Courtesy of Lee Stranahan - Huffington Post
There were plenty of cowardly votes in the House Saturday night but there was only one truly brave one. The unsung hero of the night was Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich. Despite enormous pressure to support H.R. 3962, Rep. Kucinich did the right thing and voted 'no'. Unlike the Blue Dog votes against the bill, he did it for all the right reasons.
In a principled and practical statement, Rep. Kucinich said what a growing number of progressives have realized as we've watched real health care reform be compromised again and again.
During the debate, when the interests of insurance companies would have been effectively challenged, that challenge was turned back. The "robust public option" which would have offered a modicum of competition to a monopolistic industry was whittled down from an initial potential enrollment of 129 million Americans to 6 million. An amendment which would have protected the rights of states to pursue single-payer health care was stripped from the bill at the request of the Administration. Looking ahead, we cringe at the prospect of even greater favors for insurance companies.
Personally, I supported President Obama in the primaries and the election but do not support him on this corporate giveaway built on broken campaign promises. I voted for the Barack Obama who opposed the individual mandate, who said the negotiations would be televised on C-SPAN and who campaigned against backroom deals with PhARMA.
Conservatives have expressed outrage for months about the way the health care bill was handled. Their anti-government anger is misplaced because this lets the insurances and drug companies who really helped drive this bill off the hook. But I understand their sense that this bill was passed despite the people.
Progressives should be every bit as upset that President Obama lied to us to get his historic health bill. The citizens of this country did not have a seat at the table. Proponents of the Single Payer didn't have a seat at the table. Under the guise of health care reform, we watched as the insurance industry got a bill passed that entrenches and enriches them.
Don't let anyone fool you that this bill is a good start. It's got a poison pill "Public Option" that is designed to fail. As the brilliant RJ Eskow wrote recently about the House bill's public option,
The plan will have low enrollment and little power to negotiate, causing the CBO to state as fact what I've long considered possible: That the public option could become a dumping ground where private plans jettison sicker people, while lacking the efficiencies of scale or negotiating power to get better rates or administer itself more economically.
As a result, says the CBO, a public plan's premiums might be higher than private insurance. While the CBO's word isn't gospel, it's entirely possible that they're underestimating the cost of any "public option" we're likely to see this year. The likeliest political outcome, once the House and Senate bills are combined, is a non-robust "public option" with a state-by-state opt out. The CBO didn't consider the opt-out when it came up with its shocking (to some) estimate.
Even if it passes in its weak form, this Public Option will be the target of the GOP for years and they won't rest until it is dead. As the Public Option kicks into gear, they will find stories of 'rationing' and denial of care they can highlight, true or not. They will use the higher costs as proof of the Public Option's folly. They will grind away at the Public Option relentlessly but they will leave the Individual Mandate alone. If anything, once the Mandate is in place, the Republicans will make sure the insurance industry is 'free to compete' and unrestricted.
The corporate interests that spend millions to influence the media and both political parties want you to ignore Congressman Kucinich. Too many Democrats unwittingly help them. Don't be a patsy.
People like Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader and Michael Moore have been made pariahs by establishment Democrats. They have all been marginalized and made fun of...but check their records. They have been considered 'fringe' because they are telling us the truth about corporate abuses of power long before most of the rest of us catch up to the reality of what's happened.
If enough of us stand with Dennis Kucinich, maybe we'll actually get real health care reform. If we don't, maybe we don't deserve that reform.
Courtesy of Chris Edelson - Common Dreams
It's no coincidence that voters give Republicans such abysmal ratings. The Republican party stands for absolutely nothing other than the pursuit of power. For 30 years, the Republicans have claimed to stand for 3 things: (1) small government (2) family values and (3) strong national defense. They don't actually stand for any of these things, and it's not clear that they ever did.
The Republican party's failure has me thinking of a Seinfeld episode, the one where Kramer is upset about a Kenny Rogers Roasters restaurant featuring a bright neon sign that lights up his apartment at night. Jerry has an old college friend who winds up working as an assistant manager at the restaurant, and when Kramer hangs a banner from his restaurant protesting the chicken establishment, Jerry's friend remarks "that's not going to be good for business." Jerry responds "that's not going to be good for anyone".
That's how I feel about the intellectually bankrupt, hopelessly divided, and utterly unpopular entity known as today's Republican party. Some critics of the party see the party's failure as a good thing, but I think it's not going to be good for anyone. I'd much prefer to see a rational, functioning Republican party than today's embarrassing irrelevancy.
Not surprisingly, media insiders are missing the story. They are transfixed by gubernatorial elections in 2 states last Tuesday, and are talking up the idea of a Republican resurgence. They're losing sight of some central facts that are unaffected by Tuesday's elections:
The Republican party has a favorable rating of 23% and an unfavorable rating of 66%. (Democrats are at 42%-50%). Republicans in Congress have favorable-unfavorable ratings of 15% and 70% (Democrats are at 40-53). If this is a resurgent party that has captured the national mood, I'm Herbert Hoover.
It's no coincidence that voters give Republicans such abysmal ratings. The Republican party stands for absolutely nothing other than the pursuit of power. For 30 years, the Republicans have claimed to stand for 3 things: (1) small government (2) family values and (3) strong national defense. They don't actually stand for any of these things, and it's not clear that they ever did.
The small government myth Reagan and GW Bush loved to talk up their small government bona fides, but each spent like there was no tomorrow, running up unprecedented deficits and debt. Small government also seemed to get put aside when it came to the bedroom and privacy. Reagan and Bush both supported a constitutional amendment prohibiting abortion. Bush also supported a constitutional amendment prohibiting marriage equality for same-sex couples. Not exactly libertarian positions: in each case, the goal was to use government to enforce specific religiously based prohibitions on private activity. Bush did Reagan one better when it came to civil liberties. This champion of small government presided over an era of warrantless wiretapping, torture, and government-sponsored propaganda. (That last point is not my opinion, it was the conclusion of the Government Accountability Office.) Republicans cheered on Bush's campaign against civil liberties at every turn, arguing it was necessary to provide security. And then, when it became painfully clear that only government could save the mismanaged economy from the worst disaster since the Great Depression, Republicans couldn't line up quickly enough behind Bush to support government bailouts of failed corporations.
