The President’s Plan to Create Jobs and Cut the Deficit
Sunday, April 7, 2013
The President’s Plan to Create Jobs and Cut the Deficit
Saturday, March 30, 2013
I've been extremely busy these last few weeks and consequently the blog has suffered. But I'm still here and soon I'll hopefully be back on a regular basis. Thanks to all who stop by here to check in.
President Obama Offers Easter and Passover Greetings
Weekly Address - March 23, 2013
Saturday, March 16, 2013
Time to Create the Energy Security Trust
Sunday, March 10, 2013
This week Kentucky Tea Party Sen. Rand Paul decided to have a thirteen hour, one-man circle jerk filibuster on the Senate floor in opposition of the nomination of John Brennan as the next CIA director until he got assurances from the White House that drones would not be used to target US citizens on US soil, you know because it's happening almost daily on our streets already.
This all stems from the targeting of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American born expatriate who repeatedly called for jihad against the United States, had ties to three of the 9/11 hijackers, Fort Hood shooter Nadal Malik Hasan, underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and was elevated to regional commader in Al-Qaeda. Yes, the same Al-Qaeda which we are supposedly involved in a war against. Not what I would call a model US citizen, that al-Awlaki. Yet all these politicians are getting the vapors over this particular drone strike targeting someone that clearly was an enemy of the US, but since he was a US citizen the logical conclusion is that clearly it can happen here on American soil, even though it's never happened. And why would that be? Enter Rand Paul.
Paul sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder to ask if the Obama Administration thought it was legal to use drones against American citizens on American soil. Holder responded with the following:
"As members of this administration have previously indicated, the US government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so. As a policy matter moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat. We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts.”
“The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront. It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States.”
So, the answer: It's never happened, we have no intention of making it happen but hypothetically under the most extreme circumstances, it's possible. And the only thing Rand Paul focused on (as well as a lot of the media - you know, because controversy du jour) is the "it's possible" part to begin his fist shaking (and fundraising opportunity) outrage.“For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.”
As David von Ebers writes, no one was worried about "the possibility" of military strikes on US soil under extreme circumstances when we were under attack.
"...the fact that the Bush Administration sent military aircraft – both armed and unarmed – into the skies on September 11 surprised exactly no one. As events were unfolding, and before anyone knew exactly who was responsible for the attacks, the President and the military were prepared to use lethal force to stop planes from hitting additional targets, even if it meant killing innocent American passengers, and regardless of the nationality or citizenship of the hijackers.
If you paid any attention to the news coverage at the time, you knew this. And I suspect, like me, you didn’t object to it in the least. As much as I abhor nearly everything George W. Bush did as president, I can’t fault him or his military leaders for making that awful decision. What other choice did they have? If they’d had the opportunity to shoot down even one of those planes, they might have saved the lives of thousands of other innocent people. It’s an awful choice to have to make, but we expect presidents to make extraordinarily difficult choices in extraordinarily difficult circumstances...
...Atty. Gen. Holder told Sen. Paul that the Obama Administration would do exactly what the Bush Administration attempted to do on September 11, 2001, in identical circumstances. Now I’m old and my memory is imperfect (although I did remember, quite clearly, that the Bush Administration scrambled fighter jets on 9/11), but try as I might to wrack my middle-aged brain, I recall exactly no controversy – as in none, zip, zero, nada – absolutely no controversy whatsoever following the Bush Administration’s attempt to use lethal military force that day.
So you can understand my confusion. This is not a case where the Bush Administration expanded the powers of the presidency and the Obama Administration followed suit; instead, this is a situation where Pres. Bush’s actions were met with no controversy at the time because they were not controversial. What Pres. Bush did on 9/11 – ordering fighter pilots to take to the air, to shoot down hijacked airliners if necessary – appeared to everyone at the time to be right in the presidential wheelhouse, legally and constitutionally. Awful, yes. Illegal? Of course not."
So Rand Paul, and Tea Party wingnut Ted Cruz and Poland Spring spokesman Marco Rubio who took the opportunity to ride Paul's coattails in the latest search for the 2016 spotlight, please spare me the crocodile tears of Constitutional rights on one drone terrorist target who also happened to be an American citizen. Until Congress sets trials for everyone in detention centers like Gitmo, they should just shut their cake holes.
