Daily Show: Dealageddon! – A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Compromise – Tea Party No-Win
August 3, 2011 No CommentAfter a really unfortunate visual of John Boehner that I don’t have enough brain-bleach to get out of my head, Jon Stewart slammed these “tea partiers” (note to Jon Stewart, there is no “tea party”) for still not being satisfied with the outcome of this ridiculous debt ceiling hostage taking. As Stewart noted, they control less than one half of one chamber of Congress and even though our deficit is primarily a result of Republican policies like the Bush tax cuts, they still won’t “take the win” because they’re pissed off that “government still exists.” STEWART: This whole process has been like, you’re in a bank, it’s a negotiation where you’ve got some hostages and after getting everything you wanted, you’re still going “Oh, and one last demand. I still get to kill the hostages, right?” That about sums it up. They’re all of the Grover Norquist ilk where they want to shrink government to the size of a baby and then drown the baby in a bathtub. People who do not believe in government working should not be allowed to be running our government, but here we are. I can only hope everyone of these astroturf, Koch-funded TeaBirchers finds themselves looking for new employment after the next election or whenever the rest of them have to run again. Maybe we can get Stewart to ask one of these days as many of our commenters have suggested here and as I would also suggest myself, if these “free market” anti-regulation, anti-government zealots want to live in a country where their ideology has come to fruition, can we get them all to move to Somalia and leave the rest of us that still want government to work for the people that have elected our politicians into office, and that they’re supposed to be representing, the hell alone? I suspect that’s too much to ask for from the crowd that just wants to burn the whole house down.
Continue reading …Daily Show: Dealageddon! – A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Compromise – Tea Party No-Win
August 3, 2011 No CommentAfter a really unfortunate visual of John Boehner that I don’t have enough brain-bleach to get out of my head, Jon Stewart slammed these “tea partiers” (note to Jon Stewart, there is no “tea party”) for still not being satisfied with the outcome of this ridiculous debt ceiling hostage taking. As Stewart noted, they control less than one half of one chamber of Congress and even though our deficit is primarily a result of Republican policies like the Bush tax cuts, they still won’t “take the win” because they’re pissed off that “government still exists.” STEWART: This whole process has been like, you’re in a bank, it’s a negotiation where you’ve got some hostages and after getting everything you wanted, you’re still going “Oh, and one last demand. I still get to kill the hostages, right?” That about sums it up. They’re all of the Grover Norquist ilk where they want to shrink government to the size of a baby and then drown the baby in a bathtub. People who do not believe in government working should not be allowed to be running our government, but here we are. I can only hope everyone of these astroturf, Koch-funded TeaBirchers finds themselves looking for new employment after the next election or whenever the rest of them have to run again. Maybe we can get Stewart to ask one of these days as many of our commenters have suggested here and as I would also suggest myself, if these “free market” anti-regulation, anti-government zealots want to live in a country where their ideology has come to fruition, can we get them all to move to Somalia and leave the rest of us that still want government to work for the people that have elected our politicians into office, and that they’re supposed to be representing, the hell alone? I suspect that’s too much to ask for from the crowd that just wants to burn the whole house down.
Continue reading …Daily Show: Dealageddon! – A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Compromise – Tea Party No-Win
August 3, 2011 No CommentAfter a really unfortunate visual of John Boehner that I don’t have enough brain-bleach to get out of my head, Jon Stewart slammed these “tea partiers” (note to Jon Stewart, there is no “tea party”) for still not being satisfied with the outcome of this ridiculous debt ceiling hostage taking. As Stewart noted, they control less than one half of one chamber of Congress and even though our deficit is primarily a result of Republican policies like the Bush tax cuts, they still won’t “take the win” because they’re pissed off that “government still exists.” STEWART: This whole process has been like, you’re in a bank, it’s a negotiation where you’ve got some hostages and after getting everything you wanted, you’re still going “Oh, and one last demand. I still get to kill the hostages, right?” That about sums it up. They’re all of the Grover Norquist ilk where they want to shrink government to the size of a baby and then drown the baby in a bathtub. People who do not believe in government working should not be allowed to be running our government, but here we are. I can only hope everyone of these astroturf, Koch-funded TeaBirchers finds themselves looking for new employment after the next election or whenever the rest of them have to run again. Maybe we can get Stewart to ask one of these days as many of our commenters have suggested here and as I would also suggest myself, if these “free market” anti-regulation, anti-government zealots want to live in a country where their ideology has come to fruition, can we get them all to move to Somalia and leave the rest of us that still want government to work for the people that have elected our politicians into office, and that they’re supposed to be representing, the hell alone? I suspect that’s too much to ask for from the crowd that just wants to burn the whole house down.