Family values-just a slogan Republicans have chattered on about family values for decades, but elected Republicans who fail to meet these standards often pay no political price. Mark Sanford, John Ensign, and David Vitter are just a few prominent Republicans who believe family values are only something you gush about when you want to fool voters into thinking that you're an old-time moralist committed to clean living and righteous indignation. Of course, when it comes to other peoples' families, especially gay and lesbian couples seeking to marry and raise families, it's time for a heavy dose of sanctimony.
Republican bungling of national defense The past three decades are filled with examples of disastrous decisions Republicans made that undermined our security, starting with Reagan's and the right wing's backing of the mujahideen in Afghanistan (they called them "freedom fighters", but it turned out their ranks included some guy named Osama Bin Laden). Reagan's administration also came up with the nifty idea of trading arms for hostages, which meant selling arms to Iran and using the proceeds to fund another merry band of freedom fighters in the mold of Paul Revere - the murderous contras. Once again, GW Bush would not be outdone. In August 2001, he brushed aside a memo warning of Bin Laden's determination to strike the United States. After the memo proved terribly prescient, Bush proceeded to invade a country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, diverting resources from going after the people who actually had attacked us. A National Intelligence Estimate explained that Bush's misguided decisions had left us less safe, and his administration handed over two unfinished, mismanaged wars to its successor.
If the Republican party does not actually stand for its supposed core principles, what does it stand for? Essentially, a very focused quest for power and the willingness to use smear tactics, lies, and fear in an effort to achieve that goal. Whether it's lying about death panels, health care coverage for undocumented immigrants, or President Obama's uncanny resemblance to Adolph Hitler, the Republicans and right wing have set new standards for indecency. Just as they've broken new ground, they always seem to go further-witness yesterday's anti-health care reform rally where elected Republican officials spoke to a crowd that included someone waving a sign reading "National Socialist Health Care: Dachau, Germany 1945" above a stack of piled corpses from a Nazi death camp. It might make some people feel better to dismiss this as an isolated example, but the Nazi comparisons are coming fast and furious, and elected Republicans are condoning or even joining in on the "fun".
Some progressives say-good, no problem. The Republican party is falling apart and rushing to back uninformed extremists who can't win elections--so be it. I see the logic, and in the short-term, the Sarah Palins and Doug Hoffmans of the world may be electoral losers. But so was Barry Goldwater in 1964. 16 years later, the Republicans nominated a presidential candidate who would have been too extreme in previous elections but won two easy victories in the 1980s. He was followed by the even more extreme George W. Bush. Pushing the envelope makes me nervous. Extremism starts to seem normal. We've already seen that with some of the over the top rhetoric-it has become commonplace for right wingers to denounce Obama and the Democrats as Nazis, Marxists, terrorists.
I don't want to take the chance that extremists who take over the Republican party, or perhaps establish a third party, might ultimately see electoral success. I would much prefer to see the few relative moderates who remain in the Republican party gain control, even if it makes the party more palatable to voters. Richard Lugar, Chuck Hagel, and even Olympia Snowe don't scare me. Mike Huckabee, Michelle Bachmann, Dick Armey, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sarah Palin do. The latter group is aiming to make the extreme mainstream. Some are doing it for ideological reasons, others may be exploiting fears simply because they see a path to victory. Either way, the lack of a functioning media is allowing these extremists to pass themselves off as mainstream, and that's not good for anyone.
Courtesy of Robert Fisk - Independent.uk/Common Dreams
Could there be a more accurate description of the Obama-Brown message of congratulations to the fraudulently elected Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan? First the Palestinians held fair elections in 2006, voted for Hamas and were brutally punished for it - they still are - and then the Iranians held fraudulent elections in June which put back the weird Mahmoud Ahmadinejad whom everyone outside Iran (and a lot inside) regard as a dictator. But now we have the venal, corrupt, sectarian Karzai in power after a poll far more ambitiously rigged than the Iranian version, and - yup, we love him dearly and accept his totally fraudulent election.
And now we are still trying to persuade his opponent to join a national unity government, an administration led by the man whose vote-stuffing was the very reason that same leader of the opposition - the good pseudo-Pashtun Abdullah Abdullah - refused to run in a second round of elections. And Karzai got his fawning congrats from the Obama-Brown twins. So that's OK then. Wagons Ho. For Westmoreland, read McChrystal. Send in the brave 40,000 to join the rest of the US cavalry as it fights its way west - or rather south-west - to the Khe Sanh of Afghanistan in Year Eight of the War on Terror.
The March of Folly was Barbara Tuchman's title for her book on governments - from Troy to Vietnam-era America - that followed policies contrary to their own interests. And well may we remember the Vietnam bit. As Patrick Bury, a veteran British soldier of our current Afghan adventure, pointed out yesterday, Vietnam is all too relevant.
Back in 1967, the Americans oversaw a "democratic" election in Vietnam which gave the presidency to the corrupt ex-General Nguyen Van Thieuman. In a fraudulent election which the Americans declared to be "generally fair" - he got 38 per cent of the vote - Thieu's opponents wouldn't run against him because the election was a farce.
In 1967, Washington needed the elections to give legitimacy to this revolting dictator - and thus provide credibility to its own military occupation of Vietnam in the war against Communism. As in Vietnam - where Saigon was a lonely kingdom of brutal power totally isolated from the rest of the country - Karzai is going to rule over an equally tiny island of corruption, protected by US mercenaries while the Americans perform their familiar role of propping up a dictator.
As ex-Lieutenant Bury sagely points out, the Afghan war is "campaigning on a par with the 19th-century British colonial army trying to manage the unwinnable... What was or is the strategy behind these long, bloody conflicts?" Well, in 1967, it was the possible communisation of Laos, Cambodia and Thailand. Now it is Pashtunistan, Baluchistan, Waziristan. For us, the vast ignorant "plebes", it's supposed to stop the Taliban/al-Qa'ida beasts from attacking our looming towers all over again, albeit that the 2001 murderers in question largely hailed from that friendly, moderate, brutal, oligarchical monarchical dictatorship called Saudi Arabia where - thank the good gods - they don't hold elections.
