Elevator button of the week

Sphere: Related Content

Whaddaya Mean Obama Hasn't Done Anything?

 

A blow-by-blow breakdown of the young president's first year reveals that today's frustration stems not from a lack of policy so much as a lack of common ground. The myth of the American center looms in this, the second part of a week-long series on our country since the 2008 election.

BONUS QUIZ: How Well Do You Know the News of 2009?

By: John H. Richardson

Read more of Esquire.com's "The Year of Obama" series with part one from Charles P. Pierce, part three from S.T. VanAirsdale, part four from Thomas P.M. Barnett, and part five from Scott Raab

I have figured out The Problem With America Today. My inspiration was the recent one-year-later cover of Newsweek, which encapsulates the current conventional wisdom about President Obama in a single headline: YES HE CAN (BUT HE SURE HASN'T YET). Or, as Saturday Night Live put it, President Obama's two biggest accomplishments thus far are "Jack and Squat." You can find other versions of this perspective from Matt Lauer and David Gregory on NBC, from thousands of obnoxious bloggers, even from the hapless governor of New York.

These days, the argument that Obama hasn't accomplished anything may be the only example of real bipartisanship in America.

Here's the conventional wisdom in a single paragraph: Three hundred and sixty-four days after he was elected president, Obama is still stuck in Iraq, hasn't closed Guantánamo, is getting deeper into Afghanistan, hasn't accomplished health-care reform or slowed the rise in unemployment. His promises of bipartisanship are a punch line (see above). And there's still no peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. What a failure! What a splash of cold water in the face of all our bold hopes!

But the conventional wisdom is insane. Consider the record:

A week before he was sworn in, Obama jammed part two of the bank bailout down the throat of his own party — a $350 billion accomplishment.

Two days after he was sworn in, Obama banned the use of "harsh interrogation" and ordered the closing of Guantánamo.

A day later, Obama reversed George W. Bush's funding cutoff to overseas family planning organizations — saving millions of lives with the stroke of a pen.

Three days after that, Obama gave a green light to the California car-emissions standards that Bush had been blocking for six years — an important step on the road to cleaner air and a cooler planet.

Two weeks after that, Obama signed the stimulus bill — a $787 billion accomplishment.

Ten days after that, Obama formally announced America's withdrawal from Iraq.

A week later — we're in early March now — Obama erased Bush's decision to restrict federal funding for stem-cell research.

In April and June, Obama forced Chrysler and GM into bankruptcy.

In June, Obama reset the tone of our relations with the entire Arab world with a single speech — an accomplishment that the Bush administration failed to achieve despite a series of desperate PR moves (anyone remember Charlotte Beers?) and a "public diplomacy" budget of $1 billion a year.

Also in June, Obama unveiled the "Cash for Clunkers" program, a "socialist" giveaway that reanimated the corpse of our car industry — leading, for example, to the billion-dollar profit that Ford announced on Monday.

I haven't even mentioned Sonia Sotomayor, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the order to release the torture memos, Obama's push for charter schools, his $288 billion tax cut, or the end of Bush's war on medical marijuana. Or the minor fact that he seems to have — with Bush's help, it must be said — stopped the financial collapse, revived the credit markets, and nudged the economy toward 3.5 percent growth in the last quarter.

Oh, and one more thing: President Obama is now a month or two from accomplishing the awesome and seemingly impossible task that eluded mighty presidents like FDR, LBJ, and WJC — health-care reform.

http://www.esquire.com/print-this/obama-timeline-110309

Sphere: Related Content

How Progressives Can Move Obama to the Left

By Cenk Uygur

There are many debates among progressives now on the true nature of Barack Obama. Did he mean anything he said on the campaign trail? Is he really a progressive? Did he ever mean to challenge the status quo or was he using the word "change" as a campaign gimmick? Is he just a corporatist like most other politicians?

