Higher Education Will Struggle Through the Recession

Yours is the second post that has said it's an unfair comparison - but I don't think you offer a very compelling case to prove your case.



Are there differences? Of course. Above, I noted where grade and high schools have a TOUGHER time teaching than universities, so I won't repeat them again.



The schools (6 have kitchens) have to provide lunches. Since not all kids buy lunch, they have staff and facilities, but low utilization. Meals are partially subsidized by state and school taxes. Even in my semi-affluent suburb, there are plenty of kids that get free meals at school (and they're probably the only meals some of these kids get!).



So there is overhead in that regard in local public schools, invalidating your implicit contention that college meal provisions are a unique burden to them.



REGARDLESS... I'm not comparing colleges to urban or rural schools. I'm comparing the author's suggestion that the 'real costs' of a college education are more than double the $30k+ tuition to the costs for education in MY school district. My district has known costs (readily available through the state and district). It has almost 5,000 kids. I think that's a reasonable enough basis for a very fair comparison indeed.



I would welcome your posting of links to recommended studies on this subject - provided they aren't self-serving studies inked to help colleges justify or obfuscate their budgets and spending practices.
About Recession
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Chris Matthews Eviscerates Neocon Frank Gaffney: "4,000 People Are Dead Because Of The Way You Feel" (VIDEO)

What cheney and this douche gaffney are essentially admitting is that they are as stupid and illogical as they are evil. The arrogance needed to go into the public eye and say these things after so many facts have materialized is just shocking.



Even though we know there are evil people in the world, it's still absolutely stunning to see it - and have it demonstrated with such indignation and vulgarity just never seems to lose its punch.
About Video On HuffPost
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

'Fairness Doctrine' Advocate Identified

Sorry, but I don't think your plan can work. I think the answer is to provide some program with benefits such as press credentials to Federal facilities (including military), first responder, and national events. Laws should force elected/appointed officials to grant interviews to reporters in the program. Lapdog reporters get interviews by lobbing softballs. Somehow we need to force officials to face the press with no preconditions.



To qualify, an organization wishing to join must commit to things like:



* No convicted felons as on-air personalities,

* References for all stories published/broadcast must be displayed for reasonable time,

* Erroneous or incorrect details in any story or editorial will result in fines (paid by the reporters) and the publisher/station must run a corrected version of the story 4-times as often and as long as the frequency of the original (if fix news repeats a lie 30 times, they have to tell the truth in a corrected story 120 times).

* Editorials and "in-depth analysis" can never be associated with "news." Any program, like oreilly, hannity, et. al., must be correctly labeled as editorials - and the amount of time and space allotted to it must be limited to a small percentage.



The latter will effectively kill off the neocon lapdogs.



Not a be-all, end-all, but I think these steps are a better start than a ratings system because a ratings system will take a monstrous amount of effort to manage and referee.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

On Healthcare Reform Stimulating the Economy: The Massachusetts Example

Yes, but you can conjure a list of 'people won't want to give up "x"' when you talk about ANYTHING that is in one condition today and there is a suggestion to change it tomorrow.



Simple example - people didn't want to "give up" SUVs until about a year ago - even knowing the wasteful and uneconomical design. Then when they finally get a snootful of reality in the form of $3 per gallon gas, they can't get rid of them fast enough.



In other words, we can't skip over the only real solution that addresses the external stresses on the health care system because there are people too f00lish to realize that they are f00lish.



Given the fact that many people have learned some lessons the hard way recently, the mood of some stalwart naysayers may be different today. So I think you over-exaggerate the 'danger' of people not "wanting to give up" their health care system. For those who kick and scream, too bad. When my kids were 2 and screamed in the store, I dragged them along with me. This is how we have to deal with immature folks who can't grab hold of reality.



Build the right system that will be most cost-effective. In the end, we need the grownups to come through with a new structure that will transition us away from almighty "capitalism" (i.e. corporations vs. consumers) which has proved to be an utter failure for Americans.
About Health
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Democrats Supporting, GOP Ready To Fight Obama's Public-Works Initiative

Obama's making me nervous with this. Demanding that states rush into spending money on infrastructure is a horribly bad idea. It's a practice that has resulted in massive waste already over the last 6 years.



We've sunk hundreds of millions into slapdash "solutions" for national security by way of federal grants after the homeland defense color code system was adopted (priorities...). If some actual planning and thought occurred, it would have been FAR FAR more effectively spent. As it is, whatever ideas were on the table when the money wagon rolled down the street were funded - and many had virtually nothing to do with security.



Bridges should be repaired/replaced - not blindly added to. More lanes = more maintenance and upgrade costs in the future. It is a purely unsustainable approach that was ignored before because we were told that future technology innovations would SURELY reduce these costs over time. After 40 years, it's still oil and stones or concrete... and more expensive than ever.



EVERY reasonable rail and light rail project should take precedence over highway projects. Only exception are bridge repairs.



This is the time to truly FIX transportation problems - not continue doing the same "planning" and building that has fed unsustainable sprawl development and destruction of urban centers. Let's not just throw $500 billion in the air for the sake of the economy, we can't keep throwing more lanes at people complaining about traffic. It's good money after bad.
About President Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

What Obama's New CTO Should Do

Well, all that high-minded generality - though loaded with completely groundless assertions like "Sophisticated use of technology in education would boost student achievements and reduce the drop out rate" - makes for stirring classroom banter, but fails to address the problems that have prevented access to technology in the US and the world.

Let's see, we have frivolous patent management and enforcement ("one-click purchasing" via a web page is one of the spectacular examples of this insane hubris), network infrastructure is owned by carriers in the US who charge significantly more for the privilege of using it than almost any other industrialized country (even though billions of tax breaks drove its construction), and megalithic corporations exercise anti-competitive tactics (forced obsolescence by abdicating "support" among others) to help extract usurious license fees for software "upgrades" which deliver virtually no value at all to the owners - all of which absolutely crush innovation, exact the equivalent of a "technology tax" on the public, and is massively geared almost exclusively toward stockholder enrichment and, therefore, intrinsically opposed to your altruistic aspirations.

Much has been written about these issues so I won't even try to encapsulate in a 250-word comment.

In short, you ignore reality with your toast to technology.

Or are you a paid shill for the entrenched industries' interests?
About President Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Was Marx Right? The Bailout and the Auto Industry

"Maybe what we're seeing is the 'obsolesence of middle-class labor', not its commodification."



Nonsense. Although it may look like that, it's because the design of the "free trade" and "global market" is to perpetually move manufacturing to the lowest bidder. This is not necessarily evil at face, but in practice, it frequently is. If it weren't cheaper to get 'thrown-away' kids in India or impoverished Chinese to hand stitch soccer balls, then technology might be used in the US to stitch soccer balls. It's lowest cost production - period.



Besides, if it were middleclass obsolescence, then the world's markets will soon implode. This is easily the logical result when there are only a few highly skilled (i.e. 'people making good incomes') and masses of "unskilled labor" (i.e. 'people with little or no income') in the economy. The only market that can be served by business enterprises are those few with wealth. In short, too few consumers to support an economy.



Since that can't hold, we're going to have to tip the scales back and force the wealthy away from the current parasitic (and yes, the wealthy are the parasites, feeding off the less powerful) to a more symbiotic relationship - because the rich are too pig ignorant to realize that their dream world is totally unsustainable. Not realizing this fact has led to many nation's demise.
About Economy
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Fire the Brain-F'd Andy Reid NOW! (updated)

Since the day that grunty turd rolled through the door, I've expected nothing but disaster. Other than the miracle of a horrible NFC East for a few years, I haven't been surprised by anything that's gone on in Philly after Reid was given the castle.

The man strikes me as a text-book sociopath - his first decision was to filter callers to the "Andy Reid Show" on radio. Why is that a horribly bad omen? Well, you're coming into Philadelphia where fans are passionate and loud in their support and their criticism - and your first act is to throttle their voices?!?! The question that was first on my mind was, "Are you nuts?" Then I started to assemble the answer pretty quickly, "Yes, he is nuts."