But it's part of a dreary pattern. US forces were participating in a civil war in Vietnam while claiming they were supporting democracy and the sovereignty of the country. In Lebanon in 1982, they claimed to be supporting the "democratically" elected President Amin Gemayel and took the Christian Maronite side in the civil war. And now, after Disneyworld elections, they are on the Karzai-government side against the Pashtun villagers of southern Afghanistan among whom the Taliban live. Where is the next My Lai? Journalists should avoid predictions. In this case I will not. Our Western mission in Afghanistan is going to end in utter disaster.
Courtesy of DOUG THOMPSON - The Rant - Capitol Hill Blue
Put 300-plus miles on my motorcycle Saturday, riding mountain roads and stopping only for gas and to view the beauty of a country that I love, have served, and now appear doomed to mourn.
On my Harley, I'm removed from the mind-numbing tsunami of political propaganda of cable TV, Internet chatter and radio rancor.
While traversing winding roads through the Blue Ridge, I have neither the time nor the desire to deal with the mediocrity of partisanship and ponder why too many have lost the ability to display an outmoded concept of independent thought and rational political discourse.
At one time, I actually hoped we as a nation could rise above the partisan blather and put a nation's soul ahead of political demagoguery. I had hoped we could place the interests of society ahead of narrow-focus political pandering.
Alas, I tilted at another windmill. Perhaps the average citizen, numb from a constant barrage of propaganda from both sides of the philosophical spectrum can no longer overcome the single-minded hypnotic state of partisan political posturing. Perhaps open-minded, rational debate is no longer possible in a nation controlled by anger and intolerance for differing viewpoints.
Political dogma demands one-sided, blind acceptance that one side must always be superior to the other. To the left, anything conservative is evil and a lie. To the right, the left lies and wants to ruin the country. Of course, neither extreme is true. To those who accept the broadcast half-truths of Glenn Beck on the right or Keith Olbermann on the left, there cannot be two sides to an issue.
In a world of political spin, truth becomes irrelevant, even arcane. In a partisan political world, compromise is a sign of weakness and coalitions cannot exist.
I've been a player in this game for more than four decades -- both as a journalist and as a political operative. In those 40 years, I've watched America become more divided, more partisan and less willing to put love of country above petty political interests. I've watched rich special interests become the ruling class because they, and they alone, have the money, resources and power to control our elected officials.
I've learned that a society that places unearned importance on party labels and identification is a society headed for destruction. America today is not progressive, but regressive, retreating into fears and stereotypes of the past that, unfortunately, will drive the anger and intolerance of the future.
I stopped at an overlook on the Blue Ridge Parkway and chatted with a couple from New Zealand who are nearing the end four months of touring our country on a BMW 1200 RS bike.
"You know, yours is a nation of passionate beliefs and each of you wants that belief to be dominant and controlling," said Alex Case. "We learned early on in our tour not to disagree."
He looked at a small sticker on the back of my helmet. It says: "I'm not a Democrat. I'm not a Republican. I'm an American. There is a difference."
"Didn't meet many who would agree with that sticker," he said.
Deidre Case said they ran into a lot of people over the past four months who proudly and passionately told she and her husband that they were a Democrat or a Republican but very, very few who displayed any similar passion as simply an American.
As they rode off, I looked out over the panoramic beauty of the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, a pastoral scene that seems so calm and serene from 3,000 plus feet.
As I fired up the Harley and headed down the mountain and back into the reality of America, I found myself humming the tune of an old Joni Mitchell song, Big Yellow Taxi:
"They took all the trees
Put 'em in a tree museum
And they charged the people
A dollar and a half just to see 'em
Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got
Till it's gone
They paved paradise
And put up a parking lot"
Courtesy of msnbc.com
WASHINGTON - It hurts more to be unemployed now than the last time the jobless rate hit 10 percent.
Americans have more than triple the debt they had in 1982, and less than half the savings. They spend 10 weeks longer off the job. And a bigger share of them have no health insurance, leaving them one medical emergency away from financial ruin.
For these reasons, the unemployed are more vulnerable today to foreclosure and bankruptcy than they were a generation ago.
Donald Schenk knows. He's been without work both times. It's worse now, he says.
Back in the early 1980s, when Schenk lost his job at a phone company, he was able to find several temporary jobs — including one testing pinball machines — to make ends meet until he landed full-time work nearly two years later.
But now Schenk, 55, of the Chicago suburb of Schaumburg, Ill., has been seeking work for a year and a half after losing his information technology job. Potential employers aren't interested "if you are not a perfect fit," he says.
The unemployment rate hit 10.2 percent in October. All told, 15.7 million Americans are out of work. Add in workers forced to settle for part-time work or those who have simply given up looking, and the rate is 17.5 percent.
Better in some ways
Only twice since World War II has unemployment topped 10 percent — now and from September 1982 to June 1983. In a few respects, life is better today for the unemployed than it was then.
Unemployment benefits are more generous, adjusted for inflation, and the Internet allows jobseekers to network, scan for openings and apply without leaving home.
And thanks in part to higher home values, Americans are worth more now. Measured in 2009 dollars, net worth comes to about $173,000 per person, compared with $94,000 in 1982, according to Lynn Reaser, president of the National Association for Business Economics.
Even if the average American has a larger cushion to fall back on, times are tough.
A much larger share of jobs these days — more than four out of five — are in the service sector, such as tax preparers, hair stylists and retail clerks. Those jobs generally pay less and offer fewer benefits than blue-collar manufacturing work.
Manufacturing, which typically offers more generous benefits, accounts for less than 9 percent of payrolls today — down from 19 percent in 1982.
Back then, the United Auto Workers persuaded the Big Three auto companies to pay up to 95 percent of the gap between a laid-off worker's unemployment benefits and what he or she made on the job.
But since the decline of the size and influence of unions, "that would be inconceivable today," says University of Illinois professor Michael LeRoy, who studies unions.
Unemployment also squeezes families tighter these days because they are less conservative about how they spend and save.