After talking about this with a great many progressives on our show, I've come to some conclusions. These are so self-evident that they will be viewed as obvious in hindsight.

Does he mean well or does he have bad intentions? Come on, don't be ridiculous. Of course, he means well. But in his own mind, George Bush thought he meant well, too (for the most part). I'm positive that Obama thinks that he is doing the best he can to bring about as much change as he can within the limits of this system.

Is he a true progressive or a corporatist sell out? Well, that depends on what you mean. Has he wound up helping corporate America tremendously through health care "reform," finance "reform," etc.? Well, Wall Street certainly seems to think so (and so do most progressives). Did he do that because he thought, "I can't wait to help corporate America and screw over the little guy"? No, I'm sure he thought he had to accommodate the powers that be in order to affect any change at all in this system. But the bottom line has been the same, either way - the system has been tweaked but corporate America chugs along with even more government largesse than before.

I'm sure Obama is a progressive that would help the average American if he thought he could. But apparently he thinks he can't. He can only bring them a small amount of change because of what he thinks the system will allow.

You can criticize him for lack of imagination, duplicity during the campaign, lack of spine and political miscalculation. And you might be right about some or all of that, but all of those aren't the essence of Obama. The core of Obama is a man who is a cautious politician. That is what he is at his center. He can't help himself. Asking him to be something else is asking a rock to be a little less hard. He is what he is.

So, what Obama does by his nature is find the middle ground. As an excellent innate politician, he will find the political center of any field and rush to it. That's where elections are won - the center. So, that's why he sounded so progressive during the primaries, because that was the center of the left. And why he sounded like such a reformer during the general election because the great majority of Americans desperately wanted change.

So, what happened to that Obama? The country is the same, so why did Obama drop the progressive reformer angle and go toward the right and corporate America? Because his field changed. He went from campaigning all across the country to being in the middle of Washington, DC. The center of Washington is very different than the center of the country.

The Washington bubble leans far more to the right than the rest of the country (poll after poll indicates this). The corporate media in Washington are pros at protecting the status quo and view people who challenge the system as fringe players. A natural politician would naturally move right to accommodate this new environment. Obama can't help himself. Why does a scorpion sting, why does a horse gallop? Because they were made to. Hoping Obama snaps out of it is hoping against reason and nature.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/How-Progressives-Can-Move-by-Cenk-Uygur-091224-432.html

Sphere: Related Content

Disqualified Christmas Decoration

Anonymous note:

Once again, I was disqualified from my neighborhood "Best Decorated House" contest due to my 'bad attitude'! Folks with tons of money to spend on decorations, lights, and utility bills in these hard times just don't appreciate simplicity.

http://artoftheprank.com/2009/12/25/disqualified-decorations/

Sphere: Related Content

Holiday Cheer

The Guardian's Dan Kennedy has an intelligent piece about why the great newspaper collapse of 2009 didn't pan out as expected. If you remember, early this year there were dramatic closures in major markets like Denver and Seattle, along with threats of similar harsh medicine in San Francisco and Boston. But as 2009 comes to a close, the San Francisco Chronicle and the Boston Globe are still alive and kicking and there have been no major newspaper shutdowns in nine months. Kennedy points out that publishers took strong action to reverse the tide after that scary first quarter, cutting back sharply on expenses, boosting subscription prices and finding novel new ways to generate revenue. They also had considerable success whittling down the debt that has paralyzed many of their operations

Most daily newspapers, in fact, operate in the black but massive debt accumulated during multiple rounds of consolidation earlier this decade were threatening their existence. The threat is still there, but it looks like there was more fat in newspaper operating budgets than many observers had believed. Washington Post publisher Katharine Weymouth has pointed out that her paper employs twice as many journalists as it did during the Watergate years, even after multiple rounds of cutbacks.