I've told my friends and acquaintances this for years. All I get from the non-Philly fans is, "All the guy does is win and you complain." Well, I still see the list of Super Bowl winners doesn't include the Eagles. And the vaulted Championship games that we lost were miserably coached debacles, management mismatches that are clear to any observer.

My way, my rules, my words, my system, my players - mine, me, me. In short, fat boy is a classic "control freak." And all control freaks have one common and inevitable destiny: failure.

And don't think the situation with his older boys (they're both doing time) isn't related directly. If you can't see this guy being the "you colored outside the lines," tear up the coloring book, and stomp away type of father, then maybe you haven't met any. One kid out of 3 in a family being completely unable to function as a law-abiding "adult" isn't outrageous, but he's 2 for 2 so far. Not a coincidence.

Here's an high-level outline of the typical odyssey for those of you who haven't been around a control freak. This is how it works in every type of organization, not just a football team:

1. Inspire confidence (you've got a plan!). Freak was brought in because things were bad and those still there are hopeful and want to improve the organization.
   
2. Get pretty good results early. People are motivated and inspired to achieve.
3. Suggestions to improve things from motivated 'underlings' come in. They are politely "seriously considered"... but really ignored for the most part.
4. Impatient 'underlings' leave as it starts to become clear that the freak won't listen. "Yes men" brought in to replace them, which helps stop the flow of questions and suggestions to the freak in charge.
   
• "Leaders" whose words are not fully under control of the freak are cut loose - or their lives are made so miserable that they don't want to be in the environment any more and leave on their own volition.
  
5. The 'underlings' start shutting down their critical thinking. The more submissive have been beaten enough when they'd previously opened their mouth that they just go through their paces, making no fuss, doing only as told. No innovation, no adaptation, no inspiration - just more tight adherence to the freak's wishes. The "yes men" grate on many people's nerves.
6. Eventually, the reality that the freak can't do it all and do it all well, starts to crash down on the freak. Fingerpointing erupts as the freak can't and won't believe that s/he is capable of doing anything wrong. Therefore, the problems must be because of crappy underlings! The freak starts to appear crazy(ier) because s/he is getting crazier.
7. Blame game lasts as long as the freak is allowed to stay in control. Bunker mentality grows. Freak attempts to lure some people (often the "yes men") into his corner to help him/her fight the infidels, so in public there are a few loyalists who throw scapegoats under the bus while the resentment of others who just want to get their job done soars.
8. Conclusion: Bottom falls out, resulting in organizational failure - or the freak and his/her bunker mates are replaced.

I think it's safe to say we're almost at the end with Andy Reid.

The Eagles need to fire Reid and his entire administration now. That way, the stockpiled picks for next year can be put to good use to rebuild. If you wait until after the season, it may take too long to prep for the draft.

And maybe we should think about hiring someone who isn't a nutbag as head coach.... just a suggestion...

Update Nov. 24, 2008 - 10:22
Former Eagles linebacker and Philly-based sports journalist Gary Cobb writes today that the answer to the question, 'who is calling the offensive plays for the Eagles' is a secret. Yes, a secret! G might as well point to my post here,specifically to point #6. If things were going well, it would surely not be a secret. Don't be surprised to hear that Reid will "take over" the play calling for Thanksgiving Day's game against the Cardinals.

Dean: Keeping Lieberman As Chairman Is Shrewd Move

Oh man, what a nauseating article at HuffingtonPost about Dean's love of the decision to keep lieberman in his chairman role for the next Congress. Many comments supported Dr. Dean, but they are not very logical, and in many cases, based on falsehoods. Some of my thread there.

OK bright-siders. Your arguments refuted:

1. lieberman cannot do more damage by caucusing with Rs. He won't have ANY POWER over there. He can vote against cloture as an R or a Dem, so no difference there. But after being voted chairman, he controls the agenda of the HL committee and can't be removed without getting past a filibuster to adopt a Senate resolution. Meaning, lieberman has all the leverage to do whatever he wants to do for 2 years and Dems have NO POWER to keep him from undercutting progressive initiatives, enabling his chickenhawk agenda.
2. Calling ouster "revenge" is wrong. It's pragmatic governance - something that still escapes our Dems in Congress. The chairs of important committees need to move on legislation that is in sync with the party's platform. lieberman has continuously maligned the platform, so why would you put someone in this position who'll actively oppose the platform that the country has demanded?!?! This is counter-productive.
3. CT has NO Republicans in congress in 2009. Why would lieberman want to become the "new" one? How will that help his re-election bid? How will voting partyline with the Rs help lieberman? It would be self-defeating come reelection time, make him look petty, and give the next Dem candidate in CT a huge advantage over him.
4. NO ONE can control what lieberman votes for or against. And no one ever should be able to control a vote in Congress - even for a joke like lieberman.
   Further, he's always done whatever he wants. He's had no concern for what anyone in the party might do to him when he's lied on the campaign trail against Obama, carried water for the bush administration when they wanted someone to brand the Dems as pussies for opposing the imperial agenda, and created his own party after being told by CT Dems to get out. So the whole notion that he can be under control, appeased, or in any way convinced to 'tow the party line' has a mountain of anecdotal evidence that conclusively proves the inverse.
   

In short, there is NO GOOD REASON to have kept lieberman in his chairman role. Quit apologizing for it!

Received a comment:
+ winnie47 See Profile I'm a Fan of winnie47 I'm a fan of this user permalink

NOT THE POINT, genius. It's not how much power he has. It's not about revenge. It's not about rubbing his nose in it. The point is to set a new tone in Washington, instead of descending into the pit that the Rethugs have governed from for the last eight years.

Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:34 PM on 11/18/2008

My reply:
Hey whiny, if you endanger your agenda, your values, and your ability to govern in order to set a tone, then you're unfit. Not to mention illogical, self-defeating, and clueless.

The POINT is to GOVERN. The POINT is to GET THE COUNTRY BACK on track. The POINT is to FIX a shattered government and country.

The POINT is to ACHIEVE. When you intentionally place impediments in the path, it is reprehensible and foolish. This isn't a tea cotillion, GENIUS, this is our COUNTRY! This is our FUTURE!

Another comment to me:
McChimp See Profile I'm a Fan of McChimp I'm a fan of this user permalink

To refute your points:

1) 1. lieberman cannot do more damage by caucusing with Rs.

On the contrary, that's what Republicans were hoping for, they were hoping that they would take lieberman's chair away so he would caucus with the Republicans, the Dems keeping Lieberman just threw another monkey wrench into their plans.

2. Calling ouster "revenge" is wrong.

That's essentially what it would be, revenge for Lieberman campaigning for McCain, and President elect Obama said he isn't having any of it. He made it very clear he wanted Lieberman to stay in the Dem caucus, even if it meant keeping his chairmanship.

Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:29 PM on 11/18/2008

My reply:
Refutation requires some facts.

What would the Rs gain by having lieberman? No one in either party can force any member to vote yay or nay on any legislation, so it doesn't mean anything at face. I've already shown how joining the Rs HURTS lieberman. Now YOU have to list what the GAIN(s) is.

Obama never said he wanted lieberman chair of the homeland security committee. Your premise is false - provide proof otherwise. And if you DO have proof, then I submit that it concurrently serves as proof that Obama is using some very poor judgment. There will be a knife in his back from lieberman before the end of July 2009 - mark my words.

[Note that mcchimp posted another comment claiming that if lieberman didn't tow the line, Reid would just kick him out. As mentioned before, this is false, as evinced here and elsewhere, proving that people in love with this solution are easily duped. Sad.]

Lieberman's Fate Looks Brighter By The Day

Nice article at HuffPo on what Dems will do with lieberman this week. And the comments to the post have turned back to the primary-season silliness that irks the hell out of me. So many people take a look at 20% of the picture and makes a conclusion that fails to address the whole problem - and the lieberman situation is no different.

This clown's history speaks for itself. He's a shameless, selfish stooge with the moral fiber of a neocon.

I see many at HuffPo waxing philosophic about 'keeping your enemy closer,' but the reality of the situation is this: he's NOT GONNA CHANGE!