Far greater debt loads
People carry an average of about $46,000 in debt — mortgages, credit cards, auto loans and other consumer debt. That's a far bigger load than in 1982, when per capita debt totaled about $14,000 in today's dollars.
And savings, as a percentage of after-tax income, was only 2.7 percent last year, down from 10.9 percent in 1982. Americans stashed an average of just $940 last year, compared with $2,537 in 1982. That helps explain why the foreclosure rate runs about seven times higher today.
Not surprisingly, that means more Americans — about three times as many — are going bankrupt.
Lawrence Mishel, president of the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute, says the ripple effects of the rising unemployment rate will be felt for years. He predicts the poverty rate for children will rise to 27 percent in 2011, from 18 percent in 2007.
"It will scar a generation of kids," he says.
If you're unemployed today, the odds are better that you'll stay unemployed longer than a generation ago.
And government surveys suggest that if you get laid off, it's more likely to be for good. Today's unemployed have been out of work about half a year on average. In the early 1980s, they spent about four months without jobs.
One reason is that industries such as construction and finance may never bulk back up to pre-recession levels. Even before the economy went south, demand for their products was inflated by the housing bubble.
Layoffs more permanent
Another reason layoffs are more permanent: Manufacturers these days are more aggressive about using technology to boost productivity — or they hire cheaper workers overseas as the economy improves.
Schenk, who is drawing unemployment aid, has managed to stay up-to-date on his mortgage and credit card payments, but at a significant cost to his financial future. "I'm burning through my savings," he says. "And the next thing I'll dip into is my retirement account."
Because he does not have health insurance, Schenk's financial pressures would grow dramatically if he became injured or sick. The Census Bureau says about one in four unemployed people have no insurance, compared with about one in five in 1987.
Schenk also lacked insurance when he lost the phone company job in the '80s. But he was younger then, and less concerned about his health. This time around, he paid for health coverage through the government's COBRA program. But that has run out.
The government program lets today's workers keep their insurance for 18 months after a layoff. But the premiums can be steep — up to $1,137 a month for families and $410 for individuals.
The federal stimulus program provides subsidized coverage for up to nine months for those who meet certain income thresholds. After that, they must pay the full cost.
Flimsier safety nets
For those who lose jobs today, the safety net is much flimsier.
Layoffs have forced some older workers into retirement, yet fewer of them can fall back on traditional pensions that pay a steady monthly sum. Only 11 percent of active workers have a traditional pension, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute. That's down from 50 percent in 1982.
Instead, more workers today have 401(k)-type retirement plans. But those have suffered huge hits in this downturn. The Standard & Poor's 500 index fell as much as 57 percent earlier this year from its October 2007 peak and is still down about 32 percent.
Schenk, who has had dozens of jobs interviews, says it's a struggle to remain upbeat and to keep searching. He knows for sure that one bad economic indicator is higher nowadays than a generation ago: He worries more.
"Back then it seemed like certain jobs were hit and you could still find those short little gigs," Schenk says. "This time it hit everything."
Courtesy of FRANK RICH - The New York Times
FOR all cable news’s efforts to inflate Election 2009 into a cliffhanger as riveting as Balloon Boy, ratings at MSNBC and CNN were flat Tuesday night. But not at Fox News, where the audience nearly doubled its usual prime-time average. That’s what happens when you have a thrilling story to tell, and what could be more thrilling than a revolution playing out in real time?
All eyes were glued on Doug Hoffman, the insurgent tea party candidate in New York’s 23rd Congressional District. A “tidal wave” was on its way, said Sean Hannity, and the right would soon “take back the Republican Party.” The race was not “even close,” Bill O’Reilly suggested to the pollster Scott Rasmussen, who didn’t disagree. When returns showed Hoffman trailing, the network’s resident genius, Karl Rove, knowingly reassured viewers that victory was in the bag, even if we’d have to stay up all night waiting for some slacker towns to tally their votes.
Alas, the Dewey-beats-Truman reveries died shortly after midnight, when even Fox had to concede that the Democrat, Bill Owens, had triumphed in what had been Republican country since before Edison introduced the light bulb. For the far right, the thriller in Watertown was over except for the ludicrous morning-after spin that Hoffman’s loss was really a victory. For the Democrats, the excitement was just beginning. New York’s 23rd could be celebrated as a rare bright spot on a night when the party’s gubernatorial candidates lost in Virginia and New Jersey.
The Democrats’ celebration was also premature: Hoffman’s defeat is potentially more harmful to them than to the Republicans. Tuesday’s results may be useless as a predictor of 2010, but they are not without value as cautionary tales. And the most worrisome for Democrats were not in Virginia and New Jersey, but, paradoxically, in the New York contests where they performed relatively well. That includes the idiosyncratic New York City mayor’s race that few viewed as a bellwether of anything. It should be the most troubling of them all for President Obama’s cohort — even though neither Obama nor the national political parties were significant players in it.
But first let’s make a farewell accounting of the farce upstate. The reason why the Democratic victory in New York’s 23rd is a mixed blessing is simple: it increases the odds that the Republicans will not do Democrats the great favor of committing suicide between now and the next Election Day.
This race was a damaging setback for the hard right. Hoffman had the energetic support of Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Fox as well as big bucks from their political auxiliaries. Furthermore, Hoffman was running not only in a district that Rove himself described as “very Republican” but one that fits the demographics of the incredibly shrinking G.O.P. The 23rd is far whiter than America as a whole — 93 percent versus 74 — with tiny sprinklings of blacks, Hispanics and Asians. It has few immigrants. It’s rural. Its income and education levels are below the norm. Only if the district were situated in Dixie — or Utah — could it be a more perfect fit for the narrow American demographic where the McCain-Palin ticket had its sole romps last year.
If the tea party right can’t win there, imagine how it might fare in the nation where most Americans live. Some G.O.P. leaders have started to notice. Mitt Romney didn’t endorse Hoffman despite right-wing badgering to do so. On Wednesday, Michael Steele dismissed the right’s mantra that somehow Hoffman’s loss could be called a victory and instead talked up the newly elected Republican governors who won by appealing to independents and moderates. Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell are plenty conservative, but both had rejected Palin’s offers to campaign for them. They also avoided the tea party zanies, the fear-mongering National Organization for Marriage and the anti-abortion-rights zealots Hoffman embraced. They positioned themselves as respectful Obama critics, not haters likening him to Hitler.