Time to celebrate? Hardly. This industry is not a growth story and probably never will be, but it does appear that publishers are finding ways to gracefully manage their print operations down to sustainable levels. Early experience indicates that online news publishers can the profitable at about 20% of the expense level of their print counterparts. It's likely that some publishers will figure out ways to get there without shutting down the brand entirely. Of course the price of advertising is also in decline, but that's a different problem entirely.

It turns out that shares a Gannett Corp. were a heckuva buy in March when they plummeted to $1.85. The stock hit $15.49 on Wednesday as a leading analyst upgraded his outlook for the newspaper industry, saying December could be the industry's best month in three years. Well Fargo Securities analyst John Janedis said the slide in advertising is slowing and that ad revenues could be down only 8% or 9% next year, compared to more than 30% this year. Janedis raised his rating on Gannett to "outperform" from "underperform" and on New York Times Co. to "market Perform" from "underperform."

Not in Our Back Yard

We continue to be amazed at how newspapers bury the lead when announcing bad news about themselves. Check out this press release from the Washington Times as reprinted on Talking Points Memo:

The Washington Times today announced that it will begin producing a more focused Monday through Friday edition designed to feature its most distinctive news and opinion content.

Offered as a combination controlled market and paid general interest newspaper at a price of $1.00, the new print edition will be available at retail outlets and newspaper boxes throughout the D.C. metropolitan area. The current newspaper's last Sunday edition will publish on December 27.

That's right: the news is that the Times is killing its Sunday edition. This is on top of laying off 40% of its staff a few weeks ago. The paper is also reportedly considering eliminating its sports section entirely. Perhaps the Times reporters wouldn't bury the lead on this particular story, but the PR department surely did.

http://www.newspaperdeathwatch.com/

Sphere: Related Content

Taliban stalls key hydroelectric turbine project in Afghanistan

Convoy diverted British troops from front but generator may never be used

by Jon Boone in Kabul 

Two thousand British troops took part in the mission to deliver 220 tonnes of equipment to the Kajaki dam, pictured. Photograph: Bronwen Roberts/AFP/Getty Images

An enormous hydroelectric turbine dragged at huge cost by British troops through Taliban heartlands last year may never be installed because Nato has been unable to secure a 30-mile stretch of road leading to an isolated dam in northern Helmand.

The daring mission to deliver 220 tonnes of equipment to the Kajaki dam in Afghanistan in September 2008 was hailed as one of the biggest success stories of the British Army's three-year deployment in Helmand.

Two thousand British troops took part in the five-day convoy through enemy territory, which was launched because the main road leading to the dam was too vulnerable to Taliban attacks.

Senior British officers privately say the enormous diversion of scarce military resources for the operation allowed the Taliban to make major gains in other critical areas of the province, including Nad Ali, which subsequently saw some of the most intense fighting between British forces and insurgents.

Within a couple of months of the Kajaki operation, areas close to the British base in Lashkar Gah had deteriorated so badly that troops had to be resupplied by air drop.

The dam continues to be besieged by Taliban fighters and, 15 months after the mission by the UK troops, the turbine's components remain unassembled because huge amounts of cement that are required to install the equipment cannot be delivered safely.

Now the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the wing of the United States government which has so far pumped $47m (£29m) into the project, intended to electrify much of southern Afghanistan, says it is packing the turbine parts away and looking for other energy projects to invest in across Afghanistan.

"Our message is that until we have a secure road we cannot continue with the installation of turbine two," said John Smith-Sreen, head of energy and water projects for USAID in Kabul.

"When the turbine was moved in by British and American forces it was a huge effort and it was done in a point of time. But we can't move in the large quantity of cement and aggregate that we need in a point of time, we need a sustained effort," he said.

The road would need to be secured for about half a year.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/13/afghanistan-turbine-taliban-british-army

Sphere: Related Content

Top Ten Dinosaur and Fossil Finds: Most Viewed of 2009

Large, "lost," or simply unusual, a bevy of prehistoric beasts were brought to life in National Geographic News's most popular paleontology stories of the year.

