Gynotician

These are cropping up faster than you can say gynotician - I wonder if they will be covered under Obamacare?

Via Think Progress Visual

The 32 Dumbest And Most Devastating Sequester Cuts

And they go on and on and on....

From ThinkProgress.org

Health care

$20 million cut from the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Programs
$10 million cut from the World Trade Center Health Program Fund
$168 million cut from Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
$75 million cut from the Aging and Disability Services Programs

Housing

$199 million cut from public housing
$96 million cut from Homeless Assistance Grants
$17 million cut from Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS
$19 million cut from Housing for the Elderly
$175 million cut from Low Income Home Energy Assistance

Disaster and Emergency

$928 million cut from FEMA’s disaster relief money
$6 million cut from Emergency Food and Shelter
$70 million cut from the Agricultural Disaster Relief Fund at USDA
$61 million cut from the Hazardous Substance Superfund at EPA
$125 million cut from the Wildland Fire Management
$53 million cut from Salaries and Expenses at the Food Safety and Inspection Service

Obamacare

$13 million cut from the Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan Program (Co-ops)
$57 million cut from the Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control
$51 million cut from the Prevention and Public Health Fund
$27 million cut from the State Grants and Demonstrations
$44 million cut from the Affordable Insurance Exchange Grants program

Education

$633 million cut from the Department of Education’s Special Education programs
$184 million cut from Rehabilitation Services and Disability Research
$71 million cut from administration at the Office of Federal Student Aid
$116 million cut from Higher Education
$86 million cut from Student Financial Assistance

Immigration

$512 million cut from Customs and Border Protection
$17 million cut from Automation Modernization, Customs and Border Protection
$20 million cut from Border Security Fencing, Infrastructure, and Technology

Security

$79 million cut from Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance
$604 million cut from National Nuclear Security Administration
$232 million cut from the Federal Aviation Administration
$394 million cut from Defense Environmental Cleanup

The latest projections from the Congressional Budget Office show that the nation’s deficits have shrunk by trillions of dollars, and the debt is close to being stabilized as a percentage of the economy. Meanwhile, budget cuts have already reduced spending by $1.5 trillion and even with the revenue included in the fiscal cliff deal, the ratio of cuts to revenue stands at an unbalanced 3 to 1.

Medicare Madness

ThinkProgress - 

This week, the Romney/Ryan campaign has twisted itself into a pretzel attacking President Obama for “stealing” $716 billion from Medicare, while trying to explain why Paul Ryan included the savings in his FY 2013 budget.

The infographic below offers a rundown of the campaign’s contortions from Sunday’s proclamations that Romney would have signed the Ryan budget and its Medicare cuts into law, to Romney’s announcement on Tuesday that he would restore the Medicare savings that both Ryan and Obama supported:

(Infograph by Adam Peck)

Historically Unprecedented

States In Northeast Cap And Trade Program Reduce CO2 20% Faster And Grow GDP At Twice The Rate of Other States

Just in time for Earth Day, Think Progress posted an article on Friday that gives credence Cap and Trade. Not only does the capping of carbon emissions and trading the credits work to reduce carbon polution, it has created $1.6 billion in real economic value and has not driven up electrical rates paid by consumers here in the Northeast.
Cap and Trade has also stimulated the investments in efficiency and renewable energy, which has lead to $1.1 billion savings for ratepayers.

Northeastern states participating in America’s first carbon cap and trade program have outperformed the rest of the country in GDP growth and reduction in global warming pollution.

That’s according to a new report from Environment New Jersey, which examined emissions data and economic growth indicators from 2000 to 2009.

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is a nine-state cap-and-trade market designed to reduce emissions in the utility sector 10% by 2018. A recent independent analysis showed that the program has already created $1.6 billion in economic value and set the stage for $1.1 billion in ratepayer savings through investments in efficiency and renewable energy. 

This latest report shows that states under the RGGI program saw a 20% greater reduction in per-capita carbon emissions than non-RGGI states — all while growing per-capita GDP at double the rate of the rest of the country....