In the aftermath of this clear-cut demonstration of how Republicans can win, the revolutionaries are still pledging to purge the party’s moderates by rallying behind more Hoffmans in G.O.P. primaries from Florida to California. And they may get some scalps. But Tuesday’s loss revealed that they’re better at luring freak-show gawkers into Fox’s tent than voters into the G.O.P.’s. As if to prove the point, protesters hoisted a sign likening health care reform to Dachau at the raucous tea party rally convened by Michele Bachmann on Capitol Hill on Thursday.
Should the G.O.P. avoid self-destruction by containing this fringe, then the president and his party will have to confront their real problem: their identification with the titans who greased the skids for the economic meltdown from which Wall Street has recovered and the country has not. If there’s one general lesson to be gleaned from Christie’s victory over Jon Corzine in New Jersey, it’s surely that in today’s zeitgeist it’s less of a stigma to be fat than a former Goldman Sachs fat cat, even in a blue state.
Michael Bloomberg’s shocking underperformance in New York was an even more dramatic illustration of this animus. Tuesday’s exit polls found that he had a whopping 70 percent approval rating, as befits a mayor who, whatever his quirks and missteps, is widely regarded as a highly competent, nonideological executive who has run the city well. Yet only 72 percent of those who gave him a thumb’s up voted for him. Though the mayor wildly outspent and out-campaigned his bland opponent, Bill Thompson, he received only 50.6 percent of the vote.
This shortfall has been correctly attributed to Bloomberg’s self-serving, highhanded undoing of the term limits law he had once endorsed. The ferocity of the public reaction to this power grab surprised him, pollsters and the press alike. That it became a bigger deal than anyone anticipated — arguably bigger than it merited — is an indicator of how much antipathy there is toward the masters of the universe in the financial capital. Americans don’t hate rich people, but they do despise those who behave as if the rules don’t apply to them. “Michael Bloomberg is About to Buy Himself a Third Term” was the cover line on New York magazine in October. However unfairly, some voters conflated his air of entitlement with the swaggering Wall Street C.E.O.’s who cashed out before the crash and stuck the rest of us with the bill.
The Obama administration does not seem to understand that this rage, left unaddressed, could consume it. It has pushed aside the entreaties of many — including Paul Volcker, the chairman of the White House’s own Economic Recovery Advisory Board — to break up too-big-to-fail banks. Those behemoths, cushioned by the government’s bailouts, low-interest loans and guarantees, are back making bets that put the entire system at risk. Yet last Sunday, we once again heard the Treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, on “Meet the Press” dodging questions about the banks in general and Goldman in particular with unpersuasive bromides. “We’re not going to let the system go back to the way it was,” he said.
Surely he jests. On Monday morning, a business-savvy Democratic senator, Maria Cantwell of Washington, publicly questioned Geithner’s fitness for his job, given his support of loopholes in proposed regulations of the derivatives that enabled last year’s collapse. On Tuesday, Congressional Democrats, with the White House’s consent, voted to gut the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the post Enron-WorldCom law passed in 2002 to prevent corporate accounting tricks and fraud. Arthur Levitt, the former Securities and Exchange Commission chairman, told me on Friday it was “surreal” that Democrats were now achieving the long-held Republican goal of smashing “the golden chalice” of reform. If investors cannot have transparency, Levitt said, “the whole system is worthless.”
The system is going back to the way it was with a vengeance, against a backdrop of despair. As the unemployment rate crossed the 10 percent threshold at week’s end, we learned that bankers were helping themselves not just to bonuses as large as those at the bubble’s peak but to early allotments of H1N1 vaccine. No wonder 62 percent of those polled by Hart Associates in late September felt that “large banks” had been helped “a lot” or “a fair amount” by “government economic policies,” but only 13 percent felt the “average working person” had been. Unemployment ranked ahead of the deficit and health care as the No. 1 pocketbook issue in the survey, with 81 percent saying the Obama administration must take more action.
The tea party Republicans vanquished on Tuesday have no jobs plan. They just want to eliminate all Washington spending — a prescription that didn’t go down too well in New York’s 23rd, where the federal government has the largest payroll. The G.O.P. establishment’s one-size-fits-all panacea is tax cuts — thin gruel for those with little or no taxable income. The administration’s answer is the stimulus, whose iffy results so far, it argues, can’t be judged this early on.
Fair enough. But a year from now the public will register its verdict in any event. Meanwhile, both parties have their own delusions, not the least of which is the Republicans’ conviction that Tuesday was a referendum on what Obama has done so far. If anything, it was a judgment on just how much he has not.
Courtesy of Dave Lindorff - OpEdNews
As the strike by transit workers in Philadelphia enters its fifth day, it is clear why unions have such a tough time in the United States, where fewer than one in eight workers is covered by a union contract.
Although the average pay of transit workers is just $50,000 a year (that represents take-home pay of less than $35000 take-home after taxes or about $3000 a month to live on for a typical family of four), the suburbanites who feel put out because they have to brave huge traffic jams to get to and from work in the city are grousing that the transit workers are greedy for holding out for a slightly-less-than 4% per year pay increase over the three years of their contract.
I just got into a debate at the local YMCA gym with an older guy who probably makes over $100,000 a year and whose children are already grown, who was incensed that the "greedy bus and subway drivers" were asking for a raise at this time "with the economy in such a mess."
But I also noticed, as I drove my son into school this week in the traffic crush, that these same suburbanites are, for the most part, continuing to drive to work one to a car. What a lack of creativity!
My wife, who frequently travels to Rome to do research, has on several occasions landed in that city during one of its frequent transit strikes. She reports that the people of this ancient city take these job actions in stride, getting out their bicycles, taking leisurely walks to school, or simply going on holiday for the duration. People don't get mad at the workers. In Italy, it's understood that when one group of workers fights for better pay or working conditions, everyone benefits in the end.
This fellow I was arguing with about the Philly transit strike, said, "It's not like this is the 1920s or '30s, when unions were really needed because people were being exploited."