10. Biggest Trilobite Sea Beasts Found ... in Swarms The "remarkable," yard-long, horseshoe crab-like arthropods roamed in swarms of up to a thousand animals, a May study suggests.

9. "Lost World" of Dinosaurs Survived Mass Extinction? An isolated group of dinosaurs may have outlived their doomed relatives by as much as half a million years, an April study suggested.

8. A Third of Dinosaur Species Never Existed? Young dinosaurs weren't Mini-Me versions of their parents, evidence presented in October suggests—meaning that up to a third of dinosaur species may be misidentified.

7. Tiny "T. Rex" Found —150-Pound Species Came First No heavier than a small man, Raptorex was Mini-Me to T. rex's dinosaur Dr. Evil. But in this case, the tiny gave rise to the titanic, researchers said in September. • See pictures

6. Five "Oddball" Crocs Discovered, Including Dinosaur-Eater A "saber-toothed cat in armor" and a pancake-shaped predator are among five strange, dinosaur-era crocodile cousins discovered in the Sahara, archaeologists announced in November. Meet BoarCroc, PancakeCroc, DuckCroc, RatCroc, and DogCroc. • See pictures

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/12/091222-top-ten-dinosaurs-2009-fossils.html

Sphere: Related Content

Obama Extends Diplomatic Immunity to Interpol by Executive Order

The Fifth Column

President Obama has issued an amendment to Executive Order 12425,  designating the international law enforcement agency Interpol as a "public international organization," thus extending diplomatic immunity to the law enforcement group

The amendment to the Executive Order -- which does not need to be put to the senatorial test of "advise and consent" -- reads:

"By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words "except those provided by Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act" and the semicolon that immediately precedes them."

The text of Section 2(c), which now applies to Interpol states:

"(c) Property and assets of international organizations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation. The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable."

Because of this move by the Obama Administration any and all Interpol offices in the United States cannot be searched due to its status as a diplomatically protected organization. It's offices are considered sovereign and its files are not subject to legal request, be it by subpoena or discovery.

The website ObamaFile.com notes, "If any branch of government wants to keep documents out of the hands of the US court system, just hand them over to Interpol until the smoke clears." It added that Interpol can maintain files on US citizens.

 

http://www.newmediajournal.us/the_fifth_column/12222009.htm

Sphere: Related Content

Verizon Responds to Consumer Complaints

 

A few weeks ago, I wrote about two particularly nasty Verizon Wireless practices. First, Verizon doubled the early-cancellation fee for smartphones, the price you pay for canceling before your two-year contract is up (it's now $350).

Second, I passed along a note from a Verizon whistleblower who identified a really outrageous Verizon profit center: if you accidentally hit one of the arrow keys on your Verizon cellphone (which come premapped to various Verizon Internet functions), you're charged $2 instantaneously, even if you cancel instantly. (Verizon confirms that on many models, you can't remap those buttons to other functions even if you're tech-savvy enough to try.)

To my delight, the F.C.C. got on the case, even citing my original post. It formally asked Verizon for some answers about both issues.

Verizon hemmed, hawed, asked for an extension on the deadline, and finally responded on Friday. You can read the entire outrageous document here here.

Why is it outrageous? Because basically it denies everything. It says, in essence, "We've doubled the cancellation fee because we felt like it," and "We don't charge those $2 accidental-Internet fees. You must be mistaken."

O.K. Let's take these one by one.

First of all, Verizon explains the doubled cancellation fees like this: "Verizon Wireless incurs additional costs to sign up customers, such as advertising costs, commissions for sales personnel, and store costs. These costs are higher for Advanced Devices."

Huh? It costs more to advertise a BlackBerry than a regular flip phone?

Verizon also says that the higher fees help to recoup its expenses for building up its data network. Yet no other other carrier has felt the need to double the fee.

Here's what really gets me, though. Verizon justifies early-cancellation fees by noting the huge gap between a customer's purchase price and a phone's real cost. For example, you might pay $200 for a BlackBerry that, on the open market, would cost $500. Over your two-year contract, you're paying Verizon back the rest of the full price. That's how the American cellphone industry works.

O.K., great. We're with you so far.

But if I were the F.C.C., I'd have two big questions about this:

1. How come our monthly bills don't drop at the end of two years, once we've fully paid for the phone?

2. Verizon says that we, the customers, can avoid the early-cancellation penalty if we're willing to pay the full retail price of the phone up front ($500 or whatever). Fine. But then why do we have to pay the same monthly fee as somebody who got the discounted price?

What are we missing here?

http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/verizon-responds-to-consumer-complaints/

Sphere: Related Content

Decade of Doom

Sphere: Related Content

The Mouse that Roared

Sphere: Related Content

Top 10 Christmas Movies I Want to See

Top 10 Christmas Movies I Want to See

by Michael Dare

 

10: It's a Horrible Life: Clarence the angel gets his wings after convincing George W. Bailey to kill himself by showing him how absolutely fantastic the world would have been had he never been born.

 

9: The Polar Espresso: Elves from around the world are kidnapped and forced to work at the first Starbucks at the North Pole.

 

8: How the Magnanimous Billionaire Gave Away Christmas: A mad billionaire hires minions to sneak into people's houses and replace the gifts around the tree with much better ones.

 

7: Homo Alone: I really don't want to see this. What was I thinking? You go see it.

 

6: Elf Realization: Che Elf rouses the toy workers to overthrow their hefty master. Siddhartha Elf finds enlightenment.

 

5: The Nightmare After Christmas: A swamped clerk at a Wal-Mart's return desk kidnaps shoppers and opens an underground slave department where illegal aliens can buy white people.

 

4: The Little Shop Around the Coroner: Law and Order meets CSI meets Bones meets Love, Actually, with a bit of Die Hard and Eyes Wide Shut thrown in.

 

3: Rudolph the Normal-Nosed Reindeer: There's nothing special about Rudolph so he never guides Santa's sleigh or ever really amounts to anything. Nobody writes a song about him and he dies in obscurity.

 

2: Disaster on 34th Street: Santa is hijacked by elf terrorists who crash his sleigh into Macy's which mysteriously comes crumbling down in what many claim must have been a controlled demolition. The US declares war on the North Pole and blows up a Starbucks. Gimbels has its biggest week ever.

 

and the number one Christmas movie I want to see...

 

1. The Most Improbable Story Ever Told: A virgin who appears on tortillas gives birth to a man who can walk on water. Starring Jesus Saves (pronounced Hey-soos Sah-vess.)

 

http://dareland.blogspot.com/2009/12/top-10-christmas-movies-i-want-to-see.html

Sphere: Related Content

We had a deal. A few Senators just lied to us.

by Chris Bowers

I've seen a few post-mortems of the public option campaign kicking around the Internets.  Invariably, as more are written, some will blame the people leading the campaign for not adopting different tactics which, the authors of the post-mortems will claim, could have led to victory.

Before this line of writing becomes too widespread, we all need to remember that the only reason we didn't win the public option campaign was because a few Senators lied to us.  Unless someone can think of ways to have prevented them from lying, then these post-mortems will be useless.

Back on May 21st, there were only 28 Senators in support of a triggerless public option.  Through your tireless participation in a whip count effort, by October 8th we raised that number to 51 when Jon Tester came out in support.  By October 30th, when Evan Bayh said he wouldn't filibuster, we were up to 56 Democrats for cloture on health care reform with a public option.

From that point, the only four Senators we still needed all lied to us in one form or another.  Both Mary Landrieu and Blanche Lincoln signed a document stating that they supported a public option, only to reverse their positions.  Blanche Lincoln's website still comically claimed she supported a public option even as she was declaring her opposition to one on the Senate floor.