When Obama announces plans to start drawing down troops in Iraq, lieberman will be on fux news for weeks, feeding the beast. After the first couple partyline votes in the Senate, lieberman will be on fux news for weeks, denigrating Dems and Obama's ability to bring change while casting no aspersion at all toward his true soul mates across the aisle. There will be other issues, too.

Why? Because he LOVES the ATTENTION.

What will it get him? Probably nothing as the Iraq draw-downs will be almost complete when his reelection bid comes up and he should lose his seat in the Senate (unless CT's still snoozing). His only hope for reelection is to go along with Obama as much as possible. He'll HAVE to do that regardless of whether or not he chairs any committee.

This is an important key to the whole issue. "Palling around with Rs" won't help his reelection bid. He has to get in line with progressive and constructive efforts in the Senate. If he's the guy who votes to keep bills from going to the floor for votes, he is absolutely, positively toast.

In short, lieberman needs the Democratic party more than the Dems need lieberman - period.

If you were running against the man in a few years, wouldn't you trot out snippets of his speech in ads to show the inanity of his "bi-partisanship?" He's not bipartisan.... he's an obnoxious, grand-standing clown that gets off by tail-gunning people on both sides of the aisle. That's not bipartisanship... it's being an insufferable, self-aggrandizing ass. BIG difference.

What will it get the Dems in the Senate? Well, the public might care if Dems toss him out if he did nothing. They could be brought to think of Dems as being spiteful if that were the case. BUT the guy spoke against Obama at the R convention! HELLO!!!!! This is way beyond the point of being 'spiteful' or 'collegial.' It's at a point where you're starting to look stupid if you put any faith in the man to do anything ethically.

Reinstating the man FURTHERS the perception that Dems are spineless.... which is hard to refute in this case. Dems have ALL the leverage here and they cave - typical.

Idiot Meter Going off the Chart

Driving for 6 hours gives you time to think, relax (depending where you are, I guess), and listen to radio. I tuned into NPR in Norfolk, VA this morning. The host of the particular show that jacked me up had "Dean Don" on the show.

Dean Don is a dick.

Why would I say such a mean, nasty thing? Because I'm sick of these pundits. And even more, I'm sick of pundits who are "professors" at colleges (Dick Don noted "... several of my students interned for Thelma Drake over the years..." - Thelma just lost her re-election bid to Democrat Glenn Nye) and are idiots.

It's not just Dick Don. There are many, many others like Dick Don who infuriate me with their stupidity. Don was very cordial and genteel. He gave effusive praise to Obama and others for their campaigns, albeit speaking from a decidedly Republican perspective. So here's my rant on the specific issues with Donnie Boy.

Declaration of Idiocy #1.

"We have 'payback time' now and that's why the decision to bring in Rahm Emmanuel to be Chief of Staff is so good." (Not a direct quote - paraphrasing his words.)

"Payback time"?! What the f**k are you talking about?! Don clarifies, 'All the groups will want to get their return - black groups, MoveOn, and others will start pressuring Obama and he'll need to deliver.'

This is where I realized that Dick Don is a Republican. He must know the, well, "relationship" between the Republican party at national levels and the large evangelical groups. And he assumes that the Democratic Party must also follow the same disastrous rules of engagement embraced by the Republican Party. We know the Clintons rewarded big donors with nights in the Lincoln bedroom among other things. We hear he even helped create K-street. But as far as deep, organizational bonding, joint strategizing/mobilization, and power-brokering goes - I'm sorry to break the news to you, the Democratic party just isn't as structurally immoral enough to engage in that sort of symbiosis.

Declaration of Idiocy #2.

When asked to convey his observations on the losses incurred by the Republican Party in this last election, he summarized by saying, "They have to learn that the country must be ruled from the 'Center.' Reagan ruled from the 'Center-Right.' I expect Obama will do well because he will rule from the 'Center-Left.'" He very introspectively added, "The country is not at the extreme right nor the extreme left."

Wow! Sounds magnanimous and brilliantly pundity, no?

But I have one question - where, or more accurately, what, the f**k is 'ruling from the Center-Left?'

If Obama keeps the Faith Ministry cabinet post, which is about as 'extreme right' a symbol as there is in the cabinet, is he ruling from the extreme right? Is that "rightness" a temporary thing? Is it perpetual? Are there degrees of that "rightness"?

If he advocates for single-payer health care, is he ruling from the radical left if he announces an endorsement of the concept? Who decided that single-payer health care for all is "left," anyway? Based on what criteria?! We have a single-payer military which protects the wealthy tax-payers just as well as the poor ones, but I've never heard the military called "hard left," have you?!

Who makes that subjective assessment of where Obama is ruling?

Or maybe we really can be objective in the assessment. I suppose he can get some sort of "grade" on a scale for each decision which gets averaged in with all the grades assigned to all his decisions?? But then we still have to pick who gives the grades! Darn! How can we do this, Professor Don?!?!

Here's the reality. There is no such thing as "center-right" or "center-left". You surely know that. You HAVE to know that. If you don't, you're a moron.

These places are one of only two things: pure intellectual dishonesty; or intellectual laziness.

Intellectual laziness is certainly ground zero for many members of the Republican party (around 64%, apparently). How else can you explain why millions of people can completely ignore Sara Palin's guilt of violating state ethics laws after an investigation led by 10 Alaskan Republicans and 4 Alaskan Democrats, while decrying "partisan politics" at the heart of the investigation? I rest my case.

So clearly, this could be Don's excuse. But since uniquely Republican bilge like "he's the most liberal Senator in Congress..." is the sort of slop that the unwashed rank-and-file Republican loyalists ravenously devour, I think it's the former. It's just another labeling scam that will be trotted out at some later date in order to paint Obama as some radical, deviating from some smart-sounding advice from brainiacs like Don.

More specifically, saying crap like "ruling from the center-left" is an admission of stupidity - either of the speaker or of the audience (or both). This phrase is just a label. "Moderate." "Liberal." "Cracker."

It's a stupid label because there are many, many policy decisions that have to be made and trying to summarize the whole of those policies into a term is unjust and illogical. As a simple example, Obama can push to spend more for something he believes will pay big dividends in the future. Two people could very likely, with equal accuracy and veracity, prove that Obama is concurrently very "conservative" and very "liberal."

As an analogy to this ridiculous concept of "center", I offer our stupid Homeland Security color codes. They do nothing. They tell us nothing. One day you could be yellow, the next orange. What does it mean? Should we all be accosting strangers on the street today if they're carrying a briefcase? Are there going to be scary people running around transportation centers that we should be concerned about?

It's just a stupid label to allow political hacks to jack people's heart rates up. They are used to prove that the Homeland Security department is working hard and doing really smart things. Because that's the only thing those codes can do. I defy anyone to prove differently.

These terms "center-left" and the rest are the same thing - chaff spewed by asshats like Dean Don to prove that he's a big-time smarty-pants, keeping tabs on how Obama's doing - while reserving the right to unfurl his later declarations that "Obama's gone to the 'left-center-left'" to spin up the Republican lemmings into a frothing stew.

Declaration of Idiocy #3.

Among his praise-gushing, were excesses that already sounded disingenuous. Calling Hillary Clinton a "brilliant legislator," followed up by an identical hailing of John McCain as a "brilliant legislator." Obama isn't a brilliant legislator - but he was tagged as a "brilliant executive." Wow, huh?!

But the one that tripped the fail-switch on the 'Giggle-Test' was when Don said, "Sarah Palin is brilliant."

Amazing. The woman who wiffle-ball thrower Katie Couric turned into a pretzel is, "brilliant."

Cheapens the other compliments just a tad, doesn't it????

Dean Don... I'm holding up one of my hand's 5 fingers... guess which one it is: extreme left, extreme right, center-left, center-right, or center?

Obama Victory Speech - VIDEO, TEXT

Halle-f***ing-lujah!

The world has changed in less than 20 hours... my faith in humanity is restored. Can't be happier...