Continue reading …Daily Show: Dealageddon! – A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Compromise – Tea Party No-Win
August 3, 2011 No CommentAfter a really unfortunate visual of John Boehner that I don’t have enough brain-bleach to get out of my head, Jon Stewart slammed these “tea partiers” (note to Jon Stewart, there is no “tea party”) for still not being satisfied with the outcome of this ridiculous debt ceiling hostage taking. As Stewart noted, they control less than one half of one chamber of Congress and even though our deficit is primarily a result of Republican policies like the Bush tax cuts, they still won’t “take the win” because they’re pissed off that “government still exists.” STEWART: This whole process has been like, you’re in a bank, it’s a negotiation where you’ve got some hostages and after getting everything you wanted, you’re still going “Oh, and one last demand. I still get to kill the hostages, right?” That about sums it up. They’re all of the Grover Norquist ilk where they want to shrink government to the size of a baby and then drown the baby in a bathtub. People who do not believe in government working should not be allowed to be running our government, but here we are. I can only hope everyone of these astroturf, Koch-funded TeaBirchers finds themselves looking for new employment after the next election or whenever the rest of them have to run again. Maybe we can get Stewart to ask one of these days as many of our commenters have suggested here and as I would also suggest myself, if these “free market” anti-regulation, anti-government zealots want to live in a country where their ideology has come to fruition, can we get them all to move to Somalia and leave the rest of us that still want government to work for the people that have elected our politicians into office, and that they’re supposed to be representing, the hell alone? I suspect that’s too much to ask for from the crowd that just wants to burn the whole house down.
Continue reading …
Kylie Grimes, who sued friend’s father after sustaining injuries from diving into swimming pool, loses compensation bid A woman who launched a £6m damages claim after being left paralysed when she hit her head on the bottom of a swimming pool during an impromptu late-night party has lost her high court action. Kylie Grimes was hurt in August 2006 when she dived into the indoor pool at the Surrey home of David Hawkins, managing director of a forklift truck business. Grimes, now 23, of Farnham, claimed that her injuries were caused by Hawkins’s negligence or breach of his duties under the Occupiers’ Liability Act. She was left paralysed from the chest down after the force of the impact broke a vertebra below the base of her neck. At a hearing in May, Mrs Justice Thirlwall, sitting in London, heard that Hawkins and his wife were away that night but had given permission for daughter Katie, who had just left college, to have two friends over as she was not happy on her own. Katie Hawkins told the court that she phoned her father for permission to bring three more but, in the end, a group of about 20 came back to the house from the pub. Mr Hawkins, of Farnham, denied liability. His counsel, William Norris QC, told the judge that no sound legal basis existed upon which he could be held liable for the accident which happened in an “unremarkable swimming pool on domestic premises when the claimant, an adult, chose to do something which involved an obvious risk”. Thirlwall, who was only ruling on the issue of liability, dismissed the claim against Hawkins on Wednesday. She said: “The pool was not unsafe for diving. I have no doubt that some mature adults faced with a group of young adults in high spirits, some of whom had had too much to drink, would send them all home rather than allow any of them into a swimming pool. “But that is not to say that the duty owed to the claimant [Grimes] under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 required the defendant to put the pool out of bounds that night.” Thirlwall added: “The defendant was not required to adopt a paternalistic approach to his visitors, all of whom were adults, all of whom were making choices about their behaviour that night.” The judge concluded: “I do not accept that it is incumbent on a householder with a private swimming pool to prohibit adults from diving into an ordinary pool whose dimensions and contours can clearly be seen. “It may well be different where there is some hidden or unexpected hazard, but there was none here.” She ruled that Hawkins was not in breach of his duty to Grimes under the Occupiers’ Liability Act and she also dismissed the claim of negligence against him. Disability guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Inquiry launched after 30,000 school students in Scotland who chose to receive grades by text find out results a day early Nearly 30,000 school students in Scotland have been sent their exam results a day early after a major blunder with an automated text messaging service. The Scottish Qualifications Authority confirmed on Wednesday that it believed every pupil who opted to receive their grades by text message rather than post or email had been sent them early. As many teenagers vented their anger at the error on Twitter and Facebook, the exams regulator said all the results were correct. It said it had launched an urgent inquiry with the company hired to send out the texts. An SQA spokesman said: “We’re aware that this is in any case a stressful time for candidates and their parents and families, and if we have added to their stress in any way, we apologise.” He said 29,863 of the 160,000 school students who sat final exams, including standard grades, highers and Scottish baccaulearates, had registered to get their results by text, with about 6,000 more opting for email notification. “I