He gives a “half time update” of the Republican repeal efforts.
You can tell that he once roomed with Jon Stewart, and he is now on my list of, “People I Do Not Want to Piss Off”.
Author: Matthew G. Saroff
Domestic Terrorism in Spokane
I’m not sure why the press isn’t covering this, but someone planted a relatively sophisticated road-side bomb along the route of the Spokane Martin Luther King Day parade:
A backpack found along the route of the Martin Luther King Jr. march in Spokane contained a bomb “capable of inflicting multiple casualties,” the FBI said Tuesday, describing the case as “domestic terrorism.”
The FBI said the Swiss Army-brand backpack was found about 9:25 a.m. PST on Monday on a bench at the northeast corner of North Washington Street and West Main Avenue in downtown Spokane.
In an interview on msnbc cable’s “The Rachel Maddow Show,” Spokesman-Review reporter Thomas Clouse said confidential sources told him that the device was equipped with a remote control detonator and contained shrapnel.
There are two things that are very concerning here:
- The FBI is being very loquacious about this, and I don’t mean, “FBI is offering a $20,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of people responsible for placing the device.” Considering how legendary the FBI is about keeping its cards close to its chest, this implies that they are very spooked by this.
- Spokane is smack dab in the middle of any number of any number of white supremacist encampments, and has already seen Aryan Nation inspired bombings and robberies.
I think that the FBI has some intel indicating that more than one person has some sort of ongoing plans for a series of actions.
What is odd here is that Maddow seems to be the only national media figure who is paying any attention.
What the F$#@ is Wrong With Barry?
He just penned an OP/ED in the Wall Street Journal, saying that the big problem in our economy is too much regulation:
From child labor laws to the Clean Air Act to our most recent strictures against hidden fees and penalties by credit card companies, we have, from time to time, embraced common sense rules of the road that strengthen our country without unduly interfering with the pursuit of progress and the growth of our economy.
Sometimes, those rules have gotten out of balance, placing unreasonable burdens on business—burdens that have stifled innovation and have had a chilling effect on growth and jobs. At other times, we have failed to meet our basic responsibility to protect the public interest, leading to disastrous consequences. Such was the case in the run-up to the financial crisis from which we are still recovering. There, a lack of proper oversight and transparency nearly led to the collapse of the financial markets and a full-scale Depression.
Well, at least he is not talking about repealing the Clean Air Act or child labor laws, Yet,, but when juxtaposed with his executive order calling for our regulations to become even more friendly to companies that rob us and pollute our environment. (full text after break)
I guess we had better be the change that we are looking for, because Barack H. Obama is way too interested in sucking up to the people who wrecked this country, like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan.
I am not looking forward to his State of the Union Address, because you can be sure that he will have some sort of initiative that further betray the people who voted for him.
The White HouseOffice of the Press SecretaryFor Immediate Release January 18, 2011Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review – Executive OrderBy the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to improve regulation and regulatory review, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. General Principles of Regulation. (a) Our regulatory system must protect public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation. It must be based on the best available science. It must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. It must promote predictability and reduce uncertainty. It must identify and use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. It must take into account benefits and costs, both quantitative and qualitative. It must ensure that regulations are accessible, consistent, written in plain language, and easy to understand. It must measure, and seek to improve, the actual results of regulatory requirements.
(b) This order is supplemental to and reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing contemporary regulatory review that were established in Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993. As stated in that Executive Order and to the extent permitted by law, each agency must, among other things: (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public.
(c) In applying these principles, each agency is directed to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated
present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. Where appropriate and permitted by law, each agency may consider (and discuss qualitatively) values that are difficult or impossible to quantify, including equity, human dignity, fairness, and distributive impacts.
Sec. 2. Public Participation. (a) Regulations shall be adopted through a process that involves public participation. To that end, regulations shall be based, to the extent feasible and consistent with law, on the open exchange of information and perspectives among State, local, and tribal officials, experts in relevant disciplines, affected stakeholders in the private sector, and the public as a whole.
(b) To promote that open exchange, each agency, consistent with Executive Order 12866 and other applicable legal requirements, shall endeavor to provide the public with an opportunity to participate in the regulatory process. To the extent feasible and permitted by law, each agency shall afford the public a meaningful opportunity to comment through the Internet on any proposed regulation, with a comment period that should generally be at least 60 days. To the extent feasible and permitted by law, each agency shall also provide, for both proposed and final rules, timely online access to the rulemaking docket on regulations.gov, including relevant scientific and technical findings, in an open format that can be easily searched and downloaded. For proposed rules, such access shall include, to the extent feasible and permitted by law, an opportunity for public comment on all pertinent parts of the rulemaking docket, including relevant scientific and technical findings.