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Just Ignore 'Em: A Democratic Strategy for the Post-Bush Era

Jesse Berney suggests that Dems "ignore" Republicans after Obama is sworn in. Some people objected to what they perceived to be a suggestion to do to them what they've done to the Dems when the shoe was on the other foot.

In theory, you are correct.

However, I think the author's premise is a belief that the Rs will continue their current strategy of pure obstructionism and political posturing. They don't want to (and may not even be capable of) put forth sensible bills or amendments. It's what they've done in the past and there's not much reason to presume that they will change their tactics.

The Rs seem determined to tail gun anything and everything that Obama and Dems push for after 1/20/2009. Kill everything possible and then loudly, vigorously paint every single piece of Dem legislation like it's the nail in the coffin to freedom and capitalism. That will be their full-throttle, 24/7 life.

So as appropriate as "engaging" is - if there is no one in the audience other than insane people incapable of productive partnership, it won't work. The old saying, "it takes 2 to tango" but the Rs don't seem at all like they have any interest in dancing. They'd rather burn down the ballroom.

The only way to get what you want is for the Repug party to clean house. There are Republicans out there who would do a great job in Congress, but they are not really allowed to the table... only the shrill, obnoxious, xenophobic, whack jobs manage to move up the chain.

Senate Predictions Part One: The Races Already Over

Bob Geiger did his Senate Predictions and there was some hope by some commentators that Dem leadership could kick Lieberman out of the caucus ONLY it we had 60 Dems. I expressed the following in disagreement.

lieberman moves his office - no matter what. I don't care if we end up with 57, 58, or 59 seats.

Kicking out the clown who has been a tool and mole for the "liberal media" to cast the Dems in a negative light on every major issue gives you something very important: dignity.

There is NO upside to keeping him in the fold. He gets credibility and a bully pulpit that he doesn't deserve when he rails against us "white flag" Dems and whatever the topic du jour is. He's in it for joe. That's it.

He's spent more time this campaign season with Rs than anyone else. His ouster can/should be raised in that context - he has made his choice by his actions; he is a Republican.

Senate Dems have a far better chance of pealing off one or two Rs when there are contentious votes than they do of keeping lieberman on board. And if all else fails and no single R will have the courage to let something go to a vote, then there's always the 'nuclear option'. Long term, lieberman instantly becomes a lame duck the minute he's in the R fold. He won't be re-elected.

Bottom line: The Democratic Party and the country have no time for entertaining lieberman's petty, selfish games. Gut this fish and let's move on.

The GOP's "Nah Nah Nah Can't Hear You!" Argument

David Sirota rocks. I agree with his comments posted here, but I think it's worse than what he's saying.

Gonna need at least one generation for those clowns to get another shot at implementing 'trickle on' economic policies.

Basically, these idiot neocons have to take every voting age person with enough cognitive ability to see what the last 8 years have done to the country and convince them that it never happened. It was "all Clinton's fault" isn't washing with the youngest group of voters right now. Large swaths of electorate have been lost by them.

And the boneheads who've most exuberantly shoveled all the idiocy down as fast as it was slogged onto their plate (the elderly) have a shorter shelf life than the 18-30 year-olds. So as they are taking their leave of this mortal plane, people graduating high school who have to deal with soaring health care costs, education costs, national debt, and a shrinking job market will be taking their place in the voting booth... and probably not as nervous about rovian "there's a terrorist over the hill!" rhetoric as they are about the prospects of not being able to get a meaningful job or not being able to move out of their parent's house until they're 26.

Ain't gonna work.

538's Nate Silver: How McCain Could Win

OK, in consideration of the following factors....

• I believe mccain is mentally unsound.
• I don't know who runs his campaign.
• This race isn't anywhere near how close it was in 2000 and 2004, snatching a state here and there with a little bit of skulduggery WON'T WORK.
• "Insane" things done over the last 8 years have been bold, outlandish, illegal acts so shocking that people can't believe they are intentional.

.... the only way mccain "wins" isn't a win at all.

He must leverage the bush-cheney maniacs to conduct outrageous acts of violence and illegality at polling places in key states like PA, OH, FL, etc. Then dubya claims they are "terrorist attacks®" and uses his year-old, unchallenged executive order that declares him king in the event of a catastrophe.

That is his only chance.

So the question is, just how desperate are the neocons? Will they be willing to wait 4 years to regroup and try again? Or will they fulfill their own prophecy by bringing us to the brink of our demise by trying to "save" us from a "disaster" like Obama by conducting unconscionable, un-American acts?

I believe they will wait. There have to be enough people smart enough to realize that the mess they're leaving Obama (and us) is so HUGE that 4 years can't possibly be enough time to fix it up. They may have a much easier time in 2012.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Rovian Strategy Dead???

Arianna Huffington posted a piece to HuffPo today that sounded the death knell for rovian campaign tactics. Very hard to swallow that suggestion with a clear head.

Arianna cites the reach of the Internet in fighting smears and repeated lies, bemoaning the utter uselessness of the mainstream media in actually reporting facts. She ignores, however, the fact that the Internet is also filled with lies and smears. And with comcast and verizon working hard to control the Internet, we're only one bad piece of legislation away from the same meltdown that hit the media after ronnie ray-gun killed the Fairness Doctrine.

I can only agree that the impact of rovian tactics is not working for mccain in this election.

I cannot agree that rovian tactics will no longer work. Too much empirical evidence suggests otherwise.

There are roughly 45% of the entire voting population that believe what mccain's goon squad campaign is telling them. That is a staggering number of people. If it were 20%, then I'd be willing to hop aboard this happy bandwagon.

Update 11-8-2008: In a pot-election Rasmussen poll, 64% of Republicans want the palin to run for President in 2012. Her entire shtick was rovian slanders and backroom skulduggery. Again, a little early to declare death to the approach.

We have a very likable, credible, rational candidate on our side against a very unlikable, grouchy candidate whose credibility is utterly bankrupt. But what if we had Hillary Clinton on the ticket against mccrotchety? Are you willing to guarantee that the smears that would have been hurled at her would have fallen away so easily? Yes? Probably right.

But what if the Rs had picked Romney or someone else a ton more likable than mccain? What if the economy wasn't in freefall? I think she'd sink like a rock under the attacks.

Keep your eyes on the ball, folks. Rovian tactics are highly effective. I think Obama has done extremely well. But I confess to being disappointed by the fact that he could counter those tactics and break the blind lemmings out of their stupor by turning mccain's rovian strategy into an issue. We're tired of the health care ads (dear gawd, make them stop!) - deliver ads that delineate the lies and misleading statements, mapping to "how DC works."

And don't think for a minute the RNC hasn't learned a lesson from this. They will adjust. Expect a tidal wave of web sites to arise over the next couple years to "watch" the Obama administration. They will spread these sites and their continued torrent of lies into the 45% - just like "conservative talk radio" has exploded since ronnie tore down the walls of journalistic integrity. They will push hard to get more "ownership" of the Internet into the hands of corporate content managers like comcast and verizon so they can begin censoring and throttling access to sites like HuffPo.

In short, they are NOT going to toss away the text book, shrug, and say, "Well, I guess we have to come up with another plan!" They are going to rebuild the breached walls.

We need to teach people how to stop getting duped by liars. THEN we can declare the rovians dead. When media cartels are shattered and Fairness Doctrine is restored, I will begin to relax. But not before.

Is There a GOP Strategy -- A Kamikaze Campaign for the Black Helicopter Crowd?

Response to RJ Esko's article at HuffingtonPost. RJ is always a great read.

RJ, the core of your question is just like the creation debate: is this intelligent design or a "big bang" event?

If karl rove was at the helm, I'd say it's 'intelligent design.' With rove, there was usually a very deliberate goal for the heinous GOP acts (vote tampering, Constitution shredding, etc.). The goal was typically concentrating power - and with the belief that the results and administration actions were the best thing for the country (and the wealthy). There was usually an obvious thread (although amazingly visible only to people outside the media!) so that when something baffling was done, you could eventually figure out what was going on.