can confirm that it would appear that 29,000 candidates who had signed up for text results delivery and should have received their results at 9 o’clock tomorrow morning have been receiving them now,” he said. “They have received them in error and we’re carrying out an investigation with the external contractor who carries out this service for us.” Many of those students involved are about to apply for late university places, when the clearing process starts on Thursday, so in theory have a head start finding courses. The SQA said no one had been disadvantaged. “There has been an issue, no running away from that, with text delivery and we’re trying to bottom that out. But better to be delivered early rather than late I would suggest,” the spokesman said. There was an angry reaction, however, from many school pupils on Twitter. Some students said they had not received theirs by text, implying that they had signed up for the text message service. One, who uses the Twitter name Rawr_im_a_kitty, wrote: “SQA sent exam results to some people early by accident … SQA I HATE U!!! T.T they didn’t send me mine T.T no sleep for me tonight then …” Others were angry that they had been left waiting while friends had received their results. One, staywithsara, tweeted: “So pissed at the SQA. send out the bloody email cos it’s so freaking unfair for those who didn’t get results & friends have theirs!” Schools Children Scotland Severin Carrell guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Joe Lieberman Wants to Feed the Military Industrial Complex Our Social Security
August 3, 2011 No CommentSen. Joe Lieberman, who used to be a staunch ally for Medicare and Social Security is now throwing away any pretense that he was once a Democratic politician and would rather help destroy the lives of seniors in America to make sure funds flow to continue endless wars on Pam Geller’s favorite target: Radical Islamists . In a new bill that he’ll co-sponsor with Conservative Tom Coburn, they plan on helping to weaken one of our most cherished and valued programs, Social Security and send the cash over the the Military. he knows that Social Security is solvent for decades and doesn’t add a penny to the deficit which has preoccupied the White House, GOP and the beltway media. It doesn’t matter that Americans have said over and over again that they prefer defense spending to be cut, not our social safety nets. Think Progress: This past April, right-wing war hawk John Bolton suggested during an interview on Fox News that the United States should cut Social Security and Medicare to finance the defense budget. During debate over the debt deal today on the Senate floor, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) appeared to endorse this call. Lieberman explained that he is working with Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) on a Social Security spending reduction plan and that “we can’t protect these entitlements and also have the national defense…to protect us…with Islamist extremists”: LIEBERMAN: I want to indicate today to my colleagues that Senator Coburn and I are working again on a bipartisan proposal to secure Social Security over the long term, we hope to have that done in time. To also forward to the special committee for their consideration. So, bottom line, we can’t protect these entitlements and also have the national defense we need to protect us in a dangerous world while we’re at war with Islamist extremists who attacked us on 9/11 and will be for a long time to come. In a quick search I found a poll done by Reuters/Ipsos back in March which says: A majority of Americans prefer cutting defense spending to reduce the federal deficit rather than taking money from public retirement and health programs, a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Wednesday showed. The poll found 51 percent of Americans support reducing defense spending, and only 28 percent want to cut Medicare and Medicaid health programs for the elderly and poor. A mere 18 percent back cuts in the Social Security retirement program. This fearmongering fiend would rather back an out of control war hawk’s idea from a nut like John Bolton, ( who also is a hero to Pam Geller ) than stand up for the Americans that already have been paying 600 billion dollars a year to the military. As ThinkProgress’s Ben Armbruster notes, the Bolton-Lieberman plan is “is basically a reverse Robin Hood scheme : robbing the poor to pay the rich, or really, the Military Industrial Complex on steroids.” Lieberman is bringing this to the floor because military spending is one of the triggers that will be activated if no deal is passed by the new Super Cat Food Commission. Congress nor the president seem to care that Americans also don’t want Medicare cut to appease the deficit hawks. Despite growing concerns about the country’s long-term fiscal problems and an intensifying debate in Washington about how to deal with them, Americans strongly oppose some of the major remedies under consideration, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. The survey finds that Americans prefer to keep Medicare just the way it is. WSJ/NBC: Less than a quarter of Americans support making significant cuts to Social Security or Medicare to tackle the country’s mounting deficit, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, illustrating the challenge facing lawmakers who want voter buy-in to alter entitlement programs. In the poll, Americans across all age groups and ideologies said by large margins that it was “unacceptable” to make significant cuts in entitlement programs in order to reduce the federal deficit. Even tea party supporters, by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, declared significant cuts to Social Security “unacceptable.” Could Joe have acted any quicker to defend his precious wars?
