[Flash 10 is required to watch video]

drinkthe-koolaid:

topherchris:

Remix of latest Rick Perry Ad

Original.

I can work with this

(via drinkthe-koolaid)

sciencecenter:

Hilarious segment on The Daily Show - “Science: What’s it up to?”

This is a great parody of the sort of criticism science gets from the anti-intellectual right in this country. Aasif Mandvi does a great job of getting his interviewees to agree to ridiculous incriminating statements. This one was my favorite:

Aasif: What’s the point of teaching children facts if it’s just going to confuse them?

Noelle Nikpour: It confuses the children when they go home. We as Americans, we are paying tax dollars for our children to be eduCAted. We need to offer them every theory that’s out there. It’s all about choice. It’s all about freedom.

AasifI: It should be up to the American people to decide what’s true!

Nikpour: Absolutely! Doesn’t it make common sense?

Robert Reich: The Triumph of Dogma, and a Sad Goodbye to David Frum

robertreich:

Every other Wednesday evening for the past few years I’ve been offering commentary on a spritely show on public radio called “Marketplace.” On alternative Wednesdays David Frum, a former speechwriter for George W. Bush, has been airing his views. 

This past Wednesday, Frum called it quits. He explained to the show’s host, Kai Risdal, that he could no longer represent Republican views.  

I think that there’s a kind of expectation that when you do it that you represent the broad point of view of your half of the political spectrum. And although I consider myself a conservative and a Republican, and I think that the right-hand side of the spectrum has the better answers for the long-term growth of economy — low taxes, restrained government, less regulation — it’s pretty clear that facing the immediate crisis — very intense crisis — I’m just not representing the view of most people who call themselves Republicans and conservatives these days…. And it’s a service to the radio audience if they want to hear people explaining effectively why one of the two great parties takes the view that it does — it needs to have somebody who agrees with that great party.

I respect David’s decision but I disagree with his understanding of his job on “Marketplace.” And I find his decision to leave a sad commentary (no pun intended) on what’s happening to public discourse in America. 

Why exactly was it necessary for David Frum to “represent” the views of conservative Republicans?

I don’t feel any obligation to represent liberal Democrats. Over the years I’ve argued, for example, in favor of getting rid of the corporate income tax, creating school vouchers inversely related to family incomes, and extending free-trade agreements — positions not exactly favored by liberal Democrats.

The American public doesn’t want or need to hear “representatives” from the so-called right or left. It wants insight into what’s best for America. 

Yet over and over again — on the radio, on TV, in print, in the blogosphere, and all over Washington — political ideology is substituting for thought. 

Politicians take oaths and sign pledges. Special-interest groups abide by litmus tests and ideological labels. The media is either assertively liberal or conservative. Pundits are either on the left or the right.   

Meanwhile, the Republican Party has become so extreme that it’s more and more difficult for anyone to rationally “represent” its views. As Frum put in in a post on his website, FrumForum, “Under the pressure of the current crisis — intoxicated by anti-Obama feelings and incited by talk radio and Fox — Republicans have staked out an extreme position on the role of government.” 

What if conservative Republicans believe the sun revolves around the earth? Would someone in David Frum’s position who disagrees feel compelled to stop offering “conservative” commentaries about the celestial bodies? And would a major media outlet then be obliged to find a replacement who agrees with conservative dogma?  (This isn’t such a far-fetched example when you consider what leading Republicans say about evolution or climate change.)

David’s particular break with Republicans has come over what to do about the continuing awful economy. Here’s what he told Kai Risdal:

This is not a moment for government to be cutting back. … Right now we’re watching state governments try to balance all of their budgets at the same time in the middle of this crisis. We’ve seen half a million public sector jobs disappear. Now, if these were good times, I would applaud that. We need to see a thinner public sector — especially at the state and local level. But we’re seeing what happens when you do that as an anti-recession measure and you make the recession worse. And even though we’re in a technical recovery, incomes and employment — all of that remains lagging for people — I think that we’ve rediscovered in this crisis something that I think we all knew. Which is, there’s a reason why the people of the 1930s built some kind of minimum guarantee — unemployment insurance, health care coverage and things like that. And it’s not because they wanted to be nice. It’s because in a crisis when people lose their jobs, if there is no social safety net they loose 100 percent of their purchasing power.

It so happens the vast majority of economists and economic policy experts agree with David on this — even though you wouldn’t know it if you watched or listened to broadcast debates between a so-called “liberal” and “conservative” economists. 

No wonder Americans are so confused. 

David Frum’s voice will be sorely missed. Yet I understand his dilemma. At the start of his interview on “Marketplace” explaining his decision to leave the program, he was introduced this way

David Frum has been a regular commentator for this program for years, offering the voice of the political right against Robert Reich and the views of the political left. 

That introduction illustrates the problem.

(via sarahlee310)

High-res dcdecoder:

shortformblog:

Chris Christie: Not jumping in? Both the National Review and ABC News are reporting this (ABC News via a Breaking News banner), which should be reported as such: “Guy who said he wasn’t running for president dozens of times before says it for 76th time.”

Wanna see the other 75 times (well, it’s really more like 12)? See the POLITICO video Christie himself sent the public to here.

dcdecoder:

shortformblog:

Chris Christie: Not jumping in? Both the National Review and ABC News are reporting this (ABC News via a Breaking News banner), which should be reported as such: “Guy who said he wasn’t running for president dozens of times before says it for 76th time.”

Wanna see the other 75 times (well, it’s really more like 12)? See the POLITICO video Christie himself sent the public to here.

[Flash 10 is required to watch video]

peterfeld:

Ladies and gentlemen, I present you the Republican Party in 2011.