At this point, there seems to be no equivalent "visionary" (pardon me for that term) in the GOP camp. All that you've got are insane witch hunters and enraged, terrified, scorched-earth maniacs. They've learned some tricks from rove, but I bet they had him booted out because he just wasn't insane enough. We are witnessing a Lord of the Flies implosion on the 'right,' where there is no trace of logic. There is only explosive, irrational reactions... a bunch of activities that have an impact, but aren't cohesively moving toward any sort of goal. In a word, "terrorists."

The Clinton problems were partially due to the fact that he had a pretty full closet of skeletons. Obama doesn't have that burden and his personality seems to be better adjusted to ethically and morally dealing with "absolute power" than Bubba.

I agree that it's troubling to think about how this "movement" will end. In the meantime, jujitsu-like responses have been very effective. But, unfortunately, there will need to be a proactive and thoughtful campaign to continuously counter the moves of these anti-democracy terrorists. If their efforts can be blunted for two terms, they will most likely die out. The best way to crush them will be good governance.

McCain will Cost Media and Ad Business Billions

A "Media Expert" posted an entry to HuffingtonPost purporting to be concerned about mccain's proposal to eliminate military recruitment advertising on TV.

What it really was - and you can read it for yourself to see where I'm coming from - was a bemoaning of lost ad revenue for the media cartels.

Boo-freaking-hoo. The below was rejected by the censor or author.

Screw the media. And screw your vacuous 'buggy whip' inferences.

Broadcast advertising is driven by economic realities. Your comments imply that we need to make sure their coffers are being filled. Guess what? If they don't have the money to pay a "star" $500k per episode for some brain-sucking TV show, then they will have to do what anyone else in the business in the real world does - renegotiate to lower and control costs, or go under.

Also implicit in your piece is a sanctimonious ideal about military recruiting over broadcast media. I majored in Business and worked for a few years in a marketing group and socialized in those circles many years back. The major life lesson I got from that (only to be reinforced countless times in the interim) is that marketing "professionals" are afflicted in very high percentages with soaring delusions of grandeur - not only on a personal basis, but wholly revering in a creepy, bizarre way, an absurd belief that if it weren't for marketing "professionals," society will implode. As if one couldn't possibly figure out how to get their grubby, unwashed claws on some canned peaches without the miracle of marketing "professionals."

This prevailing attitude is as disturbing as it is absurd. Nonetheless, it flourishes.

Maybe you're not one of them and maybe I'm reading too much into your post. But it's hard to not see you fitting snugly into the image because I can't think of too many people outside of marketing "professionals" who'd get misty over the idea of seeing MORE $billions of pharmaceutical money - that could otherwise be used to LOWER drug costs for 10s of millions of Americans - getting burned at the altar of advertising.

Republicans, Please Stop Calling Me a "Communist" Simply Because We Disagree

"It reveals that you know so little about government that you are forced to regurgitate fear-mongering GOP talking points from more than a half century ago."



Not really correct. It's actually bigger and more desperately sad than that.



The people who can only manage about 2 exchanges in a dialog based on topics for which mountains of empirical data is publicly available before resorting to irrational name-calling are exhibiting serious mental health disorders. There is a wide array of problems, but I am confident, based on my personal experiences (despite lacking formal mental health training) that these extremists suffer from at least one clinical, diagnosable disorder.



Your attempt to cope with these conflicts by using logic to verify your command of real-world conditions is an example of a healthy mind, but is totally unnecessary in the context of your interaction with people who object to facts and reality. These are damaged people - terrified, enraged, confused, detached, depressed - and a splash of conversational truth won't begin to address their problems.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why Hockey Should Give Palin a Pass

I wish I could understand your point.



Here's what happened in Philly (my home). A rabid supporter of the neocons, Ed Snider, owns the Flyers. We give him a pass on that and buy tickets, merchandise, and support the team enthusiastically.



Ed got himself a thought. That was to help promote the neocon court by putting the palin out there on the ice for a photo-op - an effort to help their campaign. His arrogance - and the arrogance of the mccain campaign - decided, apparently, that the Flyers fan demographics leaned in their favor. At least leaned enough to avoid embarrassment. Well, they were off a bit.



If you support the idea of separating politics from hockey, then you should be calling Snider on the carpet for his deliberate promotion of a viciously divisive, dishonest, and deplorable campaign. This was his decision. The palin could have declined, too. So how about naming names?



You generically call out to "politicians." But I know of only one pair of politicians who debased the sport during this election season. This isn't about "the politicians." This is about the swine in the mccain campaign and one of their supporters. Call them out specifically and don't imply that others are on (or near) the same rung on the ladder of immorality. Or add their names, too....
About Sarah Palin
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Sarah Palin isn't Funny Anymore

This comment was in response to a veteran, darkfeather, who commented on a post-VP debate article at HuffingtonPost. His comment's context was over how our departure from Iraq isn't being seized as aggressively as it should by the Obama campaign.

darkfeather, my family's thanks for putting it on the line.

I'm with you on this. However, I suspect the campaign is comfortable with assuming that since most people want a timetable to get out of Iraq, that they don't have to work the issue. I think that's the wrong approach.

I'd at least give it a new spin. For example, I recall some insanely right-wing colleagues talking about the issue and their rationalization of American soldier deaths in Iraq was, "If these guys were living in Camden, NJ, they'd be getting killed at a higher rate than what is happening in Iraq." I'm certain this is a silent but pervasive sentiment in those at the far and leaning-right.

So why not call that out? "Hey, is winning in Iraq when we get the murder rate lower than our own US cities? Thanks to the miracle of ethnic cleansing and some sensible counter-insurgency alliances and tactics, the rate is lower than our most populace cities. If we can't get our own country's murder/violence problems solved, how are we supposed to believe that we can get Iraq's murder/violence rate even MORE lower than US?!?! Or should we redeploy troops to Philadelphia? If our mission is to create safer urban areas than we have in 'the greatest country in the world,' then we are truly stupid if we let this occupation nonsense go on for one more day."

That gives the argument a new spin and a grounding that makes it clearer to "average" Americans that "winning" has either been achieved or is completely unachievable.

Obama's New Offense

My note to Ari Melber who talked about Obama's post-debate language, which has been much stronger and much more harsh.

Ari, while you're on the bus/plane, please throw this idea by Obama, Plouffe, or whomever...

To nail the lid shut on the issue of handling Iraq, Obama should point out over and over that the Iraqi's want us out. Add that ethnic cleansing has been completed - and the millions of refugees can attest to that. Our plan out is to help refugees return home, but only if the Iraqi government asks us to. And then we are done, home.

I've shut down my friends from the military who are still bush believers by pointing out that if Hillary Clinton were elected and the Chinese army killed her (they like the thought of that, sadly) and the Chinese army took over the US - they'd be making IED's and blowing up Chinese supply convoys... just like many Iraqis have done to us. Clearly, they're not all Iraqis conducting these attacks, but many are and the point still resonates when people picture foreign soldiers patrolling our streets.

There are many differences between Iraqi's and Americans, but pride in your nation and your abilities to solve your own problems is exactly the same.

Turn the conversation from, "OMG, what sort of devastation will ensue if we leave?" to "We tried to help, we broke fragile religious and cultural bonds, and all they ask is that we let them fix the mess we helped make. We can't ignore their sovereignty any longer. It is wrong. No one can answer 'what is winning?' because it's never been up to us to decide the answer - it is up to the Iraqi's. They have clearly said, 'we'll take it from here. Thanks.'"

Notes for Next Time

I posted this comment to another HuffPo article where a person implied that Obama's debate performance was superior and that anyone second-guessing it are clueless.

mccain did exactly what bush did to Kerry 4 years ago. We know how that ended. There are endless studies that prove what mccain did is highly effective against weak-kneed debaters.

By "weak-kneed" I mean people who allow their opponent to talk over top of them while speaking, refuse to challenge personal slurs and inappropriate references, and refuse to challenge lies.

Kerry's gritty debates in 2004 won him the nomination - and his groveling, overly-polite debates lost him the presidency. You can believe whatever you want to believe, but I'll rely on what I've seen happen in the last 28 years of presidential debates. The debates are judged by the results on prospective voters - not by what you or I think should matter.

