Sometimes, one silly statistic can tell you everything you need to know...and probably more than you want to:
Defense Secretary Gates recently noted that the military has more people in its marching bands than the State Department has diplomats.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Not the Shabab!!! Anything but that! Or wait, maybe that's good?!
I read, either in my hands or online, 2-3 newspapers a day as well as 3-4 magazines monthly and many news-related websites daily, so I like to think I'm pretty up on current events. But when I see news stories, in this case in the New York Times, where this is the headline, it makes me want to try to be less aware of things going on in the world, rather than more so:
Militant Alliance Adds to Somalia’s Turmoil
An insurgent commander in the semiautonomous region of Puntland has pledged his loyalty to the Shabab, which recently set off a bomb in Uganda
Militant Alliance Adds to Somalia’s Turmoil
An insurgent commander in the semiautonomous region of Puntland has pledged his loyalty to the Shabab, which recently set off a bomb in Uganda
Friday, July 23, 2010
First there was Whitewater, now there's Whitewash
Lest we forget the facts, which have a way of changing through the miracle of political spin - from Paul Krugman:
"Last week Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, declared that “there’s no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue, because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy.” So now the word is that the Bush-era economy was characterized by “vibrancy.”
I guess it depends on the meaning of the word “vibrant.” The actual record of the Bush years was (i) two and half years of declining employment, followed by (ii) four and a half years of modest job growth, at a pace significantly below the eight-year average under Bill Clinton, followed by (iii) a year of economic catastrophe. In 2007, at the height of the “Bush boom,” such as it was, median household income, adjusted for inflation, was still lower than it had been in 2000.
But the Bush apologists hope that you won’t remember all that. And they also have a theory, which I’ve been hearing more and more — namely, that President Obama, though not yet in office or even elected, caused the 2008 slump. You see, people were worried in advance about his future policies, and that’s what caused the economy to tank. Seriously.
On the deficit: Republicans are now claiming that the Bush administration was actually a paragon of fiscal responsibility, and that the deficit is Mr. Obama’s fault. “The last year of the Bush administration,” said Mr. McConnell recently, “the deficit as a percentage of gross domestic product was 3.2 percent, well within the range of what most economists think is manageable. A year and a half later, it’s almost 10 percent.”
But that 3.2 percent figure, it turns out, is for fiscal 2008 — which wasn’t the last year of the Bush administration, because it ended in September of 2008. In other words, it ended just as the failure of Lehman Brothers — on Mr. Bush’s watch — was triggering a broad financial and economic collapse. This collapse caused the deficit to soar: By the first quarter of 2009 — with only a trickle of stimulus funds flowing — federal borrowing had already reached almost 9 percent of G.D.P. To some of us, this says that the economic crisis that began under Mr. Bush is responsible for the great bulk of our current deficit. But the Republican Party is having none of it."
"Last week Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, declared that “there’s no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue, because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy.” So now the word is that the Bush-era economy was characterized by “vibrancy.”
I guess it depends on the meaning of the word “vibrant.” The actual record of the Bush years was (i) two and half years of declining employment, followed by (ii) four and a half years of modest job growth, at a pace significantly below the eight-year average under Bill Clinton, followed by (iii) a year of economic catastrophe. In 2007, at the height of the “Bush boom,” such as it was, median household income, adjusted for inflation, was still lower than it had been in 2000.
But the Bush apologists hope that you won’t remember all that. And they also have a theory, which I’ve been hearing more and more — namely, that President Obama, though not yet in office or even elected, caused the 2008 slump. You see, people were worried in advance about his future policies, and that’s what caused the economy to tank. Seriously.
On the deficit: Republicans are now claiming that the Bush administration was actually a paragon of fiscal responsibility, and that the deficit is Mr. Obama’s fault. “The last year of the Bush administration,” said Mr. McConnell recently, “the deficit as a percentage of gross domestic product was 3.2 percent, well within the range of what most economists think is manageable. A year and a half later, it’s almost 10 percent.”
But that 3.2 percent figure, it turns out, is for fiscal 2008 — which wasn’t the last year of the Bush administration, because it ended in September of 2008. In other words, it ended just as the failure of Lehman Brothers — on Mr. Bush’s watch — was triggering a broad financial and economic collapse. This collapse caused the deficit to soar: By the first quarter of 2009 — with only a trickle of stimulus funds flowing — federal borrowing had already reached almost 9 percent of G.D.P. To some of us, this says that the economic crisis that began under Mr. Bush is responsible for the great bulk of our current deficit. But the Republican Party is having none of it."
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Are you listening Harry? Nancy? BARACK?!
This just in from the Dailykos.com:
Dems jump ahead in new poll
Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 09:06:03 AM PDT
Democrats have taken a significant lead over Republicans in the latest congressional Gallup Poll:
Democrats pulled ahead of Republicans, 49% to 43%, in voters' generic ballot preferences for the 2010 congressional elections. The Democrats' six-point advantage in Gallup Daily interviewing from July 12-18 represents the first statistically significant lead for that party's candidates since Gallup began weekly tracking of this measure in March.