Ezra Klein: This is why Obama can’t make a deal with Republicans
Justin Rosario: How To Prove Obama LOWERED The Deficit In 4 Easy, Indisputable Steps!
Igor Volsky: Top Republicans Demand Obama Provide Coverage To People With Pre-Existing Conditions
Imani Gandy: Louie Gohmert Introduces Bill to Force Obama to Stop Golfing So Goddamn Much
Michael Calderone: Politico Investigated Menendez Claims Before Daily Caller Report
Bob Cesca: Republicans Take Credit for VAWA Even Though They Voted Against It
Saturday, March 9, 2013
End the Sequester to Keep Growing the Economy
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
In a complete yawner, however (and who didn't see this coming), his wife Ann "I love you women" Romney is still in the dark and is perfectly willing to blame the media for her husband's rout, apparently unaware of the fact that a journalist's job is to report what her husband and his campaign say and do. Ann, being a one percenter, is so totally insulated from the real world, that it is unfathomable to her that the actions of her husband are what caused his downfall. It wasn't made up. It wasn't a lie. It happened.
Now, perhaps in the days before social media, a 24 hour cable news cycle and practically real time reporting through the Internet, a guy like Mitt Romney could have gotten away with some of his ridiculous gaffes and his real thoughts spoken in "private rooms" away from the media, but that's no longer the case. And someone who runs a 1950's style campaign in 2012 is going to suffer.
But Ann just doesn't get it because in her insular world, she can't see past the fences of her estate or the walls of her gated communities. To Ann, this was an unfair, epic takedown by the "librul" media of the only man who could possibly have the ability to run the country.
“It was not just the campaign’s fault," Ann Romney said. "I believe it was the media's fault as well, in that he was not being given a fair shake--that people weren’t allowed to really see him for who he was. I’m happy to blame the media.”See - Ann doesn't get that "who he really was" was the man that showed his real side through the gaffes and statemens made in private rooms when he thought the rest of the world wasn't listening. Mitt really does think corporations are people. Mitt really does think that 47 percent of the country were voting for President Obama because they're moochers looking for free stuff. Mitt really isn't concerned about the poor because of the safety net they have - the same safety net he would have dismantled given the chance. Mitt doesn't have a clue as to what the actual income is of more than 90% of the population, and how could he? He's just as isolated and insulated as Ann. But Ann will never understand what the rest of the world understands when she pretends to shop at Costco and doesn't have to worry about filling up her gas tank. Or paying her mortgage. Or having a job.
Now that Romney has admitted what's eating him up inside, it's only a matter of time before we find a World Weekly News headline on the ever reclusive Mitt Romney taking a Howard Hughes turn, complete with long beard, hair, gnarled fingernails and toenails, designing his own Air Force One made entirely out of wood.
Saturday, March 2, 2013
David Von Ebers: Why I Can't Stand Bob Woodward
Paige Lavender: David Axelrod To Bob Woodward: Why Didn't You Say 'Don't Threaten Me?'
The Rude Pundit: Random Observations on Yesterday's Supreme Court Hearing on a Challenge to the Voting Rights Act
Bob Cesca: Secretary Kerry Has Balls of Steel
Chez Pazienza: Down the Outrage Hole (Again)
Van Cliburn died this week. Had it not been for Mr. Rogers, I wouldn't have known who Van Cliburn was in my younger years.
And looking back, I find it amazing that our Cold War with the Soviet Union permeated everything. It consumed us. And it was all a dick swinging contest. Not only in regards to military supremacy, but the Space Race, sports, music, Rocky IV, everything was a contest. I didn't know why we hated the the guys wearing the CCCP shirts, but I knew we were supposed to hate them.
And in 1958, Van Cliburn was a part of that.
Congress Must Compromise to Stop the Impact of the Sequester
Friday, March 1, 2013
Posted by DesertCroneNM
So does this mean that Twitter development is done, and devs (developers) will just move elsewhere? No way. Devs go where the customers are, and the customers are using Twitter in increasing numbers. I do development as a business and as a businessman, I go where the money is. That is still Twitter.