"Oh really?" I said. "You don't think the workers at Wal-Mart or in your local supermarket are being exploited?" The truth is that working conditions for American workers have been getting progressively worse in recent years, while pay has actually been falling in real dollars, because union representation has been falling for several decades from a high of over 35% back in the early 1950s. Those unions, like the transit workers union in Philadelphia, which are still fighting the good fight, are really all that stands between ordinary American workers and a truly nightmarish return to a Dickensian era.
Does anyone believe that the type of manager that we have seen pillaging the economy on Wall Street, or stealing jobs and already earned pay from workers at Republic Window & Door in Chicago, is an exception to the rule? Hell no. American managers are congenitally ruthless exploiters of human beings constrained only by unions or their fear of unions, and by the protective legislation, such as minimum wage laws, occupational safety and health laws, etc., which Congress has grudgingly passed because of the pressure from unions and their workers.
We should all be cheering the workers of the Transport Workers Union Local 234 in Philadelphia for their grit and determination in standing up to the management of the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority. Their fight is our fight. They like us are struggling to pay rent or mortgage bills, to buy food for their families, and to pay their medical bills.
Workers all around the Philadelphia area should be organizing car-pools, getting their bikes out of the garage, and collectively telling their own bosses to cut them some slack if they're late to work or have to stay home for the day because of the strike.
We should also all be writing letters condemning the bias of the local media in Philadelphia, which have as a group focused entirely on the hardship to commuters caused by the strike, and not at all on the issues confronted by the transit workers themselves.
Furthermore, it is not the fault of the SEPTA workers in Philadelphia that bus and subway fares are too high. Nor is it their responsibility to accept low wages to subsidize lower fares. It is the responsibility of the state of Pennsylvania to keep those fares affordable. Mass transit cannot and should not be self-financing. It is a social good. It helps protect the environment by reducing air pollution from cars, reduces wear and tear on roadways, and helps reduce the nation's dependence upon oil imports.
Instead of complaining about the union for calling a strike, we should all be cheering them on. America needs more labor militancy, not less.
Courtesy of Manifesto Joe - ManifestJoesTexasBlues.blogspot.com
Rush Limbaugh, Obama, Ad Hominem, Ad Nauseum
One of the things that's remarkable about right-wingers is their chutzpah. Herr Rush Limbaugh, postmodern court jester for the Third Reich, may be the biggest, or at least the fattest, example.
Lardbaugh's latest outrage was his tirade last week against President Barack Obama. Huffington Post reported that:
During a rant in which he Limbaugh accused senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett of unfairly pressuring the Chamber of Commerce, the controversial radio host slammed Obama as "this little boy, this little man-child president whose primary job, if you will, in life has been leisure. This guy is more practiced at leisure than anything else."
You can view the video here.
Let's see, now. A "man-child president whose primary job ... has been leisure."
Perusing Wikipedia's biography of Lardbaugh, one notices things such as these:
Education
Limbaugh graduated from Cape Central High School, in 1969. His father and mother wanted him to attend college, so he enrolled at Southeast Missouri State University. He dropped out after two semesters and one summer; according to his mother, "he flunked everything", even a modern ballroom dancing class.[1] As she told a reporter in 1992, "He just didn't seem interested in anything except radio."[4]
It appears that Herr Lardbaugh's mouth, clearly hyperactive in more ways than one, has been his ticket to getting through life. He was no student then, and regarding his accuracy, the easiest job on the planet today would be a gig as his fact-checker.
Here's more from Wiki:
Draft status
Limbaugh's birthdate was ranked as 152 in the Vietnam War draft lottery. No one was drafted above 125. He was classified as "1-Y" (later reclassified "4-F") due to either a football knee injury or a diagnosis of Pilonidal disease.[1][5]
He came from a well-to-do family, lousy with lawyers. More from Wiki:
Limbaugh was born in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, the son of Mildred Carolyn "Millie" (née Armstrong), originally from Searcy, Arkansas, and Rush Hudson Limbaugh, Jr. His father was a lawyer and a World War II fighter pilot who served in the China-Burma-India theater. The name "Rush" was chosen for his grandfather to honor the maiden name of family member Edna Rush.[1] His family has many lawyers, including his grandfather, father and brother David. His uncle, Stephen N. Limbaugh, Sr. is a Ronald Reagan-appointed federal judge in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri and his cousin, Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., is currently a judge in the same court, appointed by George W. Bush. Rush Limbaugh, Sr., Limbaugh's grandfather, was a Missouri prosecutor, judge, special commissioner and served on Missouri's state House of Representatives from 1930 to 1932.[2] Limbaugh's grandfather was a longtime president of the Missouri Historical Society. Rush, Sr., died at age 104, and was still a practicing attorney at the time of his death. The Federal Courthouse in Cape Girardeau is named for Limbaugh's grandfather.
Let's see some more. He's been married, and divorced, three times. You wonder what's wrong when a guy as rich as he was born, and as filthy rich as he got later, just can't stay married. Does it have anything to do with the fact that he's a world-class misogynist asshole? Or maybe with his apparent need for 100-mg. Viagra pills?
More still: His weight problem has been obvious for decades. He's been addicted to illegal drugs (oxycodone and hydrocodone).
His racism has been on display regularly throughout his radio career. More from Wiki:
On March 19, 2007 Limbaugh referred to a Los Angeles Times editorial by David Ehrenstein which claimed that Barack Obama was filling the role of the "magic negro", and that this explained his appeal to voters.[39] Limbaugh then later played a song by Paul Shanklin, "Barack the Magic Negro," sung to the tune of "Puff the Magic Dragon".[40]
Here's Limbaugh on NFL star Donovan McNabb:
Sorry to say this, I don't think he has been that good from the get-go. I think what we've had here is a little social concern in NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well, black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve ...
[On "free trade"] If we are going to start rewarding no skills and stupid people, let the unskilled jobs, let the kind of jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do, let stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work.
Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?
There's plenty more along those lines. I'd say it calls into question his qualification to assess Barack Obama accurately in any way.