It's just one poll, but it's a big jump and it makes sense in light of last week's events. In a strong economy, conservative scapegoating of the millions of Americans laid-off might work. But with record, long term unemployment, most voters know someone whose job prospects and finances are desperate to grim. In that environment, protecting the Bush's tax cuts for the super-wealthy and obstructing critical unemployment benefits for the desperate just might be coming home to roost for the GOP. Not to mention, conservatives lecturing the nation about debt is like Bristol Palin lecturing nuns about birth control.
Let's see, when is the last time we saw a significant jump in the ratings of Dems? How about when they/we passed the health care reform bill. So when Dems lead by passing Democrat-inspired legislation, the overall approval of the Dems from the country is remarkably positive!
Stop giving in to the Rs on everything you alleged leaders of the party. Get moving on the things we believe in and for which we voted you into power (!) for either of two reasons - take your pick:
1 - You only have so much time before November when you will lose the majority or certainly the current extent of the majority in the House and Senate you now hold,
Or
2 - If you keep pushing these things through, maybe you'll actually hold or extend your levels of strength in the corridors of power.
Dems jump ahead in new poll
Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 09:06:03 AM PDT
Democrats have taken a significant lead over Republicans in the latest congressional Gallup Poll:
Democrats pulled ahead of Republicans, 49% to 43%, in voters' generic ballot preferences for the 2010 congressional elections. The Democrats' six-point advantage in Gallup Daily interviewing from July 12-18 represents the first statistically significant lead for that party's candidates since Gallup began weekly tracking of this measure in March.
It's just one poll, but it's a big jump and it makes sense in light of last week's events. In a strong economy, conservative scapegoating of the millions of Americans laid-off might work. But with record, long term unemployment, most voters know someone whose job prospects and finances are desperate to grim. In that environment, protecting the Bush's tax cuts for the super-wealthy and obstructing critical unemployment benefits for the desperate just might be coming home to roost for the GOP. Not to mention, conservatives lecturing the nation about debt is like Bristol Palin lecturing nuns about birth control.
Let's see, when is the last time we saw a significant jump in the ratings of Dems? How about when they/we passed the health care reform bill. So when Dems lead by passing Democrat-inspired legislation, the overall approval of the Dems from the country is remarkably positive!
Stop giving in to the Rs on everything you alleged leaders of the party. Get moving on the things we believe in and for which we voted you into power (!) for either of two reasons - take your pick:
1 - You only have so much time before November when you will lose the majority or certainly the current extent of the majority in the House and Senate you now hold,
Or
2 - If you keep pushing these things through, maybe you'll actually hold or extend your levels of strength in the corridors of power.
In fact, I'll bet none of them even read this!
Republicans seem to complain an awful lot about reading. They complain about having to read the Health Care Reform bill. They complain about having to read the Financial Reform Bill.
It does help me understand one thing though: Now I know why they've paid so little attention to the Constitution.
It does help me understand one thing though: Now I know why they've paid so little attention to the Constitution.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Evangelicals once again realizing they may have (should have) more in common with us Ds than with them Rs
Instead of copying and pasting this entire story, I'll just add the link here and say that the last time I read an article like this was in reference to the environment and solidarity with then-candidate Obama on the part of young middle american evangelicals who felt the old guard church leaders were out of step with reality, at least in this case in terms of protecting the enviroment. That was the first time I thought Obama had a real chance to win the election.
This article makes me think legitimate immigration reform may have an actually chance of happening. I'll write more about this when I have time, hopefully later this week.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/19/us/politics/19evangelicals.html?_r=1&th&emc=th
Here's an excerpt: "“My message to Republican leaders,” said the Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, the president of the evangelical National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference and one of the leaders who engaged his non-Hispanic peers, “is if you’re anti-immigration reform, you’re anti-Latino, and if you’re anti-Latino, you are anti-Christian church in America, and you are anti-evangelical.”
About 70 percent of Hispanics in the United States are Catholic, but some 15 percent are evangelicals, and they are far more likely than the Catholics to identify themselves as conservative and Republican."
This article makes me think legitimate immigration reform may have an actually chance of happening. I'll write more about this when I have time, hopefully later this week.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/19/us/politics/19evangelicals.html?_r=1&th&emc=th
Here's an excerpt: "“My message to Republican leaders,” said the Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, the president of the evangelical National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference and one of the leaders who engaged his non-Hispanic peers, “is if you’re anti-immigration reform, you’re anti-Latino, and if you’re anti-Latino, you are anti-Christian church in America, and you are anti-evangelical.”
About 70 percent of Hispanics in the United States are Catholic, but some 15 percent are evangelicals, and they are far more likely than the Catholics to identify themselves as conservative and Republican."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)