Continue reading ....Here

Hug a Union Member Today in Remembrance of What Unions Have Meant to Every American

Before people gang up on and bash those that are in unions, whether the union is a private sector or public sector union, remember what you have received because of their efforts.

In a column over at ThinkProgress, REPORT: Five Things Unions Have Done For All Americans, they list five things that have made a major difference in all American's lives that many of us take for granted today, there are others not listed like the minimum wage and safe working environments, but you'll get the point.

Take time today to hug a union member in remembrance for what they have given us, instead of bashing they for what you perceive they are trying to take away or cost us:

1. Unions Gave Us The Weekend: Even the ultra-conservative Mises Institute notes that the relatively labor-free 1870, the average workweek for most Americans was 61 hours — almost double what most Americans work now. Yet in the late nineteenth century and the twentieth century, labor unions engaged in massive strikes in order to demand shorter workweeks so that Americans could be home with their loved ones instead of constantly toiling for their employers with no leisure time. By 1937, these labor actions created enough political momentum to pass the Fair Labor Standards Act, which helped create a federal framework for a shorter workweek that included room for leisure time.

2. Unions Gave Us Fair Wages And Relative Income Equality: As ThinkProgress reported earlier in the week, the relative decline of unions over the past 35 years has mirrored a decline in the middle class’s share of national income. It is also true that at the time when most Americans belonged to a union — a period of time between the 1940′s and 1950′s — income inequality in the U.S. was at its lowest point in the history of the country.

3. Unions Helped End Child Labor: “Union organizing and child labor reform were often intertwined” in U.S. history, with organization’s like the “National Consumers’ League” and the National Child Labor Committee” working together in the early 20th century to ban child labor. The very first American Federation of Labor (AFL) national convention passed “a resolution calling on states to ban children under 14 from all gainful employment” in 1881, and soon after states across the country adopted similar recommendations, leading up to the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act which regulated child labor on the federal level for the first time.

4. Unions Won Widespread Employer-Based Health Coverage: “The rise of unions in the 1930′s and 1940′s led to the first great expansion of health care” for all Americans, as labor unions banded workers together to negotiate for health coverage plans from employers. In 1942, “the US set up a National War Labor Board. It had the power to set a cap on all wage increases. But it let employers circumvent the cap by offering “fringe benefits” – notably, health insurance.” By 1950, “half of all companies with fewer than 250 workers and two-thirds of all companies with more than 250 workers offered health insurance of one kind or another.”

5. Unions Spearheaded The Fight For The Family And Medical Leave Act: Labor unions like the AFL-CIO federation led the fight for this 1993 law, which “requires state agencies and private employers with more than 50 employees to provide up to 12 weeks of job-protected unpaid leave annually for workers to care for a newborn, newly adopted child, seriously ill family member or for the worker’s own illness.”

Read more >>> Here

Sunday Must Reading

I've come across a few articles posted on different websites over the past couple of days that should be must reading for those that support the rights of union members, both public and private, to engage in collective barganing.

They deal with what is going on in Wisconsin and public opinion on what's happing, not only in Wisconsin , but also across the country. These posts can be found on Forbes.com's Policy Page blog by Rick Ungar, ThinkProgress.org and from the Washington Post's Plume Line blog by Greg Sargent.

Rick Ungar's post over at Forbes is titled "The Wisconsin Lie Exposed - Tax Payers Actually Contribute Nothing to Public Employees Pensions" informs us that public employees in Wisconsin fully fund their own pension system... the state adds no tax payer money to the fund contrary to what people have been hearing.

"Gov. Scott Walker says he wants state workers covered by collective bargaining
agreements to “contribute more” to their pension and health insurance plans.
Accepting Gov. Walker’ s assertions as fact, and failing to check, creates the
impression that somehow the workers are getting something extra, a gift from
taxpayers. They are not. Out of every dollar that funds Wisconsin’ s pension and
health insurance plans for state workers, 100 cents comes from the state
workers. "

Over at ThinkProgress they post, "Top 10 Disastrous Policies From The Wisconsin GOP You Haven’t Heard About" where they talk about how:

"...Walker’s assault on public employees is only one part of a larger political program that aims to give corporations free reign in the state while dismantling the healthcare programs, environmental regulations, and good government laws that protect Wisconsin’s middle and working class. These lesser known proposals in the 144-page bill reveal how radical Walker’s plan actually is..."