Second: In his rebuttal, Zach wants us to believe that he's quite naive about cookies. He writes in response to the question: Are you tracking us across the Internet with cookies?
I have such a difficult time believing that the co-founder of a Twitter consulting company doesn't understand the purpose of collecting information from cookies and IP addresses. Zach's tweet below is why I am very skeptical about his naïveté about cookies.Before people started asking this I didn’t know it was even possible. Our CTO says it is apparently. We’re not doing it, nor do I understand why we would.
Third: Here's what Zach wrote about how one joins Unite Blue. In reply to Did you steal ConnectTheLeft’s Lists? Zach says,
No. Every member of UniteBlue has to tweet 'I want to join @UniteBlue' to get on our Lists. It started from scratch. Others can feel free to use our Lists how they like. They are public.
We recently had a client that paid us to help build up a series of accounts for his political campaign. Most of the effort went into growing a qualified follower list for a single engagement account. This is the account that interacted with supporters and sent out various versions of the campaign messaging to test them for later use in the candidate’s own account. When the campaign finally came to an end, his staff deleted this engagement account. What a waste! Most people don’t realize it, but you can change everything about a Twitter account and still retain all the followers. We’ve changed the screen name of accounts lots of times, and all the followers were always retained. As long as the account’s new purpose and message is similar to its previous incarnation, this seems completely ethical, and there are no restrictions on this from Twitter. You can change everything about an account, and since it retains the original user id all the links for followers, retweets, etc. still work in Twitter’s database. We’ve never had a complaint from a follower of an account that had this type of conversion.
So the next time you or a client are tempted to erase an account after you no longer need it, don’t do it. Recycle, reuse, repurpose applies to Twitter accounts. Think of all the energy used to power the servers building that account. Save it for another use.
Much grattitude to my niece @jhw2212 and Jennifer on this blog for her research, proofreading, and support.
Let me start with this disclaimer--I do not follow Shoq, Simon, or Karoli. Based on what some of Twitter pals have told me, dissension has broken out between their factions over who turned the Connect the Left (CTL) twitter account to Unite Blue (UB). I don't care about that. In fact, I don't care how Unite Blue took control of the Connect the Left Twitter account. What concerns me is that UB did take take over the CTL. On February 6th, I blogged about my concerns about Unite Blue. I still have those concerns and more. Since I wrote that blog, I've taken a hiatus from Twitter.
I love Twitter. I have made some wonderful and lasting friendships there. Although I first got on because I'm a political junkie, I enjoy the nonpolitical chit chat as much as the political discussion. I have access to many interesting links and thoughtful blog posts by @smartypants32, @D_V_E, and @root_e to name just a few of my favorites. Twitter also brings a social life right into my home, which is what I like the best.
I am a month from being 65, disabled because of severe arthritis, and degenerative spinal disease which leave me in chronic pain. There isn't an hour that goes by that I'm not in pain; therefore, I am stuck at home most of the day. I don't want anyone's sympathy because I have a wonderful life in spite of that. What I am trying to convey is how important Twitter is to me because I'm not very mobile. On Twitter I can talk politics, mindlessly chit chat with friends, crack a few jokes, even whine and most importantly, I can forget about the pain.
Once you understand my relationship with Twitter, maybe you'll understand how difficult it was for me to leave. Some of my tweeps told me to ignore Unite Blue, and others told me to unfollow or block UB members. Both are difficult for me to do. I have a lot of longtime followers who are now UB members, and when at least every other tweet has to do with UB or has so many hashtags that take up half the 140 characters, those tweets are difficult to ignore. Nor do I want to unfollow tweeps whom I've followed and who have followed me for 2-3 years. I keep hoping they'll come to their senses soon.
I decided to take a break from Twitter. I don't how long I'll be gone--maybe I'll be on tomorrow, next week, or even next month. But as long as these four conditions exist in my time line, I'll be on hiatus.
