Reagan himself would not likely have voted for most of them.
So the question we ask you, our readers today, is simple. Which major political party really should be worried about the 2012 elections?
In case you missed it, Mr. Kerrey reversed himself yesterday, filing to run in Nebraska for the seat currently held by Ben Nelson. As we've mentioned several times in the past few months, the last time anyone did non-secret polling on a potential Kerrey versus Republican contender matchup, Kerry beat all the potential GOP candidates by surprising margins.
Bob Kerrey's news isn't the only thing shaking up the U.S. Senate, however.
Senator Olympia Snowe, from Maine - someone our entire staff has varying degrees of positive opinions on - has decided that she is retiring this year, saying that she's had it with the partisan gridlock and extremism in Congress right now.
Snowe is a Republican, and frankly a generally good legislator. While we haven't always agreed with every decision she's made, we've generally thought of her as the kind of Republican that many Nebraskans would appreciate. Or at least, as many Nebraskans used to appreciate in saner times.
We're not so sure even our fellow Nebraskans would appreciate Sen. Snowe anymore - especially those who vote Republican.
As a recently released study by distinguished political science professor Keith Poole proves, Democrats - both Liberals and Progressives - in Congress hold roughly the same general political perspectives they've held for almost fifty years. In fact, between moderates of either party, and the more extreme members of either party, Liberal Democrats in the U.S. Senate have held the most consistent sets of principles, over the last fifty years.
Republicans, on the other hand, have made a HARD turn to the right - both those who used to be considered moderate and the extremists of the GOP.
Poole took the voting record of all Democrats and Republicans in both the House and Senate since 1879, and plotted both parties on a graph, on a liberal to conservative axis. Since 1980, when the extremists who now control the Republican party first began to come out of the metaphorical woodwork, Republicans in Congress have made a distinct and serious turn away from bipartisanship and in favor of strict ideological dogma.
In short, the average moderate Republican member of Congress now holds the same set of views as the extremist members of the far-right John Birch society did almost forty years ago.
Meanwhile, more conservative, moderately progressive Democrats - like Bob Kerrey - are only slightly more liberal than they were in 1970, if at all.
When it comes down to the facts, we're not trying to play with anyone's head, or play with the facts. Bob Kerrey is running for the U.S. Senate. That's a fact. Olympia Snowe is leaving the Senate. That too is a fact.
The American people are also about where they were, ideologically, forty years ago, if not further to the political left. Meanwhile, the GOP is fielding a group of candidates who are so extreme this year, Ronald Reagan himself would not likely have voted for most of them.
So the question we ask you, our readers today, is simple. Which major political party really should be worried about the 2012 elections?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)