Still, Landrieu, Lincoln and Ben Nelson were all part of the group of ten Senators who forged a deal on the public option that included a Medicare buy-in.  Further, immediately after that deal was reached, Harry Reid contacted Joe Lieberman to see if he liked the deal.  Lieberman told Harry Reid that he was liking what he was seeing, and just wanted to wait for the CBO report.  Further, Lieberman had supported an even stronger Medicare buy-in (for Americans aged 50-64) as recently as September 2009.

Six days later, Lieberman and Nelson went on national television to engage in some more mendacity.  Lieberman said he would filibuster the deal, even though he had told Reid he liked it, and even though he had recently advocated for it.  Ben Nelson badmouthed the deal even though he helped forge it.

And then, when the lying was all done, Rahm Emanuel ordered the Democratic Senate caucus to do as Lieberman said.  And the Democratic Senate caucus not only is ready to comply, but to do so without punishing Lieberman (or any of the other liars, for that matter).

To put it bluntly, we had won the campaign, but were lied to by a small number of Senators.  In particular, we were lied to by Joe Lieberman.  If you have a post-mortem that could have prevented the lying, I'd love to hear it.  For, were it not for the lying, the public option campaign would have been won.

http://openleft.com/diary/16552/we-had-a-deal-a-few-senators-just-lied-to-us

Sphere: Related Content

Four Real-Life Christmas Scrooges

By Christopher

4 Andrew Carnegie

Second richest man in history

His Riches

How rich was Carnegie? He is regarded as the second richest man in history, worth $293.3 billion dollars in today's time—3 times more than Bill Gates. Making most of his fortune from the booming steel industry in the late 19^th century, Carnegie soon had fingers in everything from bonds, to sleeping cars.

His Scroogyness

Carnegie was so cheap, that he once "lost a dime. It is said that he got on his knees, and searched for the dime until he found it." This guy, who is worth the GDP of Zimbabwe, looking for something that most of us wouldn't have given a second thought.

Another famous anecdotes was how he tipped a dime once, at a meal. Unless he was eating at a $2 restaurant, is unacceptable. It is unknown if it is the same dime mentioned, although knowing Carnegie, we wouldn't be surprised if he had originally picked it up with his next meal in mind.

Scrooge Rating (out of 10)

Carnegie was a noted philanthropist, and by his death, had given an estimated $35 billion dollars away—again, massively more than Bill Gate's philanthropy of $28 billion (Suck it, Bill!) So, I suppose we could forgive him for the two (one?) dimes.

3 John Elwes

The man Dickens based Scrooge on

His Riches

A Member of Parliament of Britain in the 1700s, Elwes inherited his wealth from his mother and his uncle. Although his mother left him £100,000 (which would be like, a trillion dollars today), she reputedly starved to death, as she was too stingy to spend the money; while his uncle left his £250,000, but prided himself on spending only £110 a year. Which ultimate leads us to ask the question: is being a selfish jerk hereditary?

His Scroogyness

Elwes was so damn stingy, that he has an entire section in his Wikipedia page dedicated to his "Miserliness".

Elwes dressed in beggars clothing; went to sleep when the sun set to save candles; would eat rotten food before buying new ones, once eating the remains left by a rat; refused to see a doctor, even when he had been shot; and ultimately lived on £50 a year.

Scrooge Rating (out of 10)

When Elwes lay dying, he forced his lawyer to draw his £800,000 will in firelight to save the cost of a candle. One. Single. Candle.

Despite all this, Elwes wasn't really an asshole, just stingy.

http://humor.gunaxin.com/four-real-life-christmas-scrooges/40315

Sphere: Related Content

Auld Lang Syne: Farewell to another decade of "liberal media bias"

by

It might seem futile to try to select just two quotes from the previous decade and single them out as bookends to illustrate how the political press so often malfunctioned over the last 10 years. But if pressed, I know which duo I'd nominate in hopes of highlighting the absurdity behind the never-ending right-wing claim about supposed "liberal media bias."