The only reason Obama is alive after his Kerry punching-bag interpretive dance recital is because mccain's persona strongly emoted a surly, "cranky old man." Had he been some affable 50-something, like bush was a few years back, Obama would have been written off as road-kill. Studies in history of debates (there are a few well-referenced posts on HuffPo) make that very clear.

LiveBlogging Your Ole Miss Debate!

I wrote this immediately after the first prez debate and I was angry. I posted this comment to the article at HuffingtonPost.

Update I: I got it wrong. OK? I misread how badly mccain's mannerisms resonated with most people. So my conclusions are too harsh. There. I admit it. But I still think my approach is right. In addition, I contend that had Obama's opponent been someone like dubya - younger, less absurdly agitated, condescending, and angry - the "who won" answer would have been different.

Update II: So watching debate number 2 when to my self-gratification, Obama hangs mccain's 'bomb-bomb-bomb Iran' stupidity on his ear. And VERY effectively done. I feel somewhat vindicated from my initial rant now! :-)

Update III: Whoa! Obama smacks down mccain on the "don't understand" comments! Feeling even more vindicated!


Obama is doing everything he could NOT afford to do.

• Allow that old f**k to give him all those "Senator Obama doesn't seem to understand" lines with no objection. "Those black boys just aren't that smart." What's the difference? None.
• Allow mccain to get away with lies. The theme that HAD to be run up tonight was that mccain is a serial liar. I think Obama is intentionally doing the opposite! Otherwise I can't explain how he says "john is right" over and over.
• Allow mccain to cast his plans as credible and Obama's as absurd. Instead of telling mccain that he lost all his credibility on the international stage when he sung "bomb bomb Iran," he thinks that claiming kissinger agrees with Obama and not mccain (the man who's "paying" him for advice) would work.

I am furious. Stop being a pussy and getting talked over by that dope! Stop being a pussy and hang the pig's lies on his head!

Obama got his rear end kicked up and down that stage. Not from a fact basis, but from a perspective where impressions on voters who are all-too often fact-averse is concerned. mccain swing in the polls will probably be 8 points off this. I hope Obama will fire the ENTIRE DEBATE prep crew after this disaster.

Giant Gaffe: McCain Confuses National Guard and Army -- and Palin's Son

Someone at HuffPo innocently asked, "How can mccain lead?"

The same way raygun and dubya did - by being told what to do by shadowy scumbags who fellate the "leader's" ego to get what they want.

Do you think any of these three could pass any intellectual acuity test meant for a 9th grader? They 'stand by' their advisors, protect the advisors - even under threat of impeachment, and these "leaders" are the only ones who actually aren't in on the joke.

Principled, intelligent people need not apply for high "leadership" positions in the GOP. There is no use for them.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

We're in Big Trouble

Someone torqued me by suggesting that palin's polling numbers after the gop convention demonstration some dimension of genius. Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

"McCain seems to have known just what he was doing."

I seriously doubt that he had anything to do with this choice. She is the ordained despot who will run the government, just like cheney. She is the choice that we should have seen coming.

We should have seen something like this because even though mccain has jammed his soul down into the political septic tank, the neocon corporatist overlords knew that there is still a slight chance that he could pull it back up and rinse it off if they turned their back for a second.

Palin gets the job to keep an eye on mccain (if elected) and run the underground filth that cheney's been running. She is the perfect tool for the job. Stubborn, bigoted, and 100% bought into the program. If mccain ever gets a twinge of conscience, a sudden illness or health downturn or some other plausibly deniable event will help fix that and keep the gears of totalitarianism turning.

No, I don't believe for a second that mccain chose her.

NO MORE F**KING TAX CREDITS!

I've heard one of the speakers during the convention dredge up the Obama promise for college tax credits.

How long will it take before those credits go into the pockets of schools - 2 years? 3 years?

Then what? More tax credits?

What the hell is the point in pumping more money into college coffers?

How about doing this instead? Convene a finance inquiry into every college in the nation. I want to know where all this money is going. How much are they spending for education, sports, recruitment, research, etc. Somebody should tell me why a text book costs $125. Somebody should tell me why one school costs $75,000 per year and another one can teach the same content for $8,000 per year.

We need honesty about what's going on. Maybe there's something that can be done to lift a burden from these institutions that would help stop the absurd increase in education costs. Maybe we have an opportunity to provide for a collegiate program that would be more cost effective than so many institutions are today.

Most likely, we'll find mountains of abuse and borderline money-laundering operations where tons of profit is poured into investments that benefit fund managers and no one else.

So let's force them all to open the books. Let's see where these mountains of money which hang around people's necks in the form of student loans are going - before we start sending them more.

McCain Gains Nationally, Leads In Florida; Indiana Even

OK, in response to latest synopsis of polling data written about here, I have to formally put a stake in the sand. Time on the clock is 2:00 pm, EDT, August 20, 2008.......

Obama has recently decided to pick up his BB-Gun and take a few shots at mccain over the last week during stump stops. I've seen some ads that tie mccain to bush's economic failures. The mild zingers in those ads are cute, but don't leave much of a mark. Ads that focus on how out of touch mccain is, who his lobbyist network includes, how much money he stands to make in saved taxes under his own plan, etc. would have a MUCH stronger impact.

My prognostication - for what it's worth:

• If Obama doesn't use the convention to allow prominent Dems to rip mccain to shreds;
• if Obama doesn't come out forcefully in his repudiation of mccain's plans;
• if Obama doesn't pick a VP candidate who credibly represents "change" and who isn't afraid 'to mix it up;'
• and if he doesn't start using live, hi-caliber ammunition in his broadcast ads immediately after the convention -

then his funding will quickly dry up and he will lose the general election.

Just like Kerry, it's his race to lose. Kerry's campaign found a way to lose - that was to "remain dignified in the face of undignified accusations." And in Kerry's case, it translated directly to, "let the slimeballs do and say anything they want about me without any response from me and the voters will then decide that since I won't stick up for myself, I am a pansy who shouldn't be trusted with a leadership position."

Great plan.

So far, Obama's campaign this Summer has been walking in Kerry's footsteps while timidly including some shots at mccain.

So fine, "rope-a-dope" till the convention... but then let's get busy. Leaving mosquito-bite-sized welts on your opponent isn't going to finish him off. Turn him into swiss cheese.

Obama, Turn Other Cheek at your Peril

OK, another reaction to talk of how Obama should handle mccain slurs. Marty Kaplan's post at HuffingtonPost, Will Someone Please Make Obama Watch the McCain Version of the Katrina DVD? is, as usual, an excellent bit of well-reasoned writing.

Too many people posting comments don't understand that, although people don't process information in exactly the same way, many still have an instinctive analysis that occurs when "judging" people. That judging is done when considering mates, schools, sports, heroes, and, of course, political candidates. We do this at all ages, throughout our lives.

Obviously, the latter - political candidates - is the pertinent item in this discussion. Marty may already know this, but he doesn't note the matter overtly and I think it needs to be highlighted more specifically.

The thing that people who don't know how to win elections fail to realize is that there is another issue beyond gas prices, oil independence, inflation, job loss, health care, education, mortgage market corruption, etc.

The issue is, 'how does a candidate handle abuse.'

It's not a strategy - it's a bona fide ISSUE. People want to know what a candidate will do when bullied, slandered, kicked in the crotch, and sucker-punched. It's evaluated in real time. It's also evaluated over a period of time and there is a cumulative effect to it. The metaphor of a boxing match has been often used when on this topic.... it's a damn good metaphor, too.

It's a subconscious analog to the garden-variety voter for how you will respond to foreign aggressors once elected. Ignoring an aggressor is tantamount to admitting that you'll let them rough up the country. Standing up to aggressive predators like oil companies and lending groups is easy now because it's all posturing. But standing up for yourself, your integrity, and the integrity of your supporters isn't posturing. It's real and in real-time.