And Finally Greg Sargent's Plume Line post over at the Washington Post, "Public employees not such an easy scapegoat after all" informs us that according to recent Gallup Poll "...Public employees are turning out to be far harder to scapegoat in the public mind than many predicted..."

* Among those who make less than $24,000 annually, 74 percent oppose the proposal, versus only 14 percent who favor it.

* Among those who make $24,000 to $59,000, 63 percent oppose the proposal, versus only 33 percent who favor it.

* Among those who make $60,000 to $89,000, 53 percent oppose the proposal, versus only 41 percent who favor it.

* Among those who make $90,000 and up, 50 percent favor the proposal, versus 47 percent who oppose it.

Sargent concludes:

"...For all the attention being lavished on the likes of Chris Christie and his supposedly successful formula of targeting public employees as the new "welfare queens," the bigger and more interesting story is that they aren't turning out to be such easy targets, after all."

Take a look at these articles and see what you think, I really believe they are must reads. If the radical right-wing and the GOP are successful in stripping public workers of their rights, it wont be long before they attack private sector worker looking to eliminate overtime, health, pension and other long standing rules.

Justice Thomas Omitted His Tea Partying Wife’s Income From Financial Disclosure Forms

On Thursday of this past week, I posted a story about how US Supreme Court Justices, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, participated in political strategy sessions with the group Citizens United. Afterward they voted in favor of overturning a century's worth of campaign finance laws which benefited Citizens United. Their (Scalia and Thomas) actions in this case were wrong, clearly unethical and a blatant example of judicial activism which should cause the US Attorney General to look into appointing a special prosecutor.

Now comes word from the website ThinkProgress.org that Justice Clarence Thomas hasn't disclosed his wife's income for the past six year. During which time she has earned over $680,000 from the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing, conservative think tank with ties to the Tea Party movement.

ThinkProgress writes:

"Federal judges and justices are required by law to disclose their spouse’s income — thus preventing persons who wish to influence the judge or justice from funneling money to them through their husband or wife. Yet, as the Los Angeles Times reports, Justice Clarence Thomas has not complied with this requirement for years..."

"This revelation that Justice Thomas failed to comply with his disclosure obligations comes as he is caught up in another ethics scandal regarding his participation in fundraisers for far-right political groups. Thomas once attended a gathering of wealthy corporate activists convened by billionaire Charles Koch to raise money for right-wing political causes, and he also attended at least one fundraiser hosted by the far-right think tank that used to employ his wife...."

I don't know if there is any past precedent that would allow a sitting US Supreme Court Justice to be removed from the bench for conduct unbecoming of a Justice, but do know that there has been lower court judges and justices that have been removed from their benches for similar or lesser offenses.

If these allegations turn out to be true, than I think impeachment and removal from the court is appropriate punishment for Justice Thomas.

Supreme Court justices ‘participated in political strategy sessions’ before Citizens United

Has the time finally come to appoint a special prosecutor to look into Supreme Court rulings of two justices, Scalia and Thomas for conflicts of interest and the selling of their decisions ?

After reading the following that was post over at Rawstory.com I am beginning to think so:

On the first anniversary of the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, which overturned nearly a century of restrictions on campaign spending, a progressive group has asked the Department of Justice to look into "conflicts of interest" two justices may have had when issuing the ruling.

In a petition to be sent to the department this week, Common Cause will argue that Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas should have recused themselves from the campaign finance decision because of their involvement with Koch Industries, a corporation run by two conservative activists who many say directly benefited from Citizens United.

“It appears both justices have participated in political strategy sessions, perhaps while the case was pending, with corporate leaders whose political aims were advanced by the decision,” the letter alleges, as quoted at Politico.

The group will urge the department to disqualify Scalia and Thomas from the ruling. If that were to happen, the Supreme Court could vacate the ruling, effectively returning the campaign finance restrictions that existed until 2010. But, as Common Cause itself admits, the odds are against it.