Cultish behavior of members: The other morning when I got on Twitter, I saw many disturbing tweets that suggested folks go through their followers and drop anyone not following UB to make room for UB members. Sadly, many of the tweeps who were unfollowed have thousands and thousands of tweets while many UB members I've seen have less than a thousand tweets. UB is clearly about quantity, not quality. For many, loyalty to UB has become more important than loyalty to liberal causes or values or even longtime followers. Many tweets contain gushing endorsements of UB, proclaiming that Unite Blue has changed their lives or that UB is the most important thing that has happened to them. Other tweets brag about UB ratings, whatever that means. Although these tweets irritate me, I don't want to unfollow longtime tweeps. I just want them to get a grip.
Divisive: Since I first blogged about UB, I've received many DMs from tweeps expressing concerns about UB, but, fearful they themselves might be spam blocked by members, they are unwilling to speak out. Several of us who have done nothing more than ask legitimate questions, questions everyone should be asking, have been demonized by some UB members. In fact, I see more loyalty to UB by some than to the Democratic Party and/or liberal causes. Unite Blue? How about Divide Blue?
Fear-based: I think the TGDN (Twitter Gulag Defense Network) threat has been highly exaggerated. I have seen one follower spam blocked and others have told me that maybe one or two of their followers have had their accounts suspended, for which there could be a variety of reasons. This frenzy of fear reminds me of the way Bush's Homeland Security kept anxiety levels high by using the the color-coded terrorist alert.
Inorganic: Unite Blue was not a spontaneous, organic movement. It was started by a Twitter consulting company. It wasn't started from scratch; it co-opted an already existing Twitter account.
Zach Green or @140elect stole my playground. He turned my TL into something unrecognizable--a nonstop stream of praise for Unite Blue, UB hashtags and knee jerk reactions to fear of TGDN. I'll unite behind the Democratic Party, fellow liberals, and most certainly behind Barack Obama, but I don't see where Zach Green shares my loyalties. I don't want to be part of the Green Gang on twitter, and I want them to get off my playground. I miss my "old" buddies, and I want them back, not the zombiefied UB followers I see now. (Follow up post. Rebuttal of the Rebuttal: Say What, Zach?)
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Mr. Brink: Glenn Beck: Progressives Have Infiltrated The WWE
Chez Pazienza: This Week in Republican Stupid
The Rude Pundit: Let Us Now Praise Skeletor for He Has Made Florida Suck a Little Less
Charles Pierce: The Shame of The Sham Shaman
Steve M.: Douthat: The Permanently Underemployed Have All The Luck
Driftglass: The Both Sides Duet
Abby Zimet: Choked To Death On Waste
Saturday, February 23, 2013
Congress Must Act Now to Stop the Sequester
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Steve Benen: A lesson on the value of inflation
The Rude Pundit: The NRA's Wayne LaPierre: Join Our Resistance and Get a Free Tote Bag
Charles Pierce: Your Daily Pope
Brian Dowling: 'Lincoln' Screenwriter Defends Depiction Of Connecticut Slavery Vote, Acknowledges Changing Details
Jim Wright: Preemptive Pessimism Isn’t A Plan
Brian Beutler: Republicans Want Off The Hook For Voting For Defense Sequester
Following the President's Plan for a Strong Middle Class
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Okay, I get it. He's nervous, his mouth is drying up, he can't get the saliva to form in his mouth. Anyone who's stood in front of a crowd and performed or spoken in public knows the feeling. But why in the name of all that is holy, did he feel compelled to keep eye contact with the camera when he decided to finally reach for the water bottle? And why would his people, or the RNC, or whoever was in charge of this whole debacle not have a glass of water within arm's reach?
Keep going Republicans, you're doing great!
I can't wait for the 2016 Primaries.
Saturday, February 9, 2013
Steve Benen: Boehner's bewildering bombast
The Rude Pundit: You Can Hate Obama for Drone Strikes and Support Him on Other Things
Charles Pierce: Down The Pipeline
Katla McGlynn: Bill Maher Tells Donald Trump To 'Suck It Up,' Dismisses $5 Million 'Orangutan' Lawsuit
Imani Gandy: Racist White Rabbit at Disneyland Refuses to Dirty Paws on Black Kid’s Skin
NJ Star Ledger: Christie wrong to slam report about AshBritt cleanup contract with N.J. towns: Editorial
Jim Wright: Open the Pod Bay Doors, HAL
Steve Benen: This Week In God