Responding crisply, with venom at a level that is congruent with the attack that precipitated the response, is a vital issue. It's one of the few true "on-the-trail" demonstrations of presidential mettle that you can get. Debates are a microcosm of it, but debates are only part of the bigger issue picture.... they are "one round of the boxing match," to use the metaphor.

People may not like it, but that's the way it is. If you won't stand up for yourself, why should anyone expect you to stand up for your country?

Microsoft Does it Again

I just got Office 2007 shoved down my throat at work. Maybe my bias against the swine at Mocrosquid is partially to blame, but this "tool" is literally giving me migraines. I almost never get headaches - seriously. But this thing is such a ridiculously over-engineered, wrapped around obscenely unnecessary interface changes, extraordinarily frustrating, and most of all, completely counter-productive.

Thanks Redmond!

The fact is that Office 95 still covers 95% of all the user's feature needs. Only a handful of people"require" the advanced features that have been introduced since Office 95 was released. In addition, OpenOffice features cover about the same 95% range of features and users, while maintaining a user interface that is easy for Mac and Windows users to instantly adopt.

So what is a company to do with a seriously over-featured cash cow that can't go anywhere else?

Cut support for existing apps, replace the user interface with an absurdly inefficient one, and force all the idiot lemmings who brainlessly upgrade whenever they're told, to send more money to Microsquid in exchange for a product that will force a needlessly exorbitant learning curve penalty on them.

F*cking genius. It will make them billions.

What's the genius? Well, gutting the interface will, over time, condition the moron Office users to invest more time, energy, and money into learning this garbage. In the past, that fear of having to learn something new has prevented moron Windoze users from migrating to the Mac or Linux. For purely illogical reasons that only seem to prove again the old P. T. Barnum quote, "a sucker is born every minute," this "reason" doesn't apply when Microsquid forces them to learn a Microsquid tool from scratch.

Optional change and learning is bad, but forced, expensive change and learning is apparently palatable.

It just doesn't get any more patently stupid and disgusting than that. We live in a land of drunks and Microdick owns the brewery.

Are you going to be one of the 95% user base that can use OpenOffice, but will bow at the altar of Microsquid and pay your tax offering anyway? If so, you are pathetic. And you better get yourself the economy bottle of aspirin.

Hillary Wants [at Least] a First Ballot Vote at the Convention

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

This article made me wretch. I had no idea there were still these groups of HRC drum majors out there.

With supporters and advisers like those described in the "meeting," who needs enemies?

Angry, shrill, angry, illogical, and angry don't make for a very earnest voter appeal.

Obama is "ruthless," huh? I'm still waiting for (or begging) the man to work his way up to "testy" in dealing with mccain. What has he ever done that was "ruthless?" Please!

And just because you have the opportunity to make a spectacle of yourself in front of millions of people doesn't mean you have to! Just because you're pissed off doesn't mean that you get to do or say whatever you want to!

There's a fire alarm near my office, if I pull it, I will demonstrate my incredible personal power to screw things up for a lot of people. But what else does it prove - other than the fact that I'm an ass?

Media Impact

The media would LOVE to see a convention floor vote battle. They'll be questioning Obama's legitimacy from then all the way up to the election. That's what PUMAs are trying to achieve?

This would be no dowd-like "gossip story" from idiot neocon henchmen picking little context-less nuggets from here and there and gluing them together - this would fuel "legitimate" stories that are based on the moment.

A protest-filled, "mutiny" at the convention where the person who's vowed to unite the country can't get more than 65% (the number won't matter for purposes of the story-line) of the Democratic party united will be the biggest story of the entire campaign so far. Every paper and news outlet in the entire country will have headlines dedicated to it.

This is beyond love-children, fist-bumps, and all the rest of the stupid tripe that comes every day from the serious corporate media baloney pump.

No campaign-killer, of course, but a big, bloody-nose and probably a damper on the bounce.

Good Parenting

A little girl was at the beach the other day sitting on a blanket near me. She wanted water ice - now! She started chanting, "I want water ice now." Over and over. Dad finally purposefully picked her up and took her 'home' to get a nap.

That's the problem with grown ups who behave like selfish, irrational little children - there are no adults big enough to take them to nap time.

Obama Adviser: 'Celeb' Ads Hurt Him In Polls

Micro-trending polls are stupid - and people who live/die by them are only setting themselves up for needless turmoil.

That said, the quotes were interesting to me....

1. "One of the great strengths of the Obama campaign has been to not listen to the D.C. chattering class."
2. "Tad Devine, a top strategist for Kerry who thinks Obama must stay on the high road."

OK, so if the "chattering class" is saying one thing - and a proven, stone loser like Tad Devine is in sync with your "master plan"..... then you would do well to change your friggin' master plan - and fast.

Obama's responses have been too soft (and rare). I've posted this numerous times: if you're getting beat up in public all the time and don't fight back, voters will think you've got no backbone to be president. That's just the way it is. You don't have to be gutter, vicious, or inaccurate to fight back. But you have to do something.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The McCain Game Plan Becomes Clear

Very good article from Robert Elisberg at HuffPo, explaining the Rovian underpinnings to the seemingly bizarre campaign ads thrown out by Mr. mccain.

As usual, well done. But the last bit of "blind faith" gnaws at me. Essentially, he says that Obama weathered similar types of tactics in the Primary and overcame.

I'm not so sure it's that easy, though. Hillary ran out of money. She couldn't keep up the beatings and that helped Obama overcome. In fact, she did some major damage to him with only a sparse budget available. He didn't strike me as much of a butt-kicker - he outlasted her on money.

I think this is exactly why mccain is starting these ads NOW. He knows he can't spring them at the last minute and get enough traction.

But if he can get them going, dent Obama's popularity and poll numbers, he hopes to get the repug voting lemmings more excited and donating money to fuel more ads. Also, since the "serious media" wants to see a neck-and-neck race, they're going to help suppress the stupid stuff mccain continuously does. This will help keep things close.

Mark my bitter, cynical, angry words - if Obama continues to run his campaign like Gore and Kerry did, he will lose.

He showed that he can bite on occasion, but he needs to roll out a big barrel of whoop-ass starting at least right after the convention and through the mccain coronation, up to the election.

He doesn't realize it, but he can knock this idiot out of the race fast. He just has to start playing for keeps. No more unanswered allegations and no more pot shots without some sort of very public counter-punch.

And I say punch for a specific reason - if you don't hit back when others attack you unfairly, people get the subconscious understanding that you are spineless. People want strong leaders, not [more] spineless ones.

What is a Negative Ad?

OK, the Grayson ad is a very good ad. Dems are so starved for something more creative than, "I'll protect social security..." from Congressional campaigns, that this Allan Grayson ad is becoming folklore.

Sure, it has a clear, resonating message. It has tremendous imagery and production quality (other than Grayson's clownish tie... that thing is the equivalent of about 30 lapel pins). But it's missing the same piece that the vast majority of Democratic candidate ads lack: what is his opponent's stand on this issue? More specifically, why is Grayson's position/plan to address the issue superior to his opponent's malfeasance or misfeasance?

But we like this sort of "positive" ad, right? We want more of these, don't we?

Well, I don't.

The worst thing that can happen to an ad like this is for an opponent to follow right on its heels with "proof" that they've been fighting that same fight. And since Grayson hasn't cast his opponent's effort, focus, experience, or attention as either "against" or "indifferent to" fraud justice, he's left the door wide open for an easy rebuttal - a rebuttal that can take this very nice ad and render it impotent.

Does anyone expect the Republican candidate to say he thinks fraud is OK? Does anyone expect the R to cede the issue?

On the other hand, does anyone think that the Rs will now pony up some sort of bill or silly parlor trick on the floor of the House to pivot into an ad that makes him look like he's the drum major of the push for justice against the thieves who've stolen our tax dollars?!?

There are a lot of angles available to call into question the incumbent's ability on the issue. Is s/he on any committees that could have made a difference? Has s/he done anything about pushing for investigations into the fraud and waste? Anything on his/her web site that is cavalier - or is it completely ignored? Any mention anywhere else? Isn't there something that Grayson could say to show that the incumbent has done nothing on the matter?