At the center of the group's claims is a document from Koch Industries unearthed last fall by ThinkProgress and the New York Times. In an invitation to a Palm Springs retreat to be held this month, Charles Koch boasted that previous events were attended by Scalia and Thomas.

Read more >>> Here

Tea Party Profiteers: How Republican Operatives Are Exploiting Economic Anxiety For Power, Cash

I wonder if tea partiers really care that their movement has been corrupted and taken over by profiteers and charlatans?

Think Progress -
Republican partisans — aided by lobbyists and corporate front groups — are exploiting the legitimate feelings of anger and distrust among many struggling Americans. These operatives and profiteers, many of them experienced public relations professionals, have set up sophisticated social networking portals and online solutions to control the flow of information within tea party organizations. As gatekeepers to ostensibly open forums, these political operatives and profiteers have been able to set the political agenda of the tea parties and hand out marching orders. And tea party profiteers are making millions cashing in on the movement. They are selling tea party support to candidates and policies which continue the legacy of Bush-era unregulated capitalism and corporate bailouts:

– Eric Odom: Odom, who appears regularly on Fox News and on other venues as a spokesman for the tea party movement, is at the center of tea party profiteering. Odom maintains dozens, possibly hundreds of tea party websites and community forums which he controls through a “Ning” technology based social networking platform. Odom’s vast online control of county, state, and issue oriented tea party websites is done through his two for profit consulting companies: American Liberty Alliance and Strategy Activism, LLC. His American Liberty Alliance has served as a hub between disparate tea party groups and right-wing front groups. In a biographical video he posted on YouTube, Odom explained that he has worked for years on local and statewide Republican campaigns developing “stealth type marketing…some say ‘attack sites.’” He boasted that he built “sites behind the scenes, many of them to this day no one today knows I took part in, some of them were actually very effective in defeating the opponent.” While it is unclear exactly who is paying Odom now for his tea party profit ventures, Odom has delicately straddled independent populist rhetoric while proclaiming that his network will work exclusively for the election of Republican candidates this year.

– Allen Fuller: According to Tennessee business records, Odom’s Strategic Activism, LLC business partner is Republican new media consultant Allen Fuller, who also maintains a firm called Flat Creek Public Affairs. Fuller may be the best clue to find out who pays Odom. On his website, Fuller counts Jane Norton, the GOP candidate for Senate in Colorado, as a client, and also receives payments from several other Republican members of Congress. Fuller helps corral tea party support to American Majority, a Republican training organization.

– Glenn Beck: Beck, the most powerful promoter of the tea parties in the media, often rants during his regular programming that investing in gold is the only way to hedge against a supposed deep inflation in the future. He does not disclose, however, that gold companies are his primary sponsors, or that the gold companies he promotes have predatory fees: Goldline, one of Beck’s sponsors, sells gold for 30-35% more than market value. “Here’s the deal, call Goldline, study it out, pray on it,” Beck advises his listeners. Beck has cemented his control over the tea parties by launching his own 9.12 project network of social networking sites — which are hosted by his for profit media company Mercury Radio Arts.

– Tea Party Nation: As a for-profit business, Tea Party Nation organized the Tea Party Convention this year at Nashville’s swank Opryland Gaylord hotel. The convention, set at the “grassroots” ticket price of $550 per person, features a Madison Avenue fashion company selling tea party jewelry and a paid ($120,000) speech by Sarah Palin. Tea Party Nation also maintains a message board.

– Dick Armey: As ThinkProgress has documented, Armey has a long history of organizing conservative grassroots causes in support of his corporate clients. Armey presents himself as a ideologue, who helms his nonprofit FreedomWorks as a mere exercise in his free market beliefs. But while Armey rails against the Wall Street bailout and efforts to rebuild the foundations of the economy, his own lobbying firm represented AIG, Lehman Brothers, and Merrill Lynch during the bailouts. Indeed, even his nonprofit still pays him a lobbyist salary of $550,000 per year.