Y'know, the same "liberal media" that over the previous decade unleashed its venom on Al Gore, morphed into George Bush's lapdog cheerleaders, and created unfair double standards for covering the new Democratic president, Barack Obama.

The first quote I'd nominate actually comes from very late 1999, but the implication was pure 2000 and the decade that followed. The passage appeared in a Time report about the unfolding Democratic primary battle and came just as the Beltway press was unveiling its unapologetic War on Gore, as The Daily Howler might put it.

The orgy of resentment that erupted toward Gore during the 2000 campaign season was likely unprecedented in American politics, as media elites did very little to hide their disdain for Gore. For years, they mocked him, bad-mouthed him, and made up nasty stories about him. (Hint: Inventing the Internet.) Acting as a conduit for the RNC, the press actively tried to delegitimize the Democratic Party nominee for president. And the chronically caustic and unfair press coverage cost Gore the election in the historically close 2000 campaign.

Which brings me to Quote of the Decade No. 1, courtesy Time's Eric Pooley and his New Hampshire primary dispatch: [emphasis added]:

[T]he 300 media types watching in the press room at Dartmouth were, to use the appropriate technical term, totally grossed out by it. Whenever Gore came on too strong, the room erupted in a collective jeer, like a gang of 15-year-old Heathers cutting down some hapless nerd.

If readers needed confirmation regarding the open contempt for Gore, blogger Mickey Kaus soon traveled to New Hampshire and announced the consensus among journalists: "They hate Gore. They really do think he's a liar. And a phony."

My second Quote of the Decade nominee arrived 110 months later and via NBC's Chuck Todd. It was uncorked inside the new Obama White House press room, on January 23, 2009. The topic on the table was the administration's proposed economic stimulus package and whether the White House, which was hoping for a bipartisan effort on the legislation, would be disappointed if the bill passed with little or no Republican support. And that's when Todd asked Robert Gibbs the following:

Would [the President] veto a bill if it didn't have Republican support?

That's right. Just days into the new presidency, Todd wanted to know if Obama would go ahead and take the unprecedented action of vetoing his own legislation designed to immediately jump-start the faltering economy because not enough members of the opposition party supported the stimulus bill.

If nothing else, Todd's absurd query highlighted the unheard-of double standard the press constructed for the new Democratic president. Namely, when addressing the issue of bipartisanship (i.e. "involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties") the press decided to hold only one of the political parties accountable: the Democrats. Bipartisanship was now something Democrats had to bring to fruition.

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200912220005

Sphere: Related Content

Be Careful What You Pray For

by Iron Knee

Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) said on Sunday:

What the American people ought to pray is that somebody can't make the vote tonight. That's what they ought to pray.

Coburn was hoping that a Democrat would not show up for the vote on health care reform and the vote would fail. But he forgot to specify the party of the person against whom people should pray.

But on Tuesday a teabagger called into C-SPAN because he was terrified that the prayers had backfired. He had prayed that aging Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) would either die or be unable to show up to vote. Instead, it was Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) who failed to show. The caller, obviously distraught, asks Senator John Barrasso (R-WY):

How hard did you pray because I see one of our members was missing this morning. Did it backfire on us? One of our members died? How hard did you pray senator? Did you pray hard enough?

First they pray for bad weather for the Democratic convention, and instead get a hurricane for the Republican convention. Now this. If there is a God, he must be laughing.

Watch it here:

http://politicalirony.com/2009/12/23/be-careful-what-you-pray-for/

Sphere: Related Content

How Banks Fleece the Unemployed

 

 

By Barbara Koeppel

 

Just when you thought the big banks had maxed out their chutzpah account, think again.