There has to be something to contrast with Grayson's stand. If there isn't anything - that is, the incumbent has fought hard to prosecute fraud cases - then Grayson needs another issue to focus on in the campaign. Assuming the incumbent R is a typical hack, I think Grayson has a great issue to show how he's a superior candidate to the R.

But how do we know who to be angry at? Should we be angry at the incumbent? Why should we be angry at the incumbent? When the incumbent tries to claim to have fought fraud and abuse, how will we know if s/he's telling the truth? How do we know who's lying? How will you fight the fraud and bring people to justice? If your opponent says you have no plan to fix the problem, how will we know s/he's wrong?

I've seen comments characterizing this ad as strong - but unless it shows how his position contrasts with the repugs, it's really no different than the "typical" Dem ads that focus entirely on answering the question that really only some Dem voters ask, "do you have a great idea?"

The problem is that most voters want to get an answer to, "why should I vote for you instead of the other person?"

How is this Negative?

I've heard that this sort of approach is "negative" campaigning because it doesn't only say positive things. But it's not "negative" campaigning.... it's "effective" campaigning! If you've ever gone door-to-door as a candidate running for office as I have, you'd understand. Try doing that and NOT talk about your opponent. It isn't possible to avoid it (and you better have a much more impactful answer than, "I agree with ___ a lot and s/he's a wonderful person," or you have wasted your visit!).

Look, if you want to get right to it, you're implicitly saying mean, rotten things about your opponent when you announce that you are running! THINK ABOUT IT! You claim you are "better" when declaring your candidacy, and therefore it logically follows that the opponent is "worse" simply by you deciding to line up on the ballot. There's nothing wrong, evil, or "negative" about it... it's simply the point. If you felt otherwise, why would you waste everyone's time running?!

And if you find yourself saying, "No, I'm not 'better,' I just have different solutions," you're just hiding from reality and have probably been associated with campaigns that have lost.

I've seen campaign after campaign after campaign for seats at all levels fail because Dems are too nice. The attitude that it's "negative" to compare your approach to solving or identifying problems to your opponent is one of the most common causes that I've seen. But the fact is that those who believe this are simply the worst campaign advisers.

Or perhaps they're just oversensitive because too many campaigns resort to gross distortions of a politician's record in drawing the comparisons about which I'm writing. I can understand if it's the latter. It can be a fine line between honest characterization of one's positions/record and filthy lies. However, a confident, well-informed candidate won't need to resort to lies and distortions to make their point.

Voter Decisions

Voters who aren't polarized one way prior to a race, want to weigh each candidate's strengths and weaknesses. They may have some slight bias one way or other.

If one candidate says that s/he is great due to A and the other says s/he is great due to B, then the voters will have a harder time - "they're both so wonderful." The R machine understands this.

If candidate Repug adds that his/her opponent is bad due to reason "C," and C is unchallenged or proved publicly, then the person tagged with C is going to get hurt - especially if never is heard a discouraging word about Repug.

Then the Rs will say your running a negative campaign anyway.

True, it's easy for these to spiral out of control. The person who wins these shootouts is the one who uses credible, meaningful comparisons of their own and opponent's positions in an intelligent, rational manner which highlights why they are superior to their opponent. In fact, when one side goes over the top, the recipient of irrational attacks has for his/herself a very solid campaign issue in its own right!

But when it's one-way only, like in 2000 and 2004 Gore and Kerry campaigns, the targets of attacks don't fare well.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Pushes Back On David Brooks

About Barack Obama

Open Letter to Barack....

You know what, Obama? Way too jovial. Way too casual. Way too calm.

Why does that matter?

Well, you make yourself a target that way. Simple schoolyard math, sir: if you don't bloody someone's nose in public (last two words are key) when they pick on you, all the "tough" guys are gonna come after you.

And keep coming after you.

As Bob Cesca calls them, "the very serious media," has a big problem. You are a vastly superior candidate at a time when most sentiment is leaning in your direction anyway. But a landslide victory isn't the story they want to cover. The consolidated ownership of media wants a different story - a story that will consequently help their ratings, sell advertising, while improving their odds of maintaining a very supportive FCC.

That story is that there are two solid candidates waging a tight, tough, close campaign.

To do that, they need to help Mr. Mccain directly. This is one of the latest examples, where CBS edited out stupid comments in order to help him out. They show all the "good" sides and then harp on your "bad."

The second course of action is for them to keep alive through repetition, every attack that the mccain camp asserts against you. This is why you've gotten the same stupid question about the same stupid, non-existent "issue" every time you sit in front of these cackling media jackasses (i.e. "reporters"). Answering it with dignity and respect, gives the question and the cackling media jackasses who spit them out, dignity and respect.

These clowns aren't doing a journalist's job - they are sellout shills. They do NOT deserve - have not earned - a shred of dignity and respect for what they are doing when it comes to serving up the mccain talking points. OK?!?!

They aren't reporting, they're building a big-picture story line for their conglomerate's edification. It's one thing to be polite and considerate. It's another to needlessly subject yourself to baseless attack (you do remember the last 24 years of presidential election results, don't you?).

If you can't see that, you're more naive than people assert. If you don't do anything about it - like bloody someone's nose (not literally, sir) in public, then you are a fool.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

New Republic Article: Obama a Meanie to Media!

The media is not looking to "report." They are looking for something "hot." They want "sensational." They want conflict, intensity, and drama - as if the world is a real-time TV show.... which in the case of today's media is EXACTLY what it is. The more drama, conflict and insanity they create/inject, the better their ratings and, hence, revenue. No candidate can shape or change that - only a president instituting a new, improved Fairness Doctrine can fix it.

A campaign wants to get messages to voters. In particular, many Dems want to inform and inspire/motivate. Some Dems and all Repigs want to smear, inflame, and misinform. Since the gopers are far more in sync with what the "media/press" wants and are, they're given the most deference.

So the only thing a campaign can do to control their message is to do its best to counter the smut that the MSM propagates. Obama shrinks from a lot of combat in public, but I think he can do a lot more in taking them on. For example, he had every right to skewer gibson and steph. on those stupid debate questions, but didn't. If one of Obama's campaign efforts was to ostracize the media for its sloppiness and pettiness, I think he will find a very sympathetic ear and call into question their credibility to his advantage

Oil Gone Wild

An entry posted at HuffPo laid out some recommendations for helping get on a fast track toward energy independence, focusing on vehicles, and suggesting that a major public investment in re-tooling the auto industry would be a good plan...

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

I suppose this is where I lose my cred as a liberal.

But the laziness, stubbornness, and greed of the American auto industry darn near killed it in the 1970s. These same brilliant traits are now helping to deliver another set of disasters revolving around fuel inefficiency.

I'm sorry, but I'm done giving these jackasses any more breaks. Any bit of public financing support MUST include a COMPLETE upper management (i.e. the "deciders") purge. NO auto industry insiders, no family of board members - no more anointing more incompetent, irresponsible heirs to the industry thrones. It's done nothing but cause disaster in this nation.

The other thing that ticks me off is this constant drone of "create millions of new jobs" by converting to non-oil-based industries. Every politician and pundit crows this misleading line. The reality is that we are REPLACING EXISTING jobs with NEW jobs - not ADDING jobs to the economy. The net may be a little higher or a little lower, but it's not going to be some sort of magical BOON to the economy.

Embracing logical concepts of sustainable lifestyles is the proper goal. We need is to change the basics of our energy consumption. It is just as silly to claim that moving from unsustainable behavior to a sustainable behavior will destroy the economy as it is to imply that it will drive massive prosperity.

The reality is that the economy is in shambles for reasons beyond oil. Until those problems are honestly addressed, the corporations grown around new energy solutions will soon be pushing for subsidies or demanding to move their manufacturing to India or whatever place has the most affordable slave labor to abuse. So whereas the technology may become available, the economy will still be strained by its current structure.

The last thing I can fit here is the concept of plugin cars. We make the electricity by burning stuff - mainly gas, oil, and coal. This is part of the problem, too, and you are not only failing to address it, but amplifying it.

In short, your plan is weak.