(c) Before issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking, each agency, where feasible and appropriate, shall seek the views of those who are likely to be affected, including those who are likely to benefit from and those who are potentially subject to such rulemaking.
Sec. 3. Integration and Innovation. Some sectors and industries face a significant number of regulatory requirements, some of which may be redundant, inconsistent, or overlapping. Greater coordination across agencies could reduce these requirements, thus reducing costs and simplifying and harmonizing rules. In developing regulatory actions and identifying appropriate approaches, each agency shall attempt to promote such coordination, simplification, and harmonization. Each agency shall also seek to identify, as appropriate, means to achieve regulatory goals that are designed to promote innovation.
Sec. 4. Flexible Approaches. Where relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives, and to the extent permitted by law, each agency shall identify and consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public. These approaches include warnings, appropriate default rules, and disclosure requirements as well as provision of information to the public in a form that is clear and intelligible.
Sec. 5. Science. Consistent with the President’s Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies,
“Scientific Integrity” (March 9, 2009), and its implementing guidance, each agency shall ensure the objectivity of any scientific and technological information and processes used to support the agency’s regulatory actions.
Sec. 6. Retrospective Analyses of Existing Rules. (a) To facilitate the periodic review of existing significant regulations, agencies shall consider how best to promote retrospective analysis of rules that may be outmoded, ineffective, insufficient, or excessively burdensome, and to modify, streamline, expand, or repeal them in accordance with what has been learned. Such retrospective analyses, including supporting data, should be released online whenever possible.
(b) Within 120 days of the date of this order, each agency shall develop and submit to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs a preliminary plan, consistent with law and its resources and regulatory priorities, under which the agency will periodically review its existing significant regulations to determine whether any such regulations should be modified, streamlined, expanded, or repealed so as to make the agency’s regulatory program more effective or less burdensome in achieving the regulatory objectives.
Sec. 7. General Provisions. (a) For purposes of this order, “agency” shall have the meaning set forth in section 3(b) of Executive Order 12866.
(b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) authority granted by law to a department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(c) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(d) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 18, 2011.
All I Want for Christmas*…
Is for the rumors to be true, and for that ratf%$# Joe Lieberman not to seek reelection in 2012 to be true:
Amid growing speculation that he will not seek re-election in 2012, U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman’s office said Tuesday afternoon that the Democrat-turned-independent will announce his intentions in Stamford Wednesday.
“You can bet the farm” that Lieberman won’t seek a fifth term in 2012, said a Democratic insider who is close to the 22-year Senate veteran. But neither Lieberman nor his Senate office would confirm that.
Please, oh please let this be true.
*OK, I don’t do Christmas, I am a Jew, and I have no intention of having my circumcision reversed. It’s a metaphor, dammit!
Un-Dirty-Word-Believable
The roof is on fire…
Have you heard the one about the guy who passed the bar exam in Ohio, but was denied his law license on moral grounds because he had accumulated too much debt going to law school?
Yeah, well, it ain’t funny:
Wow. Guy goes to law school, guy racks up a huge amount of debt, guy has no idea how he’ll pay off his debts. Sound familiar? Okay, here’s the twist: the guy failed the “character and fitness” component of the Ohio bar because he has no plan to pay off his loans.
What the hell kind of legal education system are we running where we charge people more than they can afford to get a legal education, and then prevent them from being lawyers because they can’t pay off their debts?
Because it’s not like Hassan Jonathan Griffin was in a particularly unique situation when he went before the Ohio bar. A year and a half ago, we wrote about a man who was dinged on his character and fitness review because he was $400,000 in debt. That’s an extraordinary case. Hassan Jonathan Griffin owes around $170,000. He has a part-time job as a public defender. He used to be a stockbroker. He’s got as much a chance of figuring out a way to pay off his loans as most people from the Lost Generation.
The more that we make getting out of a hole impossible for ordinary Americans, the more we make a hollow country that will one day implode.
If this is what America is, then we need to examine what we are, because this is the sort of sh%$ makes me want to play Nero, and fiddle while the whole corrupt place burns.
Running the Numbers
So, some of you might be wondering why we all went on an extended weekend down to Williamsburg, Virginia, despite the fact that it’s the off season, and so many of the attractions (see the aforementioned Busch Gardens post) are closed.
Well, about a month ago, we went to computer show, and picked up a new (used) laptop for my daughter, and my wife filled out an entry form, and we got a call for a timeshare (they call it a vacation share) in the area which included their giving us space in one of their vacation condos for 3 days.