While posting breathtaking profits in the last two quarters – Wells Fargo's $3.2 billion, Citigroup's $3 billion and Chase's $2.7 billion – U.S. banks have figured out a way to squeeze some extra dollars from those who can least afford it, the unemployed.

Here's how it works. In the past two years, states have been overwhelmed with unemployment claims. Always eager to serve, America's banks offered a deal the states couldn't refuse.

Sign a contract — which won't cost you a dime — and send us your weekly unemployment funds, the banks said. In return, we'll issue our VISA or MasterCard debit cards to your laid-off workers, on which we'll post their benefits electronically.

Thirty states signed on with the usual suspects — Citi, Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America — and some smaller ones, too. More states are lining up.

In a stroke, states dropped all their costs for printing and mailing checks. Andrew James, with North Carolina's Employment Security Commission, told me that in the past year, his state saved a whopping $10 million. During the same time, Nevada saved $800,000, Maryland $400,000 and West Virginia $340,000.

But if the system is good for the states, it's great for the banks. A February 2009 Associated Press article noted that Missouri's Central Bank, which won that state's contract, could reap $6.3 million this year alone.

The banks profit from interest earned on the funds the states deposit with them until the money is posted onto the debit cards. Then there's the money the banks get from retailers where the unemployed shop with their cards — from 2 percent to 3 percent per transaction.

But such sums are not large enough, it seems. So the banks have figured how to extract more money from the millions of unemployed now using the debit cards. The devil's in the fees. 

http://consortiumnews.com/2009/121509b.html

Sphere: Related Content

Darth Vader Opens Wall Street

Sphere: Related Content

How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room

As recriminations fly post-Copenhagen, one writer offers a fly-on-the-wall account of how talks failed

by Mark Lynas

 

A woman listens to Barack Obama's speech at the Copenhagen climate change conference on 18 December.

Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual recriminations. The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful "deal" so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen.

China's strategy was simple: block the open negotiations for two weeks, and then ensure that the closed-door deal made it look as if the west had failed the world's poor once again. And sure enough, the aid agencies, civil society movements and environmental groups all took the bait. The failure was "the inevitable result of rich countries refusing adequately and fairly to shoulder their overwhelming responsibility", said Christian Aid. "Rich countries have bullied developing nations," fumed Friends of the Earth International.

All very predictable, but the complete opposite of the truth. Even George Monbiot, writing in yesterday's Guardian, made the mistake of singly blaming Obama. But I saw Obama fighting desperately to salvage a deal, and the Chinese delegate saying "no", over and over again. Monbiot even approvingly quoted the Sudanese delegate Lumumba Di-Aping, who denounced the Copenhagen accord as "a suicide pact, an incineration pact, in order to maintain the economic dominance of a few countries".

Sudan behaves at the talks as a puppet of China; one of a number of countries that relieves the Chinese delegation of having to fight its battles in open sessions. It was a perfect stitch-up. China gutted the deal behind the scenes, and then left its proxies to savage it in public.

Here's what actually went on late last Friday night, as heads of state from two dozen countries met behind closed doors. Obama was at the table for several hours, sitting between Gordon Brown and the Ethiopian prime minister, Meles Zenawi. The Danish prime minister chaired, and on his right sat Ban Ki-moon, secretary-general of the UN. Probably only about 50 or 60 people, including the heads of state, were in the room. I was attached to one of the delegations, whose head of state was also present for most of the time.

What I saw was profoundly shocking. The Chinese premier, Wen Jinbao, did not deign to attend the meetings personally, instead sending a second-tier official in the country's foreign ministry to sit opposite Obama himself. The diplomatic snub was obvious and brutal, as was the practical implication: several times during the session, the world's most powerful heads of state were forced to wait around as the Chinese delegate went off to make telephone calls to his "superiors".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/22/copenhagen-climate-change-mark-lynas

Sphere: Related Content

Christmas Stockings

© Joel Pett

Sphere: Related Content