The New Resentment of the Poor

wisconsinforward:

Representative Michele Bachmann noted recently that 47 percent of Americans do not pay federal income tax; all of them, she said, should pay something because they benefit from parks, roads and national security. (Interesting that she acknowledged government has a purpose.) Gov. Rick Perry, in the announcement of his candidacy, said he was dismayed at the “injustice” that nearly half of Americans do not pay income tax. Jon Huntsman Jr., up to now the most reasonable in the Republican presidential field, said not enough Americans pay tax.

Representative Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, and several senators have made similar arguments, variations of the idea expressed earlier by Senator Dan Coats of Indiana that “everyone needs to have some skin in the game.”

This is factually wrong, economically wrong and morally wrong. First, the facts: a vast majority of Americans have skin in the tax game. Even if they earn too little to qualify for the income tax, they pay payroll taxes (which Republicans want to raise), gasoline excise taxes and state and local taxes. Only 14 percent of households pay neither income nor payroll taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center at the Brookings Institution. The poorest fifth paid an average of 16.3 percent of income in taxes in 2010.

Economically, reducing the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit — which would be required if everyone paid income taxes — makes no sense at a time of high unemployment. The credits, which only go to working people, have always been a strong incentive to work, as even some conservative economists say, and have increased the labor force while reducing the welfare rolls.

The moral argument would have been obvious before this polarized year. Nearly 90 percent of the families that paid no income tax make less than $40,000, most much less. The real problem is that so many Americans are struggling on such a small income, not whether they pay taxes. The two tax credits lifted 7.2 million people out of poverty in 2009, including four million children. At a time when high-income households are paying their lowest share of federal taxes in decades, when corporations frequently avoid paying any tax, it is clear who should bear a larger burden and who should not.

-The New York Times.  Without a doubt, this is the best editorial I have read all year.  Read the entire piece here.

High-res inothernews:

This is one of just a few onscreen graphics that Fox “News” actually put on the air.
I remember some asshole on here going on about how I was declaring “class warfare” because I thought things like universal healthcare were good things, things that would benefit our fellow men and women who — numbering in the tens of millions — go without such things.
So what the fuck is this, exactly?  What is Fox “News” trying to prove here?  That poor people aren’t actually “poor” because they have something in their homes that prevents essential foodstuffs like milk and eggs from spoiling?
That having things like a TV or a cellphone makes them, in words ACTUALLY USED ON FOX “NEWS” TO DEFINE POOR PEOPLE, “the takers,” “parasites” and “the moocher class”?
That a family of four making less than $23,000 a year is somehow getting away with something by literally being too poor to be taxed by the federal government?
Go fuck yourselves.
No seriously.  Go fuck yourselves right now.

inothernews:

This is one of just a few onscreen graphics that Fox “News” actually put on the air.

I remember some asshole on here going on about how I was declaring “class warfare” because I thought things like universal healthcare were good things, things that would benefit our fellow men and women who — numbering in the tens of millions — go without such things.

So what the fuck is this, exactly?  What is Fox “News” trying to prove here?  That poor people aren’t actually “poor” because they have something in their homes that prevents essential foodstuffs like milk and eggs from spoiling?

That having things like a TV or a cellphone makes them, in words ACTUALLY USED ON FOX “NEWS” TO DEFINE POOR PEOPLE, “the takers,” “parasites” and “the moocher class”?

That a family of four making less than $23,000 a year is somehow getting away with something by literally being too poor to be taxed by the federal government?

Go fuck yourselves.

No seriously.  Go fuck yourselves right now.

(via squeetothegee-deactivated201111)

You are beating up on President Obama just constantly, and it just is incredible to me that you don’t pay attention to the idea that the country was facing (a) potential depression, and you had a president that stepped in, offered leadership that pulled us off the brink, Sean. …You are having a tantrum. In fact, you’re mad at other Republicans — you say, why is the Wall Street Journal, why is the Weekly Standard, why are other Republicans saying to the Tea Party people, ‘You have gone over the line?’ You’re encouraging this kind of behavior, Sean!

…You hate the stimulus spending. You say ‘that contributed to the high rate of (joblessness) under the spineless Obama!’ I’ve heard your rap. But what I’m saying to you, Sean, is do you realize 40 percent of (stimulus) spending was on tax breaks for people? Tax breaks? …In other words, President Obama tried to spend some money, cut taxes for everybody in the country — as I said, 40 percent of the stimulus spending — and all you can do is say ‘Well, it didn’t exactly work as predicted!’ as opposed to saying ‘He tried something instead of just simply obstructing,’ which is what the Republicans have been doing all along.

Fox “News” contributor JUAN WILLIAMS, arguing with conservative nozzle of a douche Sean Hannity over the outcome of the debt negotiations — and President Obama’s overall job performance, on Hannity.

(via Mediaite)

(via inothernews)

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said Sunday morning that he was “very close” to recommending to his members that they sign on to a debt deal with President Obama and the Democrats.

Speaking on the CNN program “State of the Union,” Mr. McConnell said the deal included as much as $3 trillion in cuts over the next 10 years, with much of that decided later this year by a joint congressional committee.

“What conservatives want to do is cut spending,” he said. “We’ve come a long way. This agreement is likely to encompass up to $3 trillion is spending cuts.”

In addition, Mr. McConnell said the agreement would allow votes in Congress on a balanced budget amendment.

Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, a top Democrat in the Senate, cautioned on the same program that “there is no final agreement. No one has signed off on a final agreement.”

But he indicated the he and others were expressing optimism because of the ongoing discussions between the congressional leaders.

“If there is a word that would sum up the mood it would be relief,” he said. “Relief that we won’t default.”

The New York Times, “McConnell Sees Debt Deal ‘Very Close,’ Focus Is On Triggers for Cuts.”

Today, “progress” is partly defined by how slowly we get there.

(via inothernews)