His misogyny is, of course, richly documented. Let's not leave out his homophobia:
The difference between Los Angeles and yogurt is that yogurt comes with less fruit.
And, let's not leave out his brazen hypocrisy:
I'm appalled at people who simply want to look at all this abhorrent behavior and say, "Hey, you know, we can't control it anymore. People are going to do drugs anyway. Let's legalize it." It's a dumb idea. It's a rotten idea, and those who are for it are purely, 100 percent selfish.
When you strip it all away, Jerry Garcia destroyed his life on drugs. And yet he's being honored, like some godlike figure. Our priorities are out of whack, folks.
There's nothing good about drug use. We know it. It destroys individuals. It destroys families. Drug use destroys societies. Drug use, some might say, is destroying this country. And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs, using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good because we know what happens to people in societies and neighborhoods, which become consumed by them. And so if people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought to be accused and they ought to be convicted and they ought to be sent up.
Finally, there's the matter of ego. The Pigman has depicted Obama as having a titanic one. Can he be serious? To wit, Lardbaugh's descriptions of himself:
Half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair.
Talent on loan from GOD.
When I think of Herr Lardbaugh, somehow another, very different metaphysical region comes to mind. Well, that's enough of this for now. Barack Obama, self-made sort of guy with a JD from Harvard Law, physically fit fellow, author, law professor, married only once and still married with two kids, etc., etc. ... he seems to have accomplished quite a bit for a man of such abundant leisure.
Contrast him with a fat, thrice-divorced, draft-dodging, ex-drug-addicted college dropout who is all opinions and no background, all prejudice and no facts, who has made a fortune with his mouth. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
USA Today NEWS
USA Today SPORTS
USA Today WEATHER
Notebooks, Desktops, Printers and More!
USA Today MONEY
USA Today LIFE
USA Today TRAVEL
"FORE...five...six...seven...."
Golf is a target game. Hitting that long drive is nice, but what truly makes an outstanding golfer is consistency. To be consistent shot after shot, you need a repeatable routine for aiming your club to the target. A good example of this comes from Camilo Villegas, one of the up-and-coming stars on the PGA tour. Below are the secrets to his routine, used before every shot for outstanding consistency.
Watching Camilo on the course, you'll notice he incorporates the shaft of his club when visualizing his target line. This signature contribution adds to this already very effective routine for producing consistently accurate golf shots:
STEP 1 • Stand behind the ball and visualize a line between the ball and your selected target. To help with this visualization, hold your shaft out in front of you vertically and close one eye so the shaft matches up with your visualized target line.
STEP 2 • Looking at your target, run your eye down the shaft in order to pick out a leaf or mark on the ground a foot or two in front of the golf ball and on your target line. This mark is very useful for the next step, as it's MUCH easier to aim your club at something close to your ball, versus a target over 150 yards away.
STEP 3 • Address the ball and aim the club head at your selected mark (and target line). The aiming indicator on all Thomas brand equipment works perfectly for this.
STEP 4 • The club is now aimed directly at the target. Align your body parallel to the target line and direction of the club head.
Once you do the above routine a few times, it starts to flow quickly and naturally. With your club and body aligned properly, you can continue with a proper swing and experience the significant advantage of increased consistency and shot accuracy.
If you have good Posture, Stance, and the correct club length, but you're still not a good ball striker; the solution could be simply checking the position of your golf ball.
If your ball position is too far forward in your stance (toward the foot closest to the target), this will cause the club to be released early. This early release will cause the shot to go left (for a right-handed golfer) and low, because the club's face will be closed at impact.
If the ball position is too far back in your stance, the club will not have enough time to release. The late release will cause the shot to go too high and right of the target line, because the club was still open when making contact with the golf ball.
If you are standing too far away from the golf ball, this can cause weak shots hit off the toe that go right of target. If you are standing too close to the golf ball, this can cause shanks.
Let's look at how ball position should very based on club type (playing from a flat lie):
• Short irons (wedges, 9-iron and 8-iron) should be played with a ball position in the center portion of your stance. These clubs have the most upright lie angles and must be swung at the steepest angle, so you should come down on the ball THEN take a divot.
• Middle irons should be played with the ball slightly forward of center (about one ball length). This means the ball will be slightly closer to the foot which is closest to the target. These clubs have a somewhat flatter lie angle than the short irons, so your divot should be slightly shallower.
• Long irons and fairway woods should be played with the ball about two ball lengths forward of center. With these clubs it will be more of a sweeping type action, with the ball being struck directly at the bottom of the swing arc with little or no divot.
• Drivers should be played farthest forward (about three ball lengths) in order to strike the ball on the upswing.
*Once you understand the proper ball position basics for each club type, you can personally fine-tune your positioning. Swing your club and see where it hits the ground and makes a mark in relation to your stance. Then place the ball at the beginning edge of that mark. This will give you the most consistent ball striking possibility, avoiding fat shots (club hitting ground first), or thin shots (bottom edge of the club hitting the middle or top of the ball).
When you watch professional golf events, you will often notice the pros utilizing a three-quarter golf shot. (This is when they swing about ¾ of the way on their backswing and ¾ of the way on their follow-through.) You’ll mainly see this when they hit second or third shots onto the green. The main reason for the abbreviated swing is distance control when they find they are “between clubs” if they were to take a full swing. The more control you have over your shot distance, the better your game will be.
Helpful hints for successfully utilizing this handy golf shot:
1. If you find yourself between clubs for the yardage needed, you should consider hitting a three-quarter shot. For example, if a full swing with the 9 Iron won’t get you there, use a three-quarter swing with the lower-lofted 8 Iron.
2. Place the ball closer to the center of your stance. This will help in contacting the ball at the bottom of your swing arc, creating the optimal strike.
3. Remember, you are only going to take your hands back to about shoulder height. A good key is to find the shaft pointing vertically to the sky at the top of your swing, then again after the follow through.
4. You will want to feel as though you are hitting the golf ball with your upper body/chest. This will help eliminate any “flipping” motion of the wrist through impact, which is often a cause of inconsistent golf shots.
5. On the follow-through, make sure you extend through the ball and finish with your belt-buckle facing the target and the shaft pointing to the sky.