– Tea Party Express: The Tea Party Express bus tour, and affiliated political action committee, has raised funds using tea party messages. The Tea Party Express effort has been a slick public relations gimmick of the Sacramento-based consulting firm Russo, Marsh and Rogers (RMR). RMR has worked on several stealth campaigns for Republican clients, including the underhanded push to recall Gov. Gray Davis (D-CA). In any case, the Tea Party Express, which RMR staffers operate, has proved to be a cash cow for RMR — in 2009 alone, it plunged at least $1,025,559 of money it raised back into RMR.

The profiteers say that the original American revolutionaries cast their tea into the Boston harbor as a simple rejection of taxation, so the modern tea party movement should similarly reject increased financial regulations, health reform, and taxes on the rich. But the history tells a different story. Boston revolutionaries rejected subservience to the East India Company, a British-run international corporation. They cast the tea into the harbor as a symbolic message to say that their taxes should go back into the American community, not subsidizing the profits of London elites and foreign corporations. Now, Republican tea party profiteers are trying to exploit the movement, pushing them to oppose policies which would actually liberate the middle class and crack down on international corporations. Despite the populist rhetoric, the profiteers see the tea party movement as a pool to extract fundraising dollars and volunteers for Republican campaigns. Indeed, RNC Chairman Michael Steele, himself a former lobbyist, has said that he has an “expectation” that tea partiers loyally toe the Republican line.

Corzine: It's unbelievable that a lawbreaker gains a reputation as king of law enforcement

In this video posted on the net by Think Progress, Governor Corzine is sitting down at an interview with Think Progress reporters at I believe the NetRoots Nation convention in Pittsburgh.

The 35 second video clip is rather cryptic in nature, but I can only guess that the governor is talking about Chris Christie when he says "It is hard to understand how a lawbreaker gains a reputation as king of law enforcement and uses that as a platform..."

Who else could Jon Corzine be referring too, if not Christie?

Can Canadians Purchase Private Health Insurance?

From Think Progress's Wonk Room -

The August Town Halls have buried any meaningful coverage of the health care debate. Groups like Freedomworks and Americans For Prosperity are generating wild rumors about the proposed health care reform and the overwhelming majority of media coverage has merely contrasted protesters' claims with administration retorts, while failing to correct the record. The format creates the illusion of balance and, by giving equal time to a false claim, pads disingenuous arguments.

Fortunately, this report from NPR's Sarah Varney is a respite from the norm. Rather than reprinting the claim that Canadian health care system indiscriminately rations care, Varney actually examines the Canadian health care system and concludes that it's getting a "bum rap." Just like Medicare beneficiaries who protest against "government health care," protesters who use Canadian care as an example of "government interference" or rationing, will be surprised to learn that the Canadian health care system relies on both government and private insurers to provide Canadians with comprehensive coverage:

Canada has a universal health care system that's paid for through income taxes and sales tax. All Canadians are covered, and they can see any doctor they want anywhere in the country with no copays or deductibles….And while the individual provinces and territories set their overall health budgets and administer the health plans, the delivery of medical care is private. Doctors run their own businesses and then bill the government.

As it turns out, the system works fairly well:

- Physicians in Canada earn a good living and aren't faced with the same administrative hassles that American doctors gripe about.

- The Commonwealth Fund looked at deaths that could have been prevented with access to quality medical care in the leading 19 industrialized countries. In the latest survey, the United States ranked last and Canada came in sixth.

- When federal spending on Canadian health care declined during a recession in the 1990s, lines for non-urgent procedures — and some urgent ones — grew. In response, Canada's government poured billions of dollars into reducing wait times in the five medical areas deemed most troublesome, including cancer care, cardiac care and joint replacement surgery. And wait times for these services has dropped: Most provinces now report those times on publicly available Web sites.

- Few Canadians go south for medical care. Canadian researchers say it's a bit like getting struck by lighting — it's extremely rare, but when it happens, everyone talks about it.

- Public opinion polls continue to show strong support for publicly financed, universal health care in Canada.