We talked about it, and we decided that this would be a lot of fun, and listening to a sales pitch would be well worth it.
We declined their offers, which by the way got sweeter and sweeter as time went on, pleading poverty, which is only half true.
The other half is that I can do basic math in my head, I are a mechanical engineer after all, and their numbers were simply not that good.
Basically, the spaces were set up as townhouses, with two apartments, each being a 2 bedroom with a decent kitchen and living space, nice bedrooms, and a kickass master bathroom, it included a jacuzzi, a separate shower, and a toilet in its own separate room.
The basic offer was around 10 grand, with a down payment of 2-4K with a 6-8 year loan at 7 percent, and around a $500 a year maintenance fee.
All this for a complex that was about 5 miles away from the Colonial Williamsburg Historic Area.
They talk about this, and show how, for decent, and honestly not as good, hotel space, you would be spending $30K over the next 30 years for lodging, and then discuss how this is a prime location that could be swapped for other space.
Well, ignoring opportunity costs, the economic fact that dollars spent today are worth more than dollars spent later, let’s look at the numbers.
You get 2 weeks a year, either fixed (the cheap option I describe above), or floating, so you are paying for 2 weeks out of 52.
Let’s be charitable, and say that you are paying for 1⁄25of a year, or ½ a month.
This makes purchase price around $250,000.00 (10+K x 25) and the maintenance fee equivalent to about $1000.00 a month.
Note that this is all in the suburban areas of Williamsburg, where nice houses are well under the price that they asked (annualized) if you are more than 5 blocks from historical area/William and Mary College, and then you have a $1000/month rent maintenance fee.
When you consider the fact that the developer did this on what had been soybean fields at some point in the past 3 or so years, it’s certainly a good deal for them.
Obviously for certain people, those who are certain that they will hit the area year after year, and who might want to swap a week with someone in some other location, it might make sense, but for most of us, this is simply not a sensible financial or lifestyle decision.
As for me, I want to vacation in different places, or to visit with family, which makes it even less attractive to me.
Still, I don’t mind the 2 or so hours that I spent on the sales pitch, along with having to say “no” to the very earnest sales person, it was worth it for the rest of the weekend, which was a lot of fun.
Things That Make Me Sad
Not only was Michael Steele, AKA the Republican malaprop machine, defeated in his quest for a 2nd term as head of the RNC, but his replacement is former Wisconsin GOP chairman Reince Priebus, whose name is a pain for me to spell.
It’s Morgan Tsvangerai all over again.
I am aware that this sounds shallow, but I don’t see Republicans good for much beyond my taking snarky shots at.
Bummer
Busch Gardens is not open yet, so it’s shopping and Laser Tag for the kids.
Went to Colonial Williamsburg Today
Click for full size
This was a posed shot, but it is rather more true than I would like to think.
The House of Burgesses
The black smith shop
Halberds in the Armory, I thought that they would be pre 1700s, but it appears that I was wrong
So, we went to colonial Williamsburg today.
Even my studiously blase teen (13) daughter enjoyed herself, though she was on her mobile constantly updating her Facebook page.
A good time was had by all.
We are hoping to hit Busch Gardens tomorrow before heading home.
A North Dakota Weather Alert
Not safe for work, but 100% true.
This is Brilliant
Or someone has too much time on their hands.
Or maybe both.
Just Read Krugman
He has an essay on what went wrong with the Euro that is positively brilliant.
Posting from the Road Again
My wife is taking her turn driving on a trip down to Williamsburg for the weekend.
When all is said and done, if you had told me that I would be surfing the net and blogging while on I-95, I would have said that you were completely insane.
The Grauniad* Lambastes Wikileaks for What the Grauniad* Published
Glenn Greenwald details just how ridiculous the ongoing feud between The Guardian and Julian Assange has become, with the paper the paper accusing Assange of endangering lives because of cables that were released by The Guardian itself:
Last week, on January 3, The Guardian published a scathing Op-Ed by James Richardson blaming WikiLeaks for endangering the life of Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the democratic opposition in Zimbabwe. Richardson — a GOP operative, contributor to RedState.com, and a for-hire corporate spokesman — pointed to a cable published by WikiLeaks in which American diplomats revealed that Tsvangirai, while publicly opposing American sanctions on his country, had privately urged their continuation as a means of weakening the Mugabe regime: an act likely to be deemed to be treasonous in that country, for obvious reasons. By publishing this cable, “WikiLeaks may have committed its own collateral murder,” Richardson wrote. He added: “WikiLeaks ought to leave international relations to those who understand it – at least to those who understand the value of a life.”
This accusation against WikiLeaks was repeated far and wide. In The Wall Street Journal, Jamie Kirchick — the long-time assistant of The New Republic‘s Marty Peretz — wrote under this headline: “Julian Assange’s reckless behavior could cost Zimbabwe’s leading democrat his life.” Kirchick explained that “the crusading ‘anti-secrecy’ website released a diplomatic cable from the U.S. Embassy in Harare” which exposed Tsvangirai’s support for sanctions. As “a result of the WikiLeaks revelations,” Kirchick wrote, the reform leader would likely be charged with treason, and “Mr. Tsvangirai will have someone additional to blame: Julian Assange of WikiLeaks.” The Atlantic‘s Chris Albon, in his piece entitled “How WikiLeaks Just Set Back Democracy in Zimbabwe,” echoed the same accusation, claiming “WikiLeaks released [this cable] to the world” and that Assange has thus “provided a tyrant with the ammunition to wound, and perhaps kill, any chance for multiparty democracy.” Numerous other outlets predictably mimicked these claims.
There was just one small problem with all of this: it was totally false. It wasn’t WikiLeaks which chose that cable to be placed into the public domain, nor was it WikiLeaks which first published it. It was The Guardian that did that. In early December, that newspaper — not WikiLeaks — selected and then published the cable in question. This fact led The Guardian — more than a full week after they published Richardson’s accusatory column — to sheepishly add this obscured though extremely embarrassing “clarification” at the end of his column:
• This article was amended on 11 January 2011 to clarify the fact that the 2009 cable referred to in this article was placed in the public domain by the Guardian, and not as originally implied by WikiLeaks. The photo caption was also amended to reflect this fact.
(emphasis original)
While I find The Guardian to be a top flight paper, this is inexcusable.
I get the impression that Assange is a bit of a jerk, and hard to deal with, but that does not excuse this crap.
*According to the Wiki, The Guardian, formerly the Manchester Guardian in the UK. It’s nicknamed the Grauniad because of its penchant for typographical errors, “The nickname The Grauniad for the paper originated with the satirical magazine Private Eye. It came about because of its reputation for frequent and sometimes unintentionally amusing typographical errors, hence the popular myth that the paper once misspelled its own name on the page one masthead as The Gaurdian, though many recall the more inventive The Grauniad.”
Tweet of the Day
It’s Because He’s Black…
No, it’s not because he supported McCain in the primaries
No, not Barack Obama, but rather Arizona legislative district 20 Republican Party chairman Anthony Miller, who has been harassed by the teabeggers and has resigned:
A nasty battle between factions of Legislative District 20 Republicans and fears that it could turn violent in the wake of what happened in Tucson on Saturday prompted District Chairman Anthony Miller and several others to resign.
Miller, a 43-year-old Ahwatukee Foothills resident and former campaign worker for U.S. Sen. John McCain, was re-elected to a second one-year term last month. He said
constant verbal attacks after that election and Internet blog posts by some local members with Tea Party ties made him worry about his family’s safety.
People are not upset at him because he supported McCain, who, after all demolished J.D. Hayworth in the primary, so he had broad based support from the party.
The problem here is that the Teabaggers think that his skin color clashes with the Arizona Republican Party, though they probably use a 2 word phrase beginning with “uppity”.
Vos? Sarah Palin iz a Yid*
When juxtaposed with the phrase, “Don’t retreat, reload,” this is an unfortunate turn of phraseSo Sarah Palin is now claiming that criticism of her “target map” and her shooting inspired rhetoric is blood libel:
“Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions,” Palin wrote in an early morning post on her Facebook account on Wednesday. “But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.”
(emphasis mine)
<Facepalm>
For those of you unfamiliar with Jewish history, the blood libel is the accusation that Jews use Christian baby’s blood to bake their matzohs for Passover.
This fraud was the cause of the deaths of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of Jews over the past 200 years.
Needless to say, the idea that anyone who isn’t Jewish would use the term for something as meaningless as criticism over their rhetoric is offensive, ahistorical, narcissistic, and just plain wrong, particularly for someone who is not Jewish.
The level of venality for a non-Jew to use this to condemn people for saying mean things about her simply boggles the mind. I cannot imagine anyone being so self-centered and inconsiderate to do this, so Sarah Palin must be Jewish.†
The response to this has been actually been fairly universal.
Months ago, Elizabeth Hasselbeck, The View‘s resident right winger, called the map despicable months ago.