* Mastering the three-quarter shot can be very beneficial, but keep in mind it is also more difficult than the regular feeling of a full swing, so it will require practice.
One of the biggest struggles among golfers is their inability to consistently make good contact with the golf ball. Despite his loss in this year's British Open playoff, it was very interesting to observe Tom Watson, who even at the age of 59 had great sucess due to very consistent ball striking. Practice is key – but there are also some particular things to keep in mind while on the course, or tuning your game on the range.
• One of the most common mistakes golfers make is swaying or “moving-off” the ball during the swing. Moving the body sideways or up-and-down is detrimental to hitting the ball consistently. Often you don't realize you're doing it until you ask someone to watch your head position during the swing.
-If you have a swaying problem (moving your body laterally), you need to make sure you keep your back knee flexed, and stationary. This knee should not straighten-up or move sideways on the backswing. It needs to remain stable and flexed. Keep the lower body movement to a minimum.
-If you are moving-off the ball vertically, remind yourself to keep your upper body at one level (always the same distance from the ground). Moving up and down off the ball causes numerous negative actions and counter-actions in the golf swing. A great mental tool to help with this is to imagine a pole running through your spine and into the ground, fixing your position in place. You'll need to maintain that position so the pole doesn't move or pop out of the ground until after you've made contact with the ball. Eliminating excessive body movement will greatly assist you in becoming a consistent ball striker.
• In addition to not moving or swaying off the ball, practicing your fundamentals (grip, stance and ball position) will give you the proper base for creating a consistent and repeatable golf swing which will produce consistent golf shots. Everything starts with good fundamentals. How is your grip? Are the “V's” formed between your thumb and index fingers parallel and aligned to your right shoulder (for a right-handed golfer – and vice versa for a left-handed golfer). Is the ball in the right position of your stance (not too far forward or too far back)? Are your hands slightly ahead of the ball at address (particularly when setting-up for iron shots)?
Back foot position is a frequently overlooked part of the golf setup, but this important fundamental can have a surprisingly huge impact on your swing and performance. Here is how to do it right and how it can benefit your golf game:
Your back foot should be perpendicular to your target line and not flared out like your front foot. If your back foot is not squared with the target line, it can create a number of problems:
A back foot that is flared open will promote over rotation of the hips and excessive weight shift. When your weight is over-shifted on your back swing, (outside the back foot), it becomes much more difficult to recover and swing back to the ball without hitting the shot fat or thin.
- Instead, set up with your back foot square to the target-line, and keep your weight on the inside of the back leg as you turn and rotate on the back-swing. This will prevent the hips from over turning and will lead to a more consistent and controled swing.
When your back foot is not perpendicular to the target line, your back leg will have less bracing strength. This will cause you to over-swing, where your leading arm will bend, resulting in a shorter swing arc with less club speed and power.
- Instead, set up with your back foot square to the target-line. This will give your back leg more bracing strength to deliver power into your swing.
Setting your back foot perpendicular to your target line will:
· Strengthen back leg bracing and increase stored up power in the backswing.
· Discourage over rotation of the hips and excess weight shifting.
· Lengthen your swing arc and increase club head speed.
· Generate a more repeatable back swing that will help increase shot consistency.
· Become part of your reliable routine to ensure you and your club are in proper alignment with the target line.
The Eyes Have It
You can improve your putting by proper use of your eyes during each stage of the putt; here’s how...
Eyes during setup: • When you set up to stroke a putt, one of the first things you must do is position your eyes over the golf ball and over your target line. Doing this will give you the best chance to start the ball headed on the target line.
• To help position your eyes over the ball, most putter heads have a top surface split into two separate elevations, with an indicator placed on each elevation. When used correctly, this mechanism ensures your eyes are directly over the ball.
• If your head/eyes drift outside or inside of the ball, the putter’s bi-level alignment indicators will no longer match up to each other, immediately indicating your eyes are not directly over the ball and target line. For example, if your putter has two indicator lines on the upper level and an indicator on the bottom level, you know your eyes are positioned correctly over the ball and target line when the indicator on the lower level appears between the two lines on the upper level.
Eyes during the stroke:
• Keep your eyes on the ball and over the target line during the stroke.
Eyes after contact:
• Keep your eyes over the target line during the stroke. If you have to peek toward the hole, try your best to only swivel your head down the target line rather then lifting your head, as this will change your spine angle and move your head off the target line.
• Try your best to keep your eyes over the target line by holding your focus on the grass that was under the ball, even long after contact. You’re not going to improve the putt by watching it roll, so don’t be in a rush to look up.
The Key to Eliminating Your Slice
Making a proper “full shoulder turn” is one of the most important fundamentals of the golf swing, yet it's one of the most common mistakes made by golfers; and why so many have slice problems. A proper shoulder turn is when you rotate the shoulders so the leading shoulder comes under your chin, without letting your hips turn much at all. Below we explain the ways this eliminates the slice:
• If your shoulder rotation is stopped too early, your arms will tend to continue by fling across the target line and causing an outside-to-inside swing path, resulting in the dreaded banana-ball. A full shoulder turn will help the club fall “on plane”, which greatly reduces the chance of cutting across the target line and slicing the golf ball.
• A full shoulder turn will promote proper weight shift. Remember too keep your lower body from moving laterally. Do not confuse the full shoulder turn as meaning you must get the club back to parallel at the top of the swing. Many great golfers have a compact swing that comes up far short of parallel at the top, but all great golfers take a full shoulder turn when executing a full shot.
• A full shoulder turn will bring you to the top of the swing and assist in getting the hands and arms into proper position.
• Keep your chin up and off your chest so the leading shoulder can rotate and pass under the chin. If the shoulder hits your chin, it will cut the shoulder rotation short and encourage a slice.
• When a golfer does not utilize a full shoulder turn, they tend to rely more on the small muscles (hands and arms) to swing the golf club. This leads to inconsistent ball striking and shots prone to slicing. With a full shoulder turn, you will use more of your big muscles, which are much more consistent, and help you square the club face and avoid a slice. Don’t be in a rush; taking the club back slow will help you to finish the back swing with a full shoulder turn. More body, less arms.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment