The Republican leader in the Senate is virtually guaranteeing that there will be no repeal this year of the military’s controversial policy which forces gay, lesbian and trans-gender members to hide their personal lives or face expulsion from the service. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told NBC’s David Gregory Sunday that he doesn’t see any way that “don’t ask, don’t tell” can be repealed in the lame duck session. “People are talking like that is the only issue,” McConnell said. “That defense bill also has abortions in military hospitals. Once you get on the defense bill it typically takes two weeks. I don’t see how we can possibly finish the defense authorization bill — a two-week bill wholly aside from these controversial items that are in it, there are a lot of other things in it — before the end of the year.” “Even as you get into January, in your mind, do you think the support is there to lift the ban in Congress?” Gregory asked. “My personal view is that Sen. McCain is correct on this. I intend to follow his lead. We’ll find out when we finally get around to debating this bill which I think will not be before the end of the year,” he concluded. The Pentagon released a study last week that said a majority of service members support ending the ban. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has rejected the study’s methodology. “[T]his study was directed at how to implement the repeal, not whether the repeal should take place or not,” McCain said in mid-November . The Arizona senator has blasted President Barack Obama for advocating for repeal. “The fact is this was a political promise made by an inexperienced president or candidate for presidency of the United States,” he said. But Retired General and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark said Sunday that with the military focused on war, now was the perfect time to do away with the policy. “This is the ideal time to do this, because we’re talking about building teamwork around a common purpose,” Clark told ABC’s Christiane Amanpour .
Continue reading …Click here to view this media [h/t Heather ] I’m speechless. This little rant by Kate O’Beirne at a Republican strategy session is so evil, so incredibly cold-hearted, and so predictably right-wing that it makes me want to shove a big bowl of cereal and a big banana right down her chicken-hearted little gullet. Ebenezer Scrooge would be proud of his progeny. O’BEIRNE: And then the title of our gathering is so crucial; “Less of Washington and More of Ourselves”. The federal school lunch program and now breakfast program and I guess in Washington DC, dinner program are pretty close to being sacred cows… broad bipartisan support. And if we’re going to ask more of ourselves, my question is what poor excuse for a parent can’t rustle up a bowl of cereal and a banana? I just don’t get why millions of school children qualify for school breakfasts unless we have a major wide spread problem with child neglect. You know, I mean if that’s how many parents are incapable of pulling together a bowl of cereal and a banana, then we have problems that are way bigger than… that problem can’t be solved with a school breakfast, because we have parents who are just criminally… ah… criminally negligent with respect to raising children. And yet, that’s the kind of program that has huge bipartisan support with very little thought about why we’re now feeding children. Talk about a fundamental parental responsibility. In what sense can we begin asking the “more of ourselves” piece to go with this less government? Obviously she never met Jaelithe , who relied on the school lunch program to survive because her mother was young, single and poor, struggling to raise her daughter and get an education to better herself. Are these the words of an abused child, or just one raised in a world where the only outstretched hand was the government’s? Exactly what part of Jaelithe’s mother’s “self” should have given more? But going hungry — that is a different story. That’s waking up in the morning hungry. Feeling, throughout the day, hungry. Lying in bed not able to sleep just yet because you are hungry. Dreaming about feeling hungry. And there is not any trip to the taco place down the street and not a trip to McDonald’s instead and not a trip to the farmer’s market or the grocery store, either, because there is no money for those things. There is not even the option of a trip to the backyard for some homegrown tomatoes or cucumbers or strawberries because there is no yard when you live in a run-down apartment or a shelter or a car. There is only your hollow-eyed mother who is hungrier than you are dividing the last stale crackers to make them last. Assuming that you are lucky enough to have a mother. And crackers. This goes so far beyond the sacred right-wing cow of personal responsibility. It’s outright cruelty. These pigs are out there shouting to give zillionaires a fat year-end bonus and extend it for a couple of years while sticking it to poor people who rely on programs like the school lunch and breakfast program to survive. Lest you think this was just a slip of the tongue, here’s more of her teabagging nonsense: Click here to view this media Maybe she should shut up and listen to what’s going on around her for a change. If she did, she might not, miss the fact that food banks are struggling to meet demand as more and more families struggle to keep roofs over their heads, sacrificing other necessities like food and clothing. Since 2006, the need for some form of assistance has tripled . Tripled. Here’s an example of someone O’Beirne considers a child abuser : Elizabeth Brown looked tired. When her husband, “the main money-maker” died three years ago, she was left with a 10- and a 5-year-old. She worked part time at Allegheny General Hospital in housekeeping with help from her family, “but they couldn’t help that much. They’re having hard times themselves.” She couldn’t afford child care on her earnings, so she left the job and is now, at 40, raising a 13-year old and 8-year old on food stamps worth $550 a month. There’s a profile of a child abuser for Ms. O’Beirne. Only in her little imaginary world. That’s the only place that everyone has enough to eat and to feed their children. Anyone who doesn’t must be a child abuser, because they should be able to slap together a banana and cereal in the morning. If they had cereal. Or a banana. Or the money to buy cereal and a banana. This is the world of the heartless and the selfish, the teabagger. They trot through life making pronouncements on others with mighty conviction without ever having walked in the shoes of the poor and likely profiting from the sacrifices yanked from the vanishing ranks of the middle class. There is no humanity, no compassion, no understanding. Just a pair of bootstraps to beat up anyone less fortunate. After watching this I’m feeling the need to make a donation to a nearby food bank to offset this woman’s evil. Here’s a tool to find one near you , should you feel the same way. If anyone knows where Robin Hood is hiding, perhaps they could direct him to Kate O’Beirne’s house as a first stop?
Continue reading …enlarge Credit: New York Times In their scorched-earth effort to deliver another $700 billion tax cut windfall for the wealthy , Republicans have fittingly appropriated their favorite global warming talking point: ” uncertainty .” Mitch McConnell , Sarah Palin , Newt Gingrich and John Boehner are just of the GOP leaders claiming “Congress ought to act today to stop all the tax hikes” because “it would reduce the uncertainty that’s affecting employers all across our country.” Of course, they are predictably silent about the 1980′s, when Ronald Reagan upended the tax code four times in five years , including “the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime.” And despite conservative warnings then as now about “job-killing tax hikes,” American businesses responded by adding 23 million jobs after President Clinton raised upper-income tax rates in 1993. Since the age of Reagan, the Republican electoral strategy has been “you can fool some of the people some of the time and that’s our target market. At least, that is, when it comes to taxes. Because while the Gipper did deliver steep tax cuts in 1981 (slashing the top rate from 70% to 28%), what Reagan giveth he also taketh away. As Paul Krugman noted, in the face of the staggering deficits Reagan’s supply-side tax cuts produced, “no peacetime president has raised taxes so much on so many people”: The first Reagan tax increase came in 1982. By then it was clear that the budget projections used to justify the 1981 tax cut were wildly optimistic. In response, Mr. Reagan agreed to a sharp rollback of corporate tax cuts, and a smaller rollback of individual income tax cuts. Over all, the 1982 tax increase undid about a third of the 1981 cut; as a share of G.D.P., the increase was substantially larger than Mr. Clinton’s 1993 tax increase. Tax historian Joseph Thorndike concurred, noting that the two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together “constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime.” But the Reagan tax hikes hardly ended there. In 1983, Reagan signed into law the recommendations of his commission on Social Security. But as Krugman noted, there was one unfortunate and long-lasting side effect of firming up Social Security and Medicare: For many middle- and low-income families, this tax increase more than undid any gains from Mr. Reagan’s income tax cuts. In 1980, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, middle-income families with children paid 8.2 percent of their income in income taxes, and 9.5 percent in payroll taxes. By 1988 the income tax share was down to 6.6 percent — but the payroll tax share was up to 11.8 percent, and the combined burden was up, not down. And, as CNN Money recently recalled, Reagan overhauled the tax code again in 1986. Because that bipartisan bill “eliminated or reduced many tax breaks and shelters, high-income tax filers who previously paid little ended up with bigger tax bills.” Nevertheless, the national debt tripled during Ronald Reagan’s tenure in the White House. But it was only when Bill Clinton sought to stem the flood of red ink by boosting the top income tax rate to 39.6% that Republicans cried foul. When Clinton’s 1993 economic program scraped by without capturing the support of even one GOP lawmaker, the New York Times remarked: Historians believe that no other important legislation, at least since World War II, has been enacted without at least one vote in either house from each major party. Inheriting massive budget deficits and high unemployment from Bush the Elder, Clinton’s $496 billion program was nonetheless opposed by every single member of the GOP , as well as defectors from his own party. As the Times recounted, it took a tie-breaking vote from Vice President Al Gore to earn victory: An identical version of the $496 billion deficit-cutting measure was approved Thursday night by the House, 218 to 216. The Senate was divided 50 to 50 before Mr. Gore voted. Since tie votes in the House mean defeat, the bill would have failed if even one representative or one senator who voted with the President had switched sides. Throughout 1993 , President Clinton faced venomous – if completely baseless – charges from his Republican opponents. Newt Gingrich announced that February, “I believe that that will in fact kill the current recovery and put us back in a recession,” while also warning the day before the budget vote, “This is the Democrat machine’s recession, and each one of them will be held personally accountable.” Bob Dole , Clinton’s future reelection opponent, complained, “People out there in the real world just don’t understand how record-setting tax increases and a taxpayer-financed spending spree by Congress will solve the deficit or put Americans back to work.” While John Kasich (R-OH) told Clinton and the Democrats, “your economic program is a job killer,” Dick Armey looked into his crystal ball to claim: “Clearly this is a job killer in the short run. The revenues forecast for this budget will not materialize; the costs of this budget will be greater than what is forecast. The deficit will be worse, and it is not a good omen for the American economy.” Most dramatic of all was Texas Senator Phil Gramm . The same man who led the 1990′s crusade to gut regulation of Wall Street and the IRS and later called America a “nation of whiners,” boldly – and wrongly – predicted: “I believe hundreds of thousands of people are going to lose their jobs…I believe Bill Clinton will be one of those people.” The Republican naysayers were, of course, wrong on every count. Bill Clinton kept his job and presided over a rapidly growing economy, expanding incomes, new stock market highs and a balanced budget. Clinton, who authored one of the best eight-year economic performances of the modern presidents, bequeathed a CBO-estimated $5.6 trillion surplus to his successor, the man with the worst economic record . Alas, with his tax cut windfall for the wealthy, George W. Bush squandered it and derailed the American economy. If this all sounds familiar, it should. Despite their spectacularly wrong forecasts 17 years ago, he GOP brain trust has simply resurrected its 1993 predictions of gloom and doom. Launching his campaign for House Speaker this summer, Minority Leader John Boehner decried President Obama’s “job-killing tax hikes” and called the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for the rich “a recipe for disaster – both for our economy and for the deficit.” His Senate counterpart Mitch McConnell told Fox News, “It would be a disaster.” On Meet the Press, Dick Armey rejected the notion of returning the tax rates for the top 2% of earners back to their Clinton-era levels, mocking Obama’s “new cockamamy ideas” and insisting the President “not raise taxes and take away the return on an investment” And as Newt Gingrich predicted in July: “This economy will sink deeper into recession. There will be higher unemployment. The recovery will be longer.” Why? Because, as Sarah Palin recently explained: “The last thing we should do is hamper our economic innovators and entrepreneurs with excessive taxes, overly burdensome regulation, and more uncertainty. This is not a difficult argument to make. It’s common sense.” And Republican common sense, as Newt Gingrich insisted this weekend, is solely the province of those rich whose taxes must not be returned from today’s 35% to the 39.6% rate of the booming 1990′s: What Republicans ought to do is say to people who create jobs, how many years does the tax code need to be extended for you to make an investment decision? I mean, the goal’s not to have an annual extension of the current tax code, and then have every business in the country trapped saying, “I don’t know. I want to make a 20 year investment in a factory” …There is a number, but I would have the business leadership of the country describe the number. But as Michael Hiltzik wrote in the Los Angeles Times last week, “‘uncertainty’ isn’t the real reason they’re not hiring.” Poor sales, and not the uncertainty over taxes cited by the likes of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, are at the heart of the problem for small businesses. And as former head of the Obama Council of Economic Advisers Christina Romer put it today: Uncertainty is likely holding back the recovery. But its sources are far more fundamental than the tax and environmental issues that typically top the list of complaints. And the solution is certainly not for the government to do less. Rather, it needs to do much more. At the end of day, though, some things are certain about the Bush tax cuts . In the years after their passage, U.S. economic growth slowed, job creation faltered, budget deficits skyrocketed, Americans’ incomes sank, the wealthy reaped an unprecedented windfall and income inequality reached levels not seen since 1929. And to anyone disputing that historical record , as Michael Hiltzik might suggest ,”I’m certain they’ll be lying.” (For more background, see ” 10 Republican Lies abou the Bush Tax Cuts ” and ” 10 Epic Failures of the Bush Tax Cuts. .” This piece also appears at Perrspectives .)
Continue reading …Sunshine, lollipops and rainbows — at least on the Republican side of the aisle. They get a big wrapped gift for their donors, and we get what? Certainly nothing for the 99ers, who seem to have simply fallen off the White House radar . At least the Republican lords of the manor are giving us permission to extend benefits for some unemployed Americans : WASHINGTON — Top lawmakers predicted Sunday that a deal would be reached soon to renew the Bush-era tax cuts for all income levels and to extend unemployment benefits. “I’m optimistic we’ll be able to come together,” Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told NBC’s “Meet the Press.” Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl of Arizona, one of his party’s negotiators with the White House, said he was open to discussing making jobless aid, a Democratic priority, part of a bipartisan compromise that would extend the 2001 and 2003 tax rates for all Americans for some period of time, a GOP goal. “I think that most folks believe that the recipe would include at least an extension of unemployment benefits for those who are unemployed and an extension of all of the tax rates for all Americans for some period of time,” Kyl said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” One day after Republicans blocked a Democratic effort in the Senate to extend the tax cuts for the middle class but not the very wealthy, it looked like a deal could be in the offing before the end of the week. The tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush expire at the end of the year unless Congress acts. “I think it’s pretty clear now taxes are not going up on anybody in the middle of this recession,” McConnell said. “We’re moving in that direction,” Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois, who appeared with Kyl on “Face the Nation,” said. But in a reference to extension of the tax rates for all income levels, he added, “We’re only moving there against my judgment. ” But in this morning’s Times, the Republicans are only saying they’ll “probably” allow us to continue unemployment benefits. Aren’t they just swell? As for the Democrats: In meetings with administration officials after the Senate votes, the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and many other House and Senate Democrats voiced deep unhappiness at the prospect of extending all the tax cuts and also expressed their belief that the White House did not appear to be getting enough for such a big concession , officials said. You’d think at some point the cognitive dissonance thing would make their heads explode. Here, the Democrats have been turning backflips to show they’re “just as concerned” about the deficits as the Republicans, and now the Republicans are pulling a major budgetbuster – at gunpoint. At some point, they might just figure out it’s easier to think for yourselves.
Continue reading …Click here to view this media Bill Maher sat down with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria to discuss President Obama’s first term in office and how he’s reacting to the mid-term elections, the hypocrisy of the teabaggers and Glenn Beck’s move from pundit to preacher among other things. ZAKARIA: “Politically Incorrect” was the name of the show Bill Maher hosted in the 1990s. It’s also an apt description of the man himself. Now host of eighth HBO’s hit show “Real Time”, I find Maher to be one of the sharpest observers of American politics and life in general out there. It doesn’t mean I always agree with him. I always find him funny, though. Several times over the past few years, he has asked me questions. This time it’s my turn. Welcome to the show, Bill Maher. MAHER: Nice to be here. ZAKARIA: So Obama. How do you think he’s responded to the shellacking so far? MAHER: He looks beaten down. That’s what disturbs me. You know, I thought when we elected the first black president, as a comedian, I thought two years in I’d be making jokes about what a gangster he was, you know. And not that he’s President Wayne Brady. I thought we’re getting Suge Knight. And, you know, for him to be talking about compromising with the Republicans on the Bush tax cuts, where — where are they going to draw a line in the sand? When are they going to remember who they are? I’m so disappointed and I still like him and still think there’s hope. He could get it yet, but I’m so disappointed that he just seems to be another in a long line of Democrats that come across as wimpy and woozy and whatever word you want to as describe to it of not standing up for what they believe in enough. The Republicans seem to continually stake out a position further, further to the right and then demand that the Democrats meet them in the middle except that that’s not the middle anymore. ZAKARIA: Yes. MAHER: That’s the near right. ZAKARIA: But, you know, you say Democrats keep doing this. Is there a possibility that the reason they do this is the electorate is further right than you would like it to be. MAHER: No, I — I reject that entirely. It’s because the Republicans are much better at sticking by what they believe in and they all get on the same page. I mean, a good example, and I think where this administration really went off kilter, was the public option with the health care debate. That was his big issue that’s what he staked his administration on. That debate should have started from we’re the Democrats, we’re the party of the people. We want a single payer plan. Of course that would never pass, but that should have been their position. The Republicans would be, no, our — our health care plan is called drop dead or they maybe would have improved it, go screw yourself plus perhaps, meet in the middle at the public option. It is after all an option. To see these people dressed up as the founding fathers who want more freedom, but you don’t want an option? It’s actually more freedom for you, you see there. That should have been where they stuck it. And the public option was polling at around 70 percent popularity when the debate started. But see that’s what the Republicans do. They take something that’s polling at 40 percent and they say, OK, we’ll all get on the same page, we’ll hammer it home, we’ll get it up to 55. The Democrats, they abandon what they — they didn’t run on health care in this last election. This was a big thing that presidents going back to Teddy Roosevelt have tried to get the American people. They got it done and they ran away from it. Now, the American people don’t follow issues that closely. What they follow is who’s dominating, who’s — who’s standing by what they believe in. What they see is Democrats not standing behind what they passed in health care and so to them, they say to themselves there must be something wrong with it if these people aren’t standing up for it. ZAKARIA: But the big shift if you look 1996 when the Democrats sweep into power, 57 percent of independents voted Democrat. In this election, 57 percent of independents voted Republican. What does that tell you? MAHER: That tells me independents don’t pay that much attention. Independents are people who just throw out the party that’s in power because Obama got elected and it didn’t immediately start rating 20s. So throw the bums out. By the way, the same bums that they just, you know, threw out two years ago they wanted to put back in. No wonder we can’t get anything done in this country. So, you know, this idea that the independents are these — these careful thinkers who assess what’s going — I don’t think that’s who the independent voter is. I just they’re — they’re cranky people who want change. They voted for change in ’06. They voted for change in ’08. They voted — I don’t blame them for being impatient with Obama. He did promise us change and he’s delivered some of it. I mean there has been change. In other ways, he looks too much like what we had before. I could name a whole list of issues where the Democrats and the Republicans really are the same party. When people say, you know, there’s not enough bipartisanship, I very often think, no, there’s actually too much. On Afghanistan, too much. We have two parties, we have one policy. Gun control, two parties, one policy. Marijuana, two parties, one policy. Lot — there’s a lot of that in this country. ZAKARIA: But it’d be fair to say that, I mean, your — your views represent — wouldn’t you say when you want to legalize marijuana, you want — you’re — you are to the left of the American public. MAHER: I don’t — again, I don’t know about that. I mean, the last poll I saw, 44 percent of the American public wanted to legalize marijuana. Now, that’s without anybody in one of the major parties backing that. We had Prop 19 out in California which was on the ballot and it was polling above 50 percent, but no Democrat in the state would get behind that. I mean, it’s really not that controversial an issue to — to legalize marijuana if you look at the facts. And yet, if it was polling at 44 percent with no Democrat, nobody in either major party getting behind it, don’t you think it could be over 50 percent if somebody said, yes, this is the right thing to do? So I think the American public is a lot more left leaning than people think. ZAKARIA: You know that one of the charges against Obama is he’s trying to make America look more like Europe. MAHER: I hope so. ZAKARIA: But I think you would say — you would say good. MAHER: Of course. Yes. Europe does a lot of — I mean, we don’t want to look like the Greek economy or the Irish economy at this point, but let’s be honest. One reason that those two economies are in such bad shape is the banks in America. Not that they didn’t, you know, get into it themselves. But in many ways, I think we would be a much better country if we acted a little more like Europe. We would have, you know, gay marriage, we would be able to, yes, have marijuana. We arrest something like 750,000 people for marijuana. They don’t do that in Europe. Healthcare for people, you know, this idea – ZAKARIA: But the argument is that they’re sclerotic, they — they don’t grow as much, we have a dynamic economy. MAHER: Do we? We have a dynamic economy. ZAKARIA: Not — not maybe right this moment. MAHER: Yes. ZAKARIA: But the argument — Silicon Valley, you know, there’s entrepreneurship. MAHER: Yes. ZAKARIA: There’s so much more dynamic place. MAHER: Oh, there are great things about this country. You know, why can’t we take the good from here and not the bad? Let’s not take the sclerotic part. Let’s take the, you know, the part of – ZAKARIA: Let’s take the (INAUDIBLE). MAHER: But, you know, there is one major — oh, yes — there is one major party in this country, the Republicans, who will never listen to an idea that comes from another party. You know, their idea of American exceptionalism, that’s all they care about. If you — if you look at Sarah Palin, what she says, all of them, Mitt Romney’s book is called “No Apologies.” Not that anybody asked for one. The case for American greatness I think is what it’s called. And, you know, they live in this fantasy world where it’s always 1945. America’s always number one. Marc Rubio, who’s the new teabag senator from Florida, the new — the new Bobby Jindal, I think, he made a speech, it was astounding. And this is not uncommon for a Republican to talk about this at the CPAC Convention. He said this is the only country in the world where an idea that started out as an idea on a cocktail napkin could wind up being traded on the stock exchange. No, other countries have napkins and stock exchanges. But you see, this is their room full of balls at Chuck E. Cheese. Their fantasy world they live in. ZAKARIA: And if they actually look at the data and say, well, America is actually 20th on Internet in social world (ph) — MAHER: In so many — I mean, we’re like 65th in infant mortality, 19th in literacy. You know, one of the big arguments during the health care debate that the Republicans put forward, one of their major talking points was why are we messing around with the greatest health care system in the world? I don’t know. Maybe because the U.N. ranks it 37? You know, these people, they love the truth, they just hate facts. ZAKARIA: When we come back, we will talk more about facts and we will talk about Republicans when we come back with Bill Maher. ZAKARIA: And we are back with Bill Maher talking about American politics and lots more. The Republicans, the Tea Party, is there anything about it, any pleasant surprises? MAHER: For comedians, many pleasant — they’re one a week. I guess , you know, if you want to look at the silver lining, is that in the election we just had, they did not — the American public did not elect any of the people we thought were the most extreme. Carl Paladino didn’t win, Sharron Angle didn’t win. Christine O’Donnell didn’t win. America I would never say is burden by being an intellectual country, but they did draw a line in the sand somewhere. They said, you know, some stupidity is just a bridge too far even for us. So that — that’s the good news. The bad news, of course, is that the teabaggers are ascendant. We see that they are already making rank and file Republicans change the way they view things like on earmarks and so forth. I think they’re always going to have to answer to the Tea Party because they — they worry about a Tea Party rebellion against them. But, you know, what I think makes the teabaggers such a non- credible organization is that they pretend to be all about the deficit and taxes, you know. They’re named after a tax revolt after all. And, first of all, almost none of them understand that their taxes have gone down under Obama. So they’re named after a tax revolt, but they don’t know anything about taxes. That’s one thing. The other thing is, if they’re so concerned about the deficit, where were they when the deficit was going up mostly under Bush? I mean, again, these are those inconvenient things called facts. But most of the deficit was the Bush tax cuts for the rich which were urgently not needed and, of course – ZAKARIA: Prescription drugs for the elderly. MAHER: — prescription drugs for the elderly, the two words that we put on the credit card. That’s where the money went. Dick Cheney said during the Bush terms deficits don’t matter and they seemed to go along. But suddenly when President Nosferatu takes office, deficits matter very much. ZAKARIA: How much do you think the Tea Party is about, you know, taxes and libertarianism and how much is it about religion? I ask this because, a, I know how much you love the — the issue of religion. MAHER: I do. ZAKARIA: But when you watched Glenn Beck’s rally, what’s fascinating is it was mostly about religion. MAHER: I think he’s doing what some people before him have done like L. Ron Hubbard, who’s a novelist and decided, you know what, it’s a much easier gig to be a religious leader. ZAKARIA: And tax exempt. MAHER: And tax — tax exempt. And you already have people — I mean, there’s a reason they call them the flock, because they’re sheep and they’ll believe anything. So I think Glenn Beck is seguing (ph) from what he was mostly a political preacher, to a preacher preacher. It is an easier gig and you make more money, you know, Jim Baker kind of money. And so, yes, I think that could be something. But, you know, the Tea Party — I’m not the first one to notice this, is really an amalgam of a whole bunch of different types of people and it’s some old school John Bircher types, it is some racists, it is actually people who care about the deficit and the debt as I do, as you do, we all do. And I think there is an element — there was an article in the “New York Times” about a month ago that said an article of faith of all the teabaggers is to believe that global warming is a hoax. And you mentioned religion. I saw one of the guys quoted in the article, a teabagger guy said I’ve read my Bible. God put the earth here for us to utilize it. And, you know, we can laugh that off exempt that the guy who’s going to be taking over the energy commission, Shimkus, you know this guy. He’s Republican John Shimkus. He’s a real winner. He says that we don’t have to worry about global warming, because in the Bible, God promised Noah after the flood, you know, Noah, the 500-year-old man who got two of every animal on the ship and got them to — OK. He promised Noah after the flood, he wouldn’t wipe out the world again, so why are we worrying about global warming. I mean, what — you’re a man of the world. What does the rest of the world think of this country? It is embarrassing that we have these yokels who are in charge. They must be laughing at us in almost every world capital when they hear something like that. ZAKARIA: Bill Maher, always a pleasure. MAHER: Good to see you. ZAKARIA: We will be right back.
Continue reading …December's Limbaugh Letter has these choice quotes from Speaker Pelosi on the 63-seat bloodbath of the House Democrats. “We didn't lose the election because of me…I'm the most significant attractor of support for the Democrats.” She said this on National Public Radio on the November 12 Morning Edition newscast. I went back to find out what did the interviewer say before and after this laughable blast? Anchor Renee Montagne asked about being “successfully demonized” by the GOP: MONTAGNE: Getting back to the politics, you have been quite successfully demonized by the Republicans. How are you going to keep that from hurting your party more than it already has? PELOSI: Well, let me say this when you say more than it already has. The reason the election results are what they are is because we have nine-and-half percent unemployment in our country. We didn't lose the election because of me. read more
Continue reading …By Chris Hedges What is frightening in collapsing societies is not only the killers, sadists, murderers and psychopaths who rise up out of the moral swamp to take power, but the huge numbers of ordinary people who become complicit in state crimes. Related Entries December 5, 2010 Can Democrats ‘Up Their Game’? December 5, 2010 WikiLeaks: Not for Government Eyes
Continue reading …Fake news by Andy Borowitz By Andy Borowitz In the first major policy fallout from the WikiLeaks disclosures, the State Department has ordered all U.S. diplomats to “cease and desist telling the truth until further notice.” Related Entries December 5, 2010 WikiLeaks: Not for Government Eyes December 2, 2010 Sweden’s Top Court Pushes for Assange’s Arrest
Continue reading …By E.J. Dionne, Jr. Being the party of “new and improved” surely beats getting trapped in a fight whose terms were set entirely by Republicans. Related Entries December 5, 2010 WikiLeaks: Not for Government Eyes December 2, 2010 Sweden’s Top Court Pushes for Assange’s Arrest
Continue reading …