Varney contradicts the oft-repeated claim that Canadians can't purchase health insurance coverage by writing that many Canadians purchase private coverage for "optometry, dentistry and outpatient prescription drugs" — services the public plan does not cover. Yet at the end of the piece, she quotes a pollster who notes that the Canadian health care system "'is not something that everybody is completely satisfied with or complacent about.' About half of Canadians say they would like the option to buy a private health insurance plan. Currently, that's not allowed."

Canadians can purchase supplemental private coverage for services that are not covered by the public plan, but cannot purchase private insurance for basic services. As CBC News points out, private health insurance is "a crucial part of the system," and Canadians spent about $43.2 billion on private coverage in 2005. Private insurance covers "anything beyond what the public system will pay for. For instance, should you have to spend some time in the hospital, the public system will cover the cost of your bed in a ward, which usually has three other patients. If you want a private room, the extra charge will come out of your pocket, unless you have extended health coverage either through your employer or through a policy you have bought yourself."

Basic services are covered by the government precisely because the large risk pools allow the government to negotiate cheaper rates with providers and control health care costs. The government fears, with good reason, that if Canadians can leave the purchasing pools, the government's market power would diminish.

Cost of uninsured adds $1,100/year to premiums of insured families.

I often get into heated debates with a co-worker of mine over the need for some sort of universal health care coverage for all U.S. citizens.

My co-worker is dead set against it, he argues that health care would be rationed and he would have to wait to see a doctor. He tell of how his cousins from Canada came across the border to seek medical treatment because they had to wait so long to be treated in Canada for what ailed them.  

He buys into the old GOP argument that government bureaucrats would  be deciding what was best for himself and family rather than his doctors.

I show him the irony to his argument by pointing out that instead of government bureaucrats making health care decision for us, we have insurance companies making those decisions for us today.    

When I point out to him that there is close to 100 million people in this country that have no health insurance at all and because of this, we and our employer pay for it through our insurance premiums, he says he does not care, he is only interested in the facts. Sometimes I wonder why I even bother to discuss thing with him.

So for my co-worker, here are some facts. I found this information on Think Progress's  The Wonk Room. The study was done by the Center for American Progress:

When the uninsured cannot pay for the care they receive, health care providers shift costs to Americans with insurance in the form of higher premiums. A new report from The Wonk Room’s Ben Furnas and Peter Harbage concludes that a failure to continuously cover all Americans accounts “for roughly 8 percent of the average health insurance premium“:

This cost-shift amounts to $1,100 per average family premium in 2009 and $410 per average individual premium. By 2013, assuming the cost shift remains the same percentage of premium costs, the cost shift will be approximately $480 for an individual policy and $1,300 for a family policy.

Read the full report>>>Here

Bobby Jindal Bombs:Fox Panel’s Verdict On Jindal’s Speech: ‘Childish,’ ‘Amateurish,’ ‘Not Exactly Terrific’

It's good to see that I was not the only person that thought that Bobby Jindal's response to President Obama's  speech in front of a joint session of congress last night bombed.

I was sitting at work last night, listening to it on the radio and couldn't get over how boring and unimaginative it was. 

Jindal tried to connect with the listener's/viewer's by telling hoakie stories about growing up and how the local sheriff responded to the Feds during  the Hurricane Katrina crisis, who didn't wanted the sheriff to go out in boats to rescue people from the roofs unless they had insurance, by telling them that Congressman Jindal was in the room and that they were going out to rescue people no matter what.

Overall, Jindal didn't do a very good job at explaining why republicans would do a better job then the President at managing the current economic crisis the nation is facing. 

Think Progress has a very good rundown of the reaction to Jindals comments from the Fox News panelists that puts it all into better perspective, they also point out reactions from NY Times columnist David Brooks and from some in the conservative blogisphere:

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal’s (R) response to President Obama’s speech tonight received a universal thumbs down from the Fox News panelists, who are traditionally conservatives’ most gentle critics:

BRIT HUME: “The speech read a lot better than it sounded. This was not Bobby Jindal’s greatest oratorical moment.”

NINA EASTON: “The delivery was not exactly terrific.”

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: “Jindal didn’t have a chance. He follows Obama, who in making speeches, is in a league of his own. He’s in a Reagan-esque league. … [Jindal] tried the best he could.”

JUAN WILLIAMS: “It came off as amateurish, and even the tempo in which he spoke was sing-songy. He was telling stories that seemed very simplistic and almost childish.”

ThinkProgress has compiled some lowlights of Jindal’s speech, along with the reactions of the Fox panel. Watch it:

On PBS, New York Times columnist David Brooks also remarked, “In a moment when only the federal government is actually big enough to do stuff, to just ignore all that and just say ‘government is the problem, corruption, earmarks, wasteful spending,’ it’s just a form of nihilism. It’s just not where the country is, it’s not where the future of the country is.”

Even conservative bloggers are upset with Jindal. Kathryn Jean Lopez writes at the Corner, “E-mails I’m getting are from disappointed conservatives. They wanted a full-throated response to Obama and expected and/or wanted more.” Ramesh Ponnuru called Jindal’s delivery “weak.”

Rush: I’m No Coward On Race, I Stood Up To Media’s ‘Slavish Coverage Of Black Quarterbacks’

Related to a couple of my previous posts comes the latest Rush Limbaugh rant on race relations.

El Rushbo as he refers to himself, is commenting on U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder's comments on February 18Th, in which he called America "a nation of cowards' on racial matters at the Justice Department, in honoring Black History Month.

This post and video clip from Think Progress explains El Rushbo's rant and puts it into persective:

Yesterday, Attorney General Eric Holder said that the U.S. has acted as a “nation of cowards” when it comes to discussing the sometimes “awkward and painful” issue of race relations. Today on his radio show, however, conservative talker Rush Limbaugh rejected Holder’s view claiming, “I, El Rushbo, am no coward. … I show bravery on race” by standing up to the media’s “slavish coverage of black quarterbacks”:

LIMBAUGH: I, El Rushbo, am no coward. … In fact, I show bravery on race. I am totally willing to discuss it openly and honestly. How does one show bravery on race as I have? You talk about media bias, you talk about slavish media coverage of Black quarter backs in the National Football League. Then see what happens. Then watch all hell descend upon you from every quarter of this nation’s media. From print to broadcast to internet. … I show bravery on matters of race.



Limbaugh is clearly still bitter about the fact that he was forced to resign from his position as an ESPN commentator in 2003 for claiming that the media were only interested in Philadelphia Eagles Quarterback Donovan McNabb because he is black (despite the fact that McNabb has shown himself to be incredibly talented):

Sorry to say this, I don’t think he’s been that good from the get-go. I think what we’ve had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn’t deserve.

By citing the McNabb episode as a “brave” moment in the history of race-relations, Limbaugh actually reaffirmed Holder’s point. As Holder explained yesterday, discussions surrounding race and public policy in American society ought to be “nuanced, principled and spirited.” But too often, we leave the conversation to “those on the extremes who are not hesitant to use these issues to advance nothing more than their own, narrow self interest.”

The result is a de facto acceptance and even endorsement of Limbaugh’s repeated race-based outbursts and criticism of public officials who choose to speak out.

Hoekstra leaks unauthorized intelligence information via Twitter

I understand the need to keep your constituents informed, but I think that things are getting a little out of hand. 

Whether it is a lunch at the White House with the President or over seas on a SECRET mission to Iraq, do our Representatives need to constantly inform us of their every activity? Are they trying to impress us  so much that they have become oblivious to there surrounds?  

Twitter is a social networking site where friends, family, and co–workers can communicate and stay connected with each other.  Members of Congress should not be abusing their privileges by divulging their activities as they happen. Not only is it rude to their host,but  how can they concentrate on what is being told to them?

The following  post from Think Progress is an excellent example of my point. While on a secret mission to Iraq, Congressman Pete Hoeksra let the followers of his Twitter account know exactly what he was doing, when no one was supposed to know that there was on entourage of congressmen in Iraq.