Additionally, former Bush speech writer turned conservative apostate David Frum, has called her out for unleashing her attack dogs, while National Review nepotism hire Jonah Goldberg, calls the use of the phrase stupid in so many words., and trust me, Jonah Goldberg knows stupid like few others.
Additionally, Jewish Groups, including the ADL, which normally spends it time sucking up to ignorant bigots have condemned the use of the phrase.
Pat Buchanan, though, was true to form, saying that he, “thought it was an excellent statement“.
For what it’s worth, Joan Walsh’s assessment of the statement, that Palin has fatally wounded her Presidential chances, is, I think, completely wrong.
Her analysis misses a basic Republican imperative, to piss off liberals and Democrats any chance they get. Really, when you look at GOP frat boy behavior, it’s clear that much of what they do is driven by this petty need.
By pissing off liberals with the “blood libel” comment, she cements her relationship with the movement conservatives and teabaggers, and pissing off Jews, who constitute a minuscule part of the party, is just gravy, because it shows the Talibaptist wing of the Republican party that she is one of them.
That being said, I would still argue that the simplest hypothesis is the one most likely the correct one, and that would be that she is a person suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
*My best effort at translating “What? Sarah Palin is a Jew?” into transliterated English.
†I’m not asking for evidence of Todd’s circumcision, thankyouverymuch!
I am a Bad Person
Natalie has an audition for a magnet program this morning, and I suggested that she keep the bling to a minimum, so that she does not distract from her performance.
Then I qualified my statement, saying, “Then again, I am an engineer giving fashion advice, which is a lot like Jared Loughner giving gun safety advice.”
I am not a good person.
W00t!!!!
The new router has arrived, and after a couple of hours on tech support for my daughter’s laptop (a conflict between the Dell supplied software and the router), we are all connected again.
W00t!!!!
Yes
Jack Balkin asks, with the regard to the clearly illegal and punitive pretrial detention of Bradley Manning, “Is the Obama Administration countenancing torture of a US serviceman?”
This has been another episode of simple answers to simple questions.
On a more substantive note, read Glen Greenwald’s essay on how our government, both the Bush and Obama administrations have created an environment of fear to silence dissent:
At the time, I dismissed those concerns as both ill-founded and even slightly paranoid. From a strictly legal standpoint, those concerns were and are ill-founded: WikiLeaks has never even been charged with, let alone convicted of, any crime, nor does it do anything different than what major newspapers around the world routinely do, nor has it been formally designated a Terrorist organization, nor — I believed at the time — could it ever be so designated. There is not — and cannot remotely be — anything illegal about donating to it. Any efforts to retroactively criminalize such donations would be a classic case of an “ex post facto” law unquestionably barred by the Constitution. But from a political perspective, the crux of the fear was probably more prescient than paranoid: within a matter of months, leading right-wing figures were equating WikiLeaks to Al Qaeda, while the Vice President of the U.S. went on Meet the Press and disgustingly called Julian Assange a “terrorist.”
But more significant than the legal soundness of this fear was what the fear itself signified. Most of those expressing these concerns were perfectly rational, smart, well-informed American citizens. And yet they were petrified that merely donating money to a non-violent political and journalistic group whose goals they supported would subject them to invasive government scrutiny or, worse, turn them into criminals. A government can guarantee all the political liberties in the world on paper (free speech, free assembly, freedom of association), but if it succeeds in frightening the citizenry out of exercising those rights, they become meaningless.
So much of what the U.S. Government has done over the last decade has been devoted to creating and strengthening this climate of fear. Attacking Iraq under the terrorizing banner of “shock and awe”; disappearing people to secret prisons; abducting them and shipping them to what Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter (when advocating this) euphemistically called “our less squeamish allies”; throwing them in cages for years without charges, dressed in orange jumpsuits and shackles; creating a worldwide torture regime; spying on Americans without warrants and asserting the power to arrest them on U.S. soil without charges: all of this had one overarching objective. It was designed to create a climate of repression and intimidation by signaling to the world — and its own citizens — that the U.S. was unconstrained by law, by conventions, by morality, or by anything else: the government would do whatever it wanted to anyone it wanted, and those thinking about opposing the U.S. in any way, through means legitimate or illegitimate, should (and would) thus think twice, at least.
We need to remember that the vast bulk of the citizenry in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq had no worry of arrest and torture, nor is there that fear in the even more brutal regime in Burma/Myanmar. These were terror regimes, but the terror was directed at those who challenged the state, and it is now the deliberate policy of our government to do the same, it’s just a bit more subtle about it.