Continue reading …Tom Coburn Obstructs Funds to FAA – Kate Bailey Hutchison Blasts Congress as Not Being ‘Honorable’
August 3, 2011 No CommentSen. Tom Coburn is a busy man. Not only is he preparing to attack Social Security, but he’s been pivotal in helping to destroy jobs, airline security and force Americans to foot the bill in the process with his blocking of the new FAA reauthorization. Now you know why I threw up when he stepped into the Gang of Six negotiations. C&L has been covering the tea party’s crazed crazed attacks of the FAA because of their anti-union agenda and now the Senate has joined in their madness. Political Correction: The House of Representatives adjourned for summer recess last night without resolving a dispute over Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) funding, meaning that almost 4,000 FAA employees will remain furloughed for another month and that dozens of construction projects will remain on hold. Furloughing thousands of employees and delaying construction projects can only hurt a sagging economy, and CNN reports that tens of thousands of workers could be affected: The work stoppage will have a direct impact on about 24,000 construction workers engaged in those projects, indirectly impact 11,000 others and hurt 35,000 support workers, such as food service vendors, said Steve Sandherr of Associated General Contractors of America. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) blasted her party for causing the impasse by insisting on including “extraneous” provisions in the funding bill: Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, breaking with her party, called on Congress to pass a temporary extension that was devoid of any complicating policy issues. “We’re getting ready to leave for a month. We should not shut down the FAA because of a rider put on the extension of the FAA legislation that has not been negotiated,” Hutchison said. “It is not honorable for the House to send an extraneous amendment” on a funding extension, she said. In addition to the negative economic impact on FAA employees and tens of thousands of others, the dispute could cost the federal government $1.2 billion in lost revenue due to uncollected taxes on airfare. (That lost revenue isn’t staying in taxpayers’ pockets, by the way: Airlines are raising fares to offset the decrease in taxes , so customers aren’t saving any money — they’re just paying more to the airlines rather than funding the FAA.) As is often the case, the Senate failed to pass the necessary legislation in large part due to the obstinacy of Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) : On Monday, Sens. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., chairman of the committee that oversees the FAA, and Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, the senior Republican on the committee, floated a proposal to restore full operating authority to the FAA while cutting air service subsidies $71 million. The plan fell apart when Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., said he would use parliamentary procedures to tie up the Senate in an effort to prevent a vote on the measure. Coburn’s refusal to allow a vote, thus costing the government $1.2 billion in revenue, is remarkable for a senator who has made a career of showboating about the budget deficit. Coburn was not the only Republican who threw a wrench into these un-American activities which are motivated by their hate of unions more than anything else: House Transportation Committee Chairman John Mica (R-FL), in a fit of spite, attached extra cuts to rural airports ( in mostly Democratic states ) to his version of the bill, which he admitted was merely meant to tweak Democratic senators for not going along with the GOP’s union busting. If the FAA shutdown continues for another month, it will cost the government about $1.2 billion . But for the GOP, that seems to be an acceptable price for advancing an anti-union agenda. Last night, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) attempted to pass a clean FAA reauthorization through the Senate by unanimous consent. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) objected. So much for worrying about the federal debt. What a sham. This Congress is what the administration thinks they can shame into raising revenues in any way possible? Or to even promote job growth in America?