 

Rep. Pete Hoeksra (R-MI), the ranking member of the House intelligence committee, revealed classified intelligence information on Twitter when he reported on his “congressional trip to Iraq this weekend that was supposed to be a secret.” “Just landed in Baghdad,” messaged Hoekstra, who was part of a delegation led by John Boehner (R-OH). CQ reports, “Before the delegation left Washington, they were advised to keep the trip to themselves for security reasons. A few media outlets, including Congressional Quarterly, learned about it, but agreed not to disclose anything until the delegation had left Iraq.” Hoekstra not only revealed the existence of the trip, but included details about their itinerary. In a May 2006 op-ed in the Los Angeles Times, Hoekstra wrote:

But every time classified national security information is leaked, our ability to gather information on those who would do us harm is eroded. … I regret that I see little sign of intolerance for unauthorized disclosures of intelligence to the media from some of my Democratic colleagues today. … We are a nation at war. Unauthorized disclosures of classified information only help terrorists and our enemies – and put American lives at risk.

Limbaugh against stimulus because its success could hurt GOP’s electoral chances

OH heavens forbid if President Obama's economic stimulus package actually works and 600,000 or more jobs are created while boosting the economy, what would members of the GOP do with themselves?

Think Progress -
On Friday, when President Obama met with congressional leaders from both parties to discuss his economic recovery and reinvestment program, he told GOP leaders, “You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done.” Asked for a response by National Review yesterday, Limbaugh said that Obama’s “plan is to isolate elected Republicans from their voters.” He added that passage of the stimulus bill would hurt Republicans electorally:

Obama’s plan would buy votes for the Democrat Party, in the same way FDR’s New Deal established majority power for 50 years of Democrat rule, and it would also simultaneously seriously damage any hope of future tax cuts. It would allow a majority of American voters to guarantee no taxes for themselves going forward. It would burden the private sector and put the public sector in permanent and firm control of the economy. Put simply, I believe his stimulus is aimed at re-establishing “eternal” power for the Democrat Party rather than stimulating the economy because anyone with a brain knows this is NOT how you stimulate the economy.

Limbaugh’s argument echoes former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell’s recent claim that Obama’s stimulus plan “could create a major electoral advantage for Democrats at taxpayer expense.” “Creating 600,000 new jobs might help cement Virginia in the Democrat column, making it harder for Republicans to retake the White House,” said Blackwell.

U.S. Air Force releases flow chart of ‘counter-blog’ reponse plan

Think Progress- As part of its halting efforts to reach out to bloggers in constructive ways, the U.S. Air Force has assembled a “counter-blog” action plan aimed at responding to bloggers who have “negative opinions about the U.S. government and the Air Force.” The plan includes a detailed flow-chart that, as Danger Room explains, “lays out a range of possible responses to a blog post“.

Danger Room notes that the Air Force is trying to catch up with the rest of the Defense Department in terms of blogger relations. Despite blocking a significant number of blogs on its networks, the Air Force now has a Twitter feed and a blog of its own, thanks to a new public affairs “social media guru.”

Fox Allows "Magic Negro" Scroll To Be Broadcast During New Years Celebration

Here's just another example of the  "fair and balanced" news that is broadcasted by the Fox News Channel. Whomever allowed this scroll message to slip by should be held accountable.

Think Progress-

Throughout last night’s New Year’s eve broadcast, Fox News Channel allowed viewers to send in New Year’s greetings and wishes via text message. The messages were then scrolled across the bottom of the screen, replacing Fox’s normal crawling news headlines. While most messages were cordial, Fox allowed at least one racist message directed toward President-elect Obama to be broadcast. The message referenced Rush Limbaugh’s “Barack the Magic Negro” song:

HAPPY NEW YEAR AND LET’S HOPE THE MAGIC NEGRO DOES A GOOD JOB. LOVE JEN AND JOHN C.

See for your self, watch the video

Americans unemployed + those losing work hours = record 12.5 percent

Yesterday the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the nation’s economy lost 533,000 jobs last month, one of the worst jobs reports ever. With that, the unemployment rate rose to 6.7 percent. But the actual percentage of Americans who have lost hours and are out of work is much higher:

More significantly, the unemployment rate does not include those too discouraged to look for work any longer or those working fewer hours than they would like. Add those people to the roster of the unemployed, and the rate hit a record 12.5 percent in November, up 1.5 percentage points since September.

Think Progress -