Continue reading …Scarborough Rails Against House Republicans That Opposed Debt Ceiling Agreement
August 3, 2011 No Comment
Joe Scarborough on Wednesday railed about House Republicans that opposed Monday's debt ceiling agreement. Although he agreed the final package “when it comes to actual debt savings [was] a real nothing-burger,” the host of MSNBC's “Morning Joe” said GOPers that voted “No” are “going to have to understand if they’re going to stay in the majority they’re going to have act more responsibly than that” (video follows with transcript and commentary): JOE SCARBOROUGH: The thing that galls me at this point, I understand, Mika, that this was a, as Pat Buchanan said before when it comes to actual debt savings, a real nothing-burger. MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Right. SCARBOROUGH: Nothing at all at the end of the day. BRZEZINSKI: Coburn yesterday. SCARBOROUGH: That said, if you were a Republican and you were in the House of Representatives and you were responsible for governing, I find it very hard to justify a no vote. I don’t care, nobody, you know what? They, let them stay in Congress for as long as they want. I, I challenge them to put their fiscal hawk credentials up to mine any time, but 24 hours away from a collapse, why is it that Republicans are voting no and as many Democrats vote yes as no? And the Democrats, everybody knows they got rolled. The President got rolled. This was a Republican package, they still voted no. I just got to say, as they move forward… BRZEZINSKI: I can’t disagree with you. SCARBOROUGH: …they’re going to have to understand if they’re going to stay in the majority, they’re going, they’re going to have act more responsibly than that. So, as far as debt savings is concerned, Scarborough realizes this deal was a “real nothing-burger.” Then why is it irresponsible for someone concerned about the debt explosion in the last four years to vote against something that doesn't reduce the debt very much? Isn't that actually the responsible thing to do? As for the Democrats and the President getting “rolled,” didn't the real fiscal conservatives as well? As we heard from a number of Republican Senators during the pre-vote debate Tuesday, this package really does very little as far as either short- or long-term deficit reduction. For those that left successful careers last year to come to Washington to solve the nation's fiscal crisis, this agreement did very little in that regard. As such, if they were true to their principles, why would they vote for it? Exactly how are they the irresponsible ones in this debate? If Scarborough thinks his “fiscal hawk credentials” are in the same league as the 66 House Republicans that voted against this package, he should ask himself how he could have voted for something that was a “real nothing-burger” in terms of deficit reduction.
Continue reading …
Dogs in Jiangmen to be seized and put down to improve sanitation but experts brand plan unscientific and inhumane A southern Chinese city has banned pet dogs, leaving tens of thousands facing a cull unless they can find new homes. Authorities in Jiangmen, Guangdong province, say they are concerned about rabies cases and the general state of the city. But animal lovers have reacted angrily and a disease control expert warned the tactic, which will affect 30,000 animals, is unscientific, inhumane and short-term. Any dogs seen in the Pengjiang, Jianghai and Xinhui districts after 26 August will be seized or killed, city officials say. Guard dogs will be allowed, but only for companies with property worth at least 5m yuan (£474,000). The Jiangmen Daily said officials aimed to “prevent and control rabies, maintain public order and sanitation, and create a sound environment for the people”. The newspaper added that 42 of the city’s 4 million residents had died from rabies in the past three years. “Dogs found with diseases will be euthanised in a humanitarian manner. We will sign agreements with owners before putting down their dogs,” Li Wantong, technology director at an animal disease control centre in Jiangmen, told the Global Times. “We will try to find solutions for healthy ones, as we do not have the capacity to keep a large number.” Some residents back the move, with one complaining to the newspaper: “[Dog] excrement is everywhere in the courtyard and parks, and their barking always disrupts my sleep.” But a poodle owner said: “Banning all pet dogs, taking them away and killing them is a bit too much.” Dog ownership has soared as Chinese incomes have risen over the past few decades and there is growing interest in animal rights , particularly among the middle class. “This [ban] is not scientific, not humane, and it will not last long. In short term, maybe it could be effective, but after that, people still want to keep dogs,” said Dr Tang Qing of the National Institute for Viral Disease Control and Prevention at China’s Centre for Disease Control. “People won’t accept it and implementing it will be difficult – you can’t break down doors to seize and kill dogs.” He added that a vaccination programme for dogs would be cheaper and more effective. China has the world’s second-highest death toll from rabies after India, with cases rising sharply in the past decade, possibly due to increasing pet ownership and rising healthcare costs. The health ministry says 3,300 people died of the disease in 2007, although the toll fell to 2,466 in 2008 and experts believe the worst may be over. A 2009 ministry report said only a fifth of China’s 75m dogs were vaccinated against the disease. It added that 40 million people a year were bitten by animals . Dr Kati Loeffler, veterinary adviser for the International Fund for Animal Welfare in China, said: “Decades of research internationally have shown culling is absolutely ineffective in controlling rabies – the only way to control it is through mass vaccination. The second reason that [officials] do it is because people are not taking care of their animals … causing nuisance. That requires education.” In several cases tightened dog ownership rules have led people to abandon pets, resulting in a large stray population that potentially causes more problems. Two years ago, Hanzhong in Shaanxi enraged animal lovers by announcing it had culled 36,000 stray and pet dogs. Additional research by Han Cheng China Animal welfare Animals Tania Branigan guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …