TM Connect


Use "My TM" for log in & register.

Taylor Marsh has been writing on line since 1996, with the archives provided here a representation of that work.

Archive | culture RSS feed for this section

What Would Teddy Think Today?

By on 04 August 2011



Depends on which Edward M. Kennedy you’d ask.

Teddy Kennedy of 1978, who stood up to challenge Jimmy Carter no matter the cost, he might have one opinion of Barack Obama’s presidency.

I remember that Kennedy, while I stood in gas lines in New York City and watched how helpless America looked during the Iranian hostage crisis.

Today we can’t even talk about something as bold as a primary challenge to Pres. Obama, no matter that he’s earned it. The money juggernaut of Obama reelect is one reason, but with even progressives proclaiming no one can challenge Obama because he’s the first African American president, as Markos Moulitsas did with Keith Olbermann recently, it puts Barack Obama in a very special class of his own; one that elevates the politician over policy prescriptions that shore up our country’s overall health.

The Tea Party crazies wouldn’t be interested in this type of political etiquette, if you will. They want to win the argument through legislation, while managing to change the entire economic debate by taking on the GOP establishment and forcing an outcome the insiders couldn’t have come close to getting on their own. Tea Party outsider muscle helped Republicans beat Pres. Obama and his entire economic and political teams combined.

The Kennedy who endorsed Barack Obama in the star studded media extravaganza, covered by cable with full fanfare that would have been embarrassing to Edward R. Murrow, what would he think today of Obama’s presidency?

Sen. Kennedy proudly passed the torch, but Obama’s presidency as it stands today, well, it’s hard to imagine this is what Teddy had in mind.

Things aren’t getting better because the administration doesn’t even recognize that they are – that their boss is – the problem. – John Aravosis

Read full story · Comments { 21 }

Barack Obama on a Bus Pitching Jobs

By on 03 August 2011

“Pivot [to jobs] is not an appropriate word. It is continuing the focus we have had…” (Via Sam Stein on Twitter)

That is the funniest thing I’ve read today, until I read this… From The Hill:

President Obama will travel the Midwest by bus this summer to talk up the White House’s job-creation efforts and to try to shore up political support in battleground states.

Obama will embark on a three-day tour, from Aug. 15 to 17. The administration said Wednesday that the trip had long been planned but wouldn’t outline an itinerary beyond saying the stops would be in the Midwest.

[...] “He looks forward to talking to the folks about growing the economy, creating jobs,” said White House press secretary Jay Carney at Wednesday’s press briefing.

Pres. Obama could step off of a bus in Missouri in blue jeans, a work shirt and steel toes, but nobody and I mean nobody is going to buy this stunt. The biggest mistake any politician can make is trying to be someone he isn’t and Barack Obama is not a bus guy. It’s an optics effort, but now his advisers better pray this pr move doesn’t turn into a Dukakis in a tank moment.

As for the jobs pitch, Matt Stoller and Digby team up for the tweet of the day, which really is the biggest failure of Obama’s presidency, though there are plenty of items from which to choose:

Screen capture at top from Huffington Post.

Read full story · Comments { 18 }

Tea Party Politics is Crazy, But They Won

By on 01 August 2011

“The “hobbits” won.” – Mark Thiessen

This is what happens when the man in the White House doesn’t have the leadership character for the job.

As for all those analysts, including a lot of progressives and new media sites, who tried to stuff the Tea Party in the racist bin thinking that would be enough, you have been humiliated by the small government crew that was at the foundation of what became an astroturf movement the media glommed on to, while Democrats actually believed they weren’t for real.

Corporate wingnut titans can funnel money into a movement, but if they don’t have front men and women with principle who’ll go down for the cause it hardly matters. Yes, there are racists in the Tea Party, no doubt about it, but by overplaying the theme while amateurs railed against Washington, Democrats and progressives missed the movement’s power by a mile. The carnage left today is the result.

It all began with Sarah Palin, which progressives and new media sites ignored or vilified. Her power has risen and she’s finally fallen, but through health care and the 2010 election, no person was more powerful or impacted the Tea Party presence more than Sarah, allowing them to take center stage in Washington and accomplish the defeat of progressive economics, because their opponent, Pres. Obama, wasn’t up to the job.

Having a pretty spokes model has worked before and the Democrats were no more prepared for Palin and the Tea Party than they were for Ronald Reagan. Democrats and progressives should just count their lucky stars that Palin is gone and Michele Bachmann’s lack of maleness makes her an untenable choice for the GOP boys’ club who seem to be hoping the televangelist huckster Rick Perry can do it for them, as Mitt Romney faces a whole new set of very real challenges to his candidacy. Pres. Obama may be the Democratic poison political pill, but he’d beat Perry in a walk.

With Fox News Channel behind the Tea Party, just like they did during the Bush era, Republicans and the mighty Right, however wrong their policies, have pummeled the Democratic party and progressives into submission, at least for the moment, through the rise of Obamanomics.

So, it’s time to give credit where it’s due and it’s not to political analysts like Lawrence O’Donnell who not only blew the McConnell call, but also his analysis on Obama, while huffing and puffing for 20 minutes every night in his opener and saying absolutely nothing worth remembering today.

Obamanomics is here and the country is stuck with it; an orphaned idea hollowly culled from Republicanism that ignores jobs and growth for cuts, cuts, cuts, while discounting that it’s the middle class and “working stiffs” who fuel demand that inspires corporations to create jobs in the first place.

The Tea Party played Pres. Obama and the Democratic party for the craven, purposeless, unmotivated political class they are; a group of individuals who stand for nothing but promoting celebrity over philosophical muscle that may not be perfect, but has at its heart the welfare of the people above all.

While the details of the debt ceiling deal remain fuzzy, this much is clear: Barack Obama may be president, but the Tea Party is now running Washington. – Peter Beinert

Read full story · Comments { 19 }

Parliament Testimony Begins by Murdoch’s Being Denied Request to Make Statement

By on 19 July 2011

**UPDATED**

11:55 A.M. EST – HEARINGS SUSPENDED FOR 10 MINUTES… as someone seems to have lunged at Rupert Murdoch, though it’s not clear what happened. The Guardian reports Murdoch’s wife Wendy seemed to slap him away before man in checked shirt could reach her husband. Johnny Marbles tweeted his “attack.” Pictures of failed pie attack.

5.01pm: Jane Martinson reports from the hearing: “He was sitting four rows back, calmly walked up with a plate of shaving foam – smacked it in Rupert’s face – Wendi intervened.”

4.57pm: The suspect looks like he has a substance like white paint on his face.

My colleague Jackie Ashley tells Twitter: “Wendi [Murdoch's wife] can throw quite a punch.”

4.56pm: The BBC says the young man has been handcuffed. Sky showed the footage again – it seemed to be an attack from Rupert Murdoch’s left.

4.55pm: A young man in a checked shirt has been detained by police.

4.54pm: Someone has just tried to attack Rupert Murdoch. His wife Wendi seemed to slap the person.

More updates (original column) below…

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“This is the most humble day of my life.” – Rupert Murdoch

The hearings begin with Rupert Murdoch & his son James Murdoch asking to make opening statement, but were denied. Guardian has statement of Rupert Murdoch:

Mr. Chairman. Select Committee Members:

With your permission, I would like to read a short statement.

My son and I have come here with great respect for all of you, for Parliament and for the people of Britain whom you represent.

This is the most humble day of my career.

After all that has happened, I know we need to be here today.

Before going further, James and I would like to say how sorry we are for what has happened – especially with regard to listening to the voicemail of victims of crime.

My company has 52,000 employees. I have led it for 57 years and I have made my share of mistakes. I have lived in many countries, employed thousands of honest and hardworking journalists, owned nearly 200 newspapers and followed countless stories about people and families around the world.

At no time do I remember being as sickened as when I heard what the Dowler family had to endure – nor do I recall being as angry as when I was told that the News of the World could have compounded their distress. I want to thank the Dowlers for graciously giving me the opportunity to apologise in person.

I would like all the victims of phone hacking to know how completely and deeply sorry I am. Apologising cannot take back what has happened. Still, I want them to know the depth of my regret for the horrible invasions into their lives.

I fully understand their ire. And I intend to work tirelessly to merit their forgiveness.

I understand our responsibility to cooperate with today’s session as well as with future inquiries. We will respond to your questions to the best of our ability and follow up if we are not capable of answering anything today. Please remember that some facts and information are still being uncovered.

We now know that things went badly wrong at the News of the World. For a newspaper that held others to account, it failed when it came to itself. The behaviour that occurred went against everything that I stand for. It not only betrayed our readers and me, but also the many thousands of magnificent professionals in our other divisions around the world.

So, let me be clear in saying: invading people’s privacy by listening to their voicemail is wrong. Paying police officers for information is wrong. They are inconsistent with our codes of conduct and neither has any place, in any part of the company I run.

But saying sorry is not enough. Things must be put right. No excuses. This is why News International is cooperating fully with the police whose job it is to see that justice is done. It is our duty not to prejudice the outcome of the legal process. I am sure the committee will understand this.

I wish we had managed to see and fully solve these problems earlier. When two men were sent to prison in 2007, I thought this matter had been settled. The police ended their investigations and I was told that News International conducted an internal review. I am confident that when James later rejoined News Corporation he thought the case was closed too. These are subjects you will no doubt wish to explore today.

This country has given me, our companies and our employees many opportunities. I am grateful for them. I hope our contribution to Britain will one day also be recognised.

Above all, I hope that, through the process that is beginning with your questions today, we will come to understand the wrongs of the past, prevent them from happening again and, in the years ahead, restore the nation’s trust in our company and in all British journalism.

I am committed to doing everything in my power to make this happen.

Thank you. We are happy to answer your questions.

Submitted statement instead. Clearing room of noisy reporters or people, hard to tell which, came next. Testimony is being heard by the Committee for Culture, Media and Sport.

James Murdoch, chairman and chief executive, apologizes again.

Then he was interrupted by his father, Rupert Murdoch, who touched his arm and offered the quote shown at the top of this post.

The questions and testimony continues… The Lede is liveblogging the testimony…

HIGHLIGHTS…

Rupert Murdoch states he didn’t know he was being lied to. Murdoch obviously shaken, says “NOTW is less than 1% of our company.. I employ 56,000 people around the world… and I’m spread watching and appointing people that I trust…”

James Murdoch tries twice to interrupt Tom Watson’s questioning of his father, saying he can offer details, but Mr. Watson says he’ll come to him after he finishes, because it’s Rupert Murdoch who’s in charge of corporate governance.

“Nope.” That’s Mr. Murdoch’s one-word response about payments to Taylor. James says his father became aware after the “settlement” of “civil claim.”

At what point did you find out that “criminality was endemic” at NOTW? Mr. Murdoch objects to word “endemic,” saying it is prejudicial. Then says he was “shocked, appalled and ashamed…”

“You’re not really saying ‘amnesia,’ you’re saying lie,” Rupert Murdoch offers.

James Murdoch interrupts again to rescue his father from the line of questioning. Watson refuses again. Continues… James interrupts, trying again to answer what his father obviously cannot or will not.

Why did you risk the jobs of 200 people… ? RupertM states these people are being employed by other segments of his empire.

Watson: Did you close the paper down because of criminality? “We were ashamed… We had broken our trust with our readers…”

Keith Olbermann points out what is very obvious, which is that Rupert Murdoch has a script of patterned apologies he is using.

“What happened at News of the World was wrong,” James Murdoch continues. “We have admitted liability…”

Do you accept you are responsible for this whole fiasco? “No,” is Rupert Murdoch’s one word answer. Mr. Murdoch continued, saying he relied on people he employed and trusted.

I found this observation from BBC’s Nick Robinson poignant, while revealing how small Rupert Murdoch appears today.

It is hard to equate the man sitting a few feet away from me with the global media mogul feared by political leaders throughout my adult lifetime.

James Murdoch: No “no immediate plans” to start new Sunday paper.

Are you familiar with the term “willful blindness”? James Murdoch asks for an explanation. Then Mr. Sanders invokes Enron. “I’m not aware of that particular phrase,” says James. RMurdoch adds that he’s familiar with the phrase and denies it applies.

“To say that we are hands off is wrong,” RMurdoch states. “News of the World, perhaps, I lost site of…” Murdoch continues, saying he works 10-12 hours a day and once again saying NOTW was “so small.”

James Murdoch also admits settlement was for illegal phone hacking by News of the World employees.

Later in the testimony James Murdoch delivered Rumsfeldesque known knowns & unknown unknowables on alleged criminality. Classic Murdoch moment of obfuscation and incomprehensible elite media idiocy.

AFTER FAILED PIE ATTACK… allegedly made by Jonnie Marbles, a comedian…

Tide turns for a time… MP now apologizing to Murdochs, including wife Wendy, one using word “guts” to describe her willingness to be present during questioning.  Rupert Murdoch now jacketless.

Have you considered resigning? Murdoch, “No.” Why not? People I hired let me down, they should pay. I’m the best person to clean this up.

“Mr. Murdoch, your wife has a very good left hook.”

Rupert Murdoch allowed to read closing statement. “… In all that’s happened, we needed to be here today. … “ “Sickened” by what the Dowler Fowler had to endure and grateful he was able to apologize in person. Will “work tirelessly to earn their forgiveness.” Murdoch says while trying to hold others to account, they failed on themselves. Paying off police and listening to people’s voicemail is “wrong,” “no excuses,” saying your sorry “isn’t enough.” When people went to prison in 2007, Murdoch thought it was over, as did his son. “I hope our contributions to Britain will one day be recognized.”

Committee thanks the Murdochs, apologizes for the comedic pie event.

Rebekah Brooks testifies next.

Read full story · Comments { 4 }

Spew Alert!

By on 15 July 2011
Read full story · Comments { 1 }

Gafferiffic, Almost Yiddish Edition

By on 15 July 2011


I just can’t stop playing this video.


Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Paul Ryan’s $350 Bottle of Wine

By on 08 July 2011

This is priceless.

What a human interest story. How defining this all seems to me.

The story comes from TPM, a must read:

[...] The pomp and circumstance surrounding the waiter’s presentation, uncorking and decanting of the pricey Pinot Noir caught the attention of another diner who had already recognized Ryan sitting with two other men nearby.

Susan Feinberg, an associate business professor at Rutgers, was at Bistro Bis celebrating her birthday with her husband that night. When she saw the label on the bottle of Jayer-Gilles 2004 Echezeaux Grand Cru Ryan’s table had ordered, she quickly looked it up on the wine list and saw that it sold for an eye-popping $350, the most expensive wine in the house along with one other with the same pricetag.

Feinberg, an economist by training, was even more appalled when the table ordered a second bottle. She quickly did the math and figured out that the $700 in wine the trio consumed over the course of 90 minutes amounted to more than the entire weekly income of a couple making minimum wage.

“We were just stunned,” said Feinberg, who e-mailed TPM about her encounter later the same evening. “I was an economist so I started doing the envelope calculations and quickly figured out that those two bottles of wine was more than two-income working family making minimum wage earned in a week.” …

I’m a long time wine lover, though by no means a connoisseur, and have enjoyed fine wine. There’s just something distasteful to me about reading of the excesses of a Republican deficit hawk whose idea of a budget is to make the good life more difficult for people.

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

’1776′ John Adams: One Useless Man is Called a Disgrace; Two are Called a Law Firm; Three or More Become a Congress

By on 04 July 2011


… Lincoln saw an unresolvable tension between the Constitution of a democratic republic and the policies of aggrandizement and intemperate self-interest that lead from the manners of freedom to the slavish love of power. He spoke of the difference between the work of establishing a constitutional republic and the longer task of maintaining it. But maintaining it against what? Lincoln’s answer was always the same: against the internal pressure of greed, and the external pressure of war. The predicament of the country in 1861, he said, “forces us to ask: ‘Is there, in all republics, this inherent, and fatal weakness? Must a government, of necessity, be too strong for the liberties of its own people, or too weak to maintain its own existence?’”

We are now ten years into a policy shared by two successive administrations to plant a new understanding of the spirit of the laws in America. That policy has pretended there is a “trade-off” between liberty and security, and that in a time of crisis, security ought to have the upper hand. The Cheney-Bush and Obama administrations have accustomed us to laws and language concerned above all with the “protection” of citizens — as if there were something higher or more worth protecting than the liberty that is guaranteed by our laws and the framework of laws, the Constitution. [...]

To Maintain a Republic, by David Bromwich

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

C’est Magnifique

By on 01 July 2011


If you love Paris, you’ll fall head over heels for this film.

It will eventually take it’s place as one of Woody Allen’s finest. As “Manhattan” was a love letter to New York City, “Midnight in Paris” is to this magical city.

The premise of the film is something that’s blown through my mind innumerable times, as I’ve been having an affair with Paris for quite some time. It started long ago, because of my artistic beginnings, but once I set foot on French soil I was a goner.

How many times have you walked through Paris and ended up lost? It’s a right of passage for anyone perusing the Persian streets.

It’s the 4th of July weekend, see a movie. Start with “Midnight in Paris.”

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

Bachmann Makes Palin Seem Like Old News Now

By on 29 June 2011

PELLA, Iowa — Sarah Palin stared a bit uncomfortably at a movie screen Tuesday night watching a montage of Matt Damon, David Letterman, Madonna, Howard Stern, Bill Maher, Louis C.K. and other celebrities malign her, then asked The Hollywood Reporter: “What would make someone be so full of hate?” – The Hollywood Reporter

Nothing will keep the press from following Sarah Palin around like lap dogs.

“I’m very grateful that someone would bother to go to these efforts to make a documentary about the record of my team in Alaska that worked so hard for energy security and ethics reform and privatizing businesses that should never be in government’s hands,” Palin said. “This film really is a great illustration of what it is that you can accomplish as a team, a bipartisan approach, just common-sense solutions to some tough issues. We tackled it, we succeeded, and someone went to the trouble of documenting what it was that we accomplished. I appreciate that, so that brings me to Iowa.” – Real Clear Politics

I’m more amused than anything with the hoopla following the infomercial masquerading as a film that reinvents Sarah Palin through her Alaskan political career, which she chose to quit for greener pastures via her never ending publicity tour. Her political relevancy at this point is at the lowest ebb we’ve seen since she blasted on to the scene as McCain’s vice presidential nominee. The credibility she built up before the 2010 midterms a distant memory.

Sarah Palin faces an uncomfortable reality, even as she teases about 2012 saying, “We’re still thinking about that.” She’s allowed Michele Bachmann to take over where she left off, with Bachmann appearing infinitely more articulate, professional and determined to be a political force inside the Republican Party, which is becoming a reality as she moves up into the cat bird seat in the GOP primary contest, though there’s a long way to go and fading is always a possibility.

Why would Tea Party activists and other conservatives looking for an alternative to Romney and the establishment pols choose Palin over Bachmann at this point? There’s no logical reason, though partisan politics is driven by emotion, which is the only thing that could make the difference.

Still, Bachmann has the same political platform as Palin only she’s stayed in the arena. Bachmann isn’t a media coward, no matter how she trips over her own tongue, something both women have in common, unfortunately. Palin’s scared of unfriendly media, unlike Bachmann, who shows the maturity needed for national politics, with Palin’s policy prowess now reduced to Twitter and Facebook belches. Additionally, with Bachmann at 65% or so approval in Iowa, as a home state girl, why would notoriously conservative Iowans switch to Palin?

Shrouded in the aura of 2008 and the disaster gaffes everyone can recite by heart, Palin looks far less interesting, though her fans continue to flock around her. This is the real dilemma she faces in the charade she’s concocting surrounding whether she’ll run for president. How can she stiff her fans? What will happen to her career if she doesn’t run, which seems the most likely choice, because the obstacles loom large. Fox talking head is all she’s got.

Where would Sarah get the money to run? Bachmann has proven a formidable financing foe, with there no evidence Palin has the backers to pull off a presidential run at this point. She’ll need a political sugar daddy to manage it, which isn’t out of the question, especially with her adoring fans holding their breath for her pending announcement.

Sarah Palin simply looks like old news today, a wannabe political star who decided to choose celebrity, fan cultivation and media gamesmanship to become the most popular Fox News babe who amazingly isn’t blonde.

Read full story · Comments { 4 }

Driving is Freedom, Saudi Women Defy Driving Ban

By on 17 June 2011



Amnesty International is helping promote this action of civil disobedience, which is a long time in coming.

Great article on the history of the driving movement today in Foreign Policy:

In the early 2000s, women’s rights, particularly the right to drive, began to be cautiously discussed in Saudi media. Some newspapers published stories about the daily struggles women faced with foreign drivers and featured Islamic scholars who declared that no religious rule prohibited women from driving. Liberal columnists encouraged the government to lift the ban. This unprecedented freedom in the Saudi press was in part due to the pressure that the United States put on the Saudi government to reform following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In 2005, Shura Council member Mohammad al-Zulfa brought up the topic of lifting the ban of women drivers during a meeting of the consultative body. He argued that doing so would save the kingdom funds that it spends on foreign drivers, which he estimated at over $3 billion a year. – DRIVEN

It’s trending on Twitter under #Women2Drive. Once again proving the importance of social media to women around the world.

When you’re in the car sometime today, take one moment to honk in honor of these brave women who are simply trying to get a basic freedom. Driving. I can’t imagine our life without it.

There’s a constant refrain from the Right that feminism is dead or that we’re in the post-feminism era. As I’ve argued for well over a decade, as long as there are women out there denied freedom, any freedom, the notion and idea of feminism isn’t completed.

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

Forging a Bond, Feeling Your Economic Pain

By on 17 June 2011

Something rather amazing happened this week and it’s the emergence of Michele Bachmann as a serious candidate for president. John H. Hinderaker over at Powerline knows her and didn’t want her to run, but has been awakened, “Suddenly, Bachmann doesn’t look like a fringe candidate anymore.” More:

That Barack Obama is without a clue when it comes to the economy is no revelation, but that he lacks empathy–traditionally a Democratic refrain–is a bold and interesting twist. The fact is that Obama does often seem to be weirdly detached from the problems he ostensibly is trying to solve. Perhaps that is just his style… It is no surprise that Bachmann’s enemies continually underestimate her, but I am beginning to think that her friends have underestimated her, too. (emphasis added)

Another person who hasn’t been sure about her is Karl Rove, though he ran her first campaign, he was unconvinced a few weeks ago when talking to Bill O’Reilly.

Mrs. Bachmann is touching on a real problem for Pres. Obama, which is he just doesn’t connect emotionally and it is his style, but it manifests in the feeling that he doesn’t seem to get what’s going on with people. His recent interview with Ann Curry I highlighted that sounded like he wanted a second term for the sake of it is another part of this problem.

Tangential to this challenge is Bill Daley, who is not connecting with business leaders either, which has been rougher to do than anticipated. The Obama camp does the optics, but they’re struggling on connectivity, because people now have seen and heard the pitch before and received insignificant follow through.

Now comes this from the LA Times (emphasis added):

But her decision to address Obama’s purported lack of empathy is notable—largely because Bachmann emerged into public notoriety as a vanguard of the slash-and-burn “tea party” movement, which largely took a mistrustful view of government in any context. Moreover, the term “empathy” is one that has long been derided by conservatives.

It’s a sign that she, along with Mitt Romney and her other rivals for the GOP nomination, view the economy, and especially the unemployment rate, as the incumbent’s biggest weakness, and that forging a connection with voters unhappy with the country’s direction will be the key to victory.

Going against your type is the strongest counterweight to reveal depth of purpose, if not character. This is the most interesting move from Bachmann, revealing her camp not only gets it’s the economy that is the Right’s best weapon, but that the human element of tapping into the emotions driving how people feel about the economy is something she and her team gets, too.

There are a lot of women out there in Republican primary land who are sick to death of the men running their party. The boys’ club better take Hinderaker’s advice to start paying attention.

It’s early, but so far Michele Bachmann is emerging as no joke, which could translate into real currency if she starts amassing a serious following. She’s already proved she can raise money.

Read full story · Comments { 16 }

We Don’t Build Anymore, We Privatize

By on 11 June 2011

… Today’s intellectual consensus thus fiercely opposes public infrastructure. For example, while it’s always nice to talk about repairing bridges, in 2009, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) pointed out the truth of the Obama administration’s stimulus program: “Larry Summers hates infrastructure. And some of these other economists — they don’t like infrastructure. … They want to have a consumer-driven recovery.” – Public pays price for privatization

If Pres. Obama is going to change the current economic trajectory he has to do something concrete, literally.

Matt Stoller wrote about it this week, linking to a piece by Laura Tyson. From Stoller:

[...] We need to look to the political coalitions behind our immense public works and ask which coalitions today support the current infrastructure rhetoric. Seen through that lens, the real trend in infrastructure today is not building more of it but privatizing what exists.

After all, building infrastructure implies the ability to build things here and being able to use the power of taxation to finance them. Privatizing infrastructure requires the ability to securitize revenue flows. Which one do you think modern America does better?

Privatization takes inherently governmental functions — everything from national defense to mass transit and roads — and turns them over to the control of private actors, whose goal is to extract maximum revenue while costing as little as possible.

Republicans have long advocated this in the name of free markets — saying that privatizing government services reduces the size of government. Democrats express more mixed support, but they sometimes go along for the privatizing ride.

Yet it isn’t true, as a general rule, that privatization shrinks the public sector. When investor demand for high returns is combined with the natural monopolies of public assets, what often results instead is citizens finding themselves saddled with high fees and poor service.

Even more perniciously, selling infrastructure such as toll roads puts the coercive power of the state in the hands of private actors. We have great public assets built by prior generations. We should and could be building a better country for our children, rather than liquidating what we have. [...]

In response, Cato comes down on the side of no art, applauding Gov. Sam Brownback for eviscerating the Kansas art budget.

It’s not J.F.K.’s country anymore.

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

Palin Wants More Cake

By on 26 May 2011

“We are not changing Sarah Palin’s status,” Bill Shine, executive vice president of programming for Fox News, said in a statement Thursday. – Fox News keeping Sarah Palin on board despite bus tour

Fox News channel kicked Santorum and Gingrich out the door in March, with Huckabee’s announcement allowing him to stay.

Sarah Palin’s bus tour is just that, a bus tour. She thrives on this stuff and so do her fans. The rest is show biz and a lot of fun to watch. Seriously, have you seen the other guys?

The American presidency isn’t a kingship, it’s Hollywood.

Ronald Reagan cemented that image for Republicans just like John F. Kennedy did for Democrats. Having a woman in the mix brings something new, especially anyone who competes with the energy of Sarah Palin, who’s great looking as well.

Palin’s teasing everyone and firing up media outlets to follow her parade. At least there will be excitement along the way for those covering her. There’s just not much Hollywood in TPaw.

Palin photo from “Alaska.”

Read full story · Comments { 1 }

Activist Sues Sarah Palin for $100,000

By on 29 April 2011

… back when Sarah was the Gov. In fact, Thoma claims he proposed state action to solve the problem and even made up signs and fliers to push the issue. But Palin didn’t take kindly to the criticism, says Thoma, and she “undertook a campaign against [Theodore] … to punish, embarrass, discredit and silence” him. [...] Thoma wants Palin to fork over more than $100k for all of the harm she’s caused. – Palin Sued For $100k Over Alleged Traffic Conspiracy

This is only the beginning of what could turn out to be quite a season pain for Sarah Palin.

A cascade of anti-Palin books are also on their way. Oh, and if you didn’t know already, the snapshot is Julianne Moore as Sarah Palin in HBO’s upcoming “Game Change,” based on the dishy blockbuster book by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann. There’s nothing in the book that’s positive for Palin, so chalk that up as another coming her way.

St. Martin’s Press has “The Lies of Sarah Palin: The Untold Story Behind Her Relentless Quest for Power,” by Geoffrey Dunn coming out next month. Dunn did a stem-winding Trig Trutherism piece recently, which HuffPos refused to post.

Politico did a big piece on the anti-Palin push, as well as Trig Trutherism, Andrew Sullivan’s claim to infamy, and is supposedly going to be the subject of other books yet unnamed, with a Kentucky professor going after it, too.

Simon & Schuster has evidently bought disgruntled former aide Frank Bailey’s manuscript, which he’s been shopping for a while.

Crown’s got “The Rogue: Searching for the Real Sarah Palin,” by journalist and author Joe McGinniss, the guy who planted himself next door to Sarah in Alaska.

With Palin sounding more and more like a candidate these days all this negative talk will keep her busy. I doubt her fans will care, because nothing will deter them, though the negative press will keep them busy. Rebecca Mansour better get some sleep. She’ll need it.

Read full story · Comments { 13 }

Trump to China: ‘Listen you mother——ers we’re going to tax you 25 percent!’

By on 29 April 2011

… [Donald Trump] assured a woman in the crowd who urged him to run that he expected to make her “very happy,” but added later, “there is a really good chance that I won’t win because of one of these blood-sucking politicians. – Donald Trump drops F-bombs on Las Vegas crowd

Did Donald Trump just pre-announce his intention to announce in Las Vegas?



Just when you thought this man couldn’t top himself.

On the nation’s involvement in military actions overseas, he said: “We build a school, we build a road, they blow up the school, we build another school, we build another road they blow them up, we build again, in the meantime we can’t get a f——ing school in Brooklyn.”

On how to deal with OPEC to lower oil prices?

“We have nobody in Washington that sits back and said, you’re not going to raise that f—-ing price,” Trump said, according to KTNV in Nevada.

And how he’d tell China he wants to slap a tariff on their exports?

“Listen you mother——ers we’re going to tax you 25 percent!”

Trump’s low brow approach reached a new bottom with the f-bombs. But it somehow seems fitting for the Clark County’s GOP. See Sharron Angle.

If you’re looking at primary states, which one could Donald Trump take? **crickets** Who’s going to tell him?

Read full story · Comments { 13 }

Kate and Prince William’s Fairytale Day

By on 29 April 2011

**UPDATED**

THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS ISSUED BY THE PRESS SECRETARY TO THE QUEEN – The Queen has today been pleased to confer a Dukedom on Prince William of Wales. His titles will be Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn and Baron Carrickfergus. Prince William thus becomes His Royal Highness The Duke of Cambridge and Miss Catherine Middleton on marriage will become Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge. – Titles announced for Prince William and Catherine Middleton



Marriages can signify a moment, a real chance for renewal. If ever there was that opportunity for the British monarchy, today was it.

How stunningly spectacular she looked, now her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cambridge, after the Queen bestowed titles on HRH the Duke of Cambridge, aka Prince William, and his duchess, today.

This is not the story of Diana. There’s no resemblance to it at all, thank the gods.

When Catherine Elizabeth Middleton marries William Arthur Philip Louis Windsor, a prince of the royal blood, in Westminster Abbey on April 29, she will be scoring a number of firsts. Kate will be the first royal bride to have a university education, the first to live with her husband before marriage, the first to have a mother who used to be a flight attendant. Most impressively of all, Catherine will one day be the first queen of the realm to have fallen over at a roller disco in a pair of yellow hot pants.

NEWSWEEK: Citizen Kate – Here comes the smart, sexy, grocery-buying, blessedly normal commoner who could save William—and the royal family.

Seasoned partners, Kate and William have the best chance possible at making it. For England, it is seen as important that they do. After divorce, after scandal, after tragedy, and embarrassment, the Royals need a win.

Few in America care or can relate to the pomp and expense of today, even if the Royals are actually paying for the wedding ceremony, something once unheard of, though the taxpayers will foot the bill for the security, the Middletons chipping in, too. But surely the celebrity is something Americans can relate to, after all, our own equivalent, The American Presidency, has become the same thing. All pomp and pageant and political pandering, little substance for the people in the end.

It’s a Disney fantasyland day for anyone who believes in love and relationships, in ceremony and celebrations.

As I always say, it’s not the wedding that’s hard it’s the days after. But at least this time Kate and Prince William already know what that’s about, because they have tried it out. Breaking with Royal tradition may actually save the monarchy, which still seems to be important for British identity, history and country.

Continue Reading →

Read full story · Comments { 37 }

Obama’s Economic Message Malpractice

By on 28 April 2011

Republican primary voters at this early stage of the game now give billionaire developer Donald Trump the edge over presumptive favorites Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee in the race to be the GOP’s presidential nominee in 2012. – Another Meaningless Poll That Sends a Message to Democrats


From Superman Reannounces US Citizenship – Action Comics #900 written by David S. Goyer with art by Miguel Sepulveda.

It got blown out by Trump versus Obama contest, but a Washington Post – Pew poll released late Tuesday night revealed why so many people are disenchanted with the Democratic Party. In the age of Obama, Republican economics has now completely replaced Democratic Party ideals, which have always been moored to jobs, middle class growth, and retirement security.

Democrats have also led the way on changes to the concern question: 81 percent of Democrats now say the federal budget is a major problem that must be addressed now, up from 64 percent in December.

A new Marist poll backs up Pres. Obama’s economic malpractice: 40% — approve of how the president is dealing with the country’s economy while nearly six in ten — 57% — disapprove.

This is why the argument recently forwarded by Ezra Klein that Obama is a “moderate Republican” is so damaging, even as Obama loyalists try to lap it up as a positive triangulation that could work for Democrats, because all that matters is reelecting Pres. Obama.

Why do Democrats and progressives want to back a moderate Republican to lead the Democratic Party? This is supposedly what progressives found so abhorrent about Pres. Bill Clinton’s presidency, along with the fact that he hurt the party, but no one can say that jobs weren’t his number one focus. So why are these same progressives accepting Barack Obama who is not advancing Democratic Party economics or focusing on jobs?

Missed in all the noise of Donald Trump is something very simple. David Frum talked about it yesterday, while tying himself in knots, citing Trump’s background as a “troubled student (at one point he attended a military school) who nonetheless gained admission to Wharton.” Frum going on to say his father’s wealth was an aid to his trajectory to Wharton, but it’s the former that’s the issue.

Trump’s bullying braggadocio of Pres. Obama, as well as his puffing up of his own prowess, is gauchely low brow. It’s common. As David Brooks wrote recently, it’s the “gospel of success,” which every person wants to dream about again, but which they can’t grab a hold of today. It’s rooted in something well beyond Democratic versus Republican economic points of view. Ups and downs, failures and fulminating falsehoods and all, this billionaire to bankruptcy and back again represents what people see America needs to do, too. Our great country economically hobbled with no one having the answers except to take things away from people who are barely holding on, Donald Trump not only says no to Paul Ryan’s Medicare scheme, but in the same breath he says no to China, OPEC, the Saudis and everyone else he sees laughing at America.

Meanwhile, Pres. Obama is in charge, but seen to be failing at doing anything about jobs or the economy, barely mentioning jobs in his first term.

It’s also why Obama’s reelection campaign began with a question “are you in?” Because the optimism, hope and change portion of Barack Obama’s mystique has left the stage, with all that’s left behind is let’s win this one for Obama.

I have no idea if a legitimate Republican can grab on to the message of what’s possible in America today, which Pres. Obama can’t find with both hands, his aides and the power of the presidency behind him. But the kernel of success in 2012 lies in parts of what Donald Trump’s low brow persona has tapped in the American populace through his crassly competitive and confrontational style, even if people recoil at the prospect of ever voting for Donald Trump.

Read full story · Comments { 13 }

My $0.02/Saturday: The “smartest men” in DC vs. First Ladies

By on 16 April 2011

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, right, is greeted by a South Korean government official Ahn Young-jip upon her arrival at Seoul military airport in Seongnam, South Korea, Saturday, April 16, 2011. (Photo: AP)

Morning, news junkies. As you probably know, the April 15th tax deadline is pushed back to April 18th this year because of Emancipation Day. My roundups are usually jampacked with headlines–it’s out of control, I know–but since it’s tax season and nobody needs any more homework, I’m going to cover a few headlines and then switch to some lighter stuff.

Newsy Reads

So I guess you’ve heard about the “Huntsman love letters“ that were leaked to the Daily Caller by now. Full text of Huntsman’s letters to Obama and Bill Clinton here. I haven’t checked out all the heads exploding on rightwinger blogs, and judging from the headlines piling up on memeorandum alone, I have no interest in doing so. As usual, the right wants to marginalize the one GOPer who I would consider voting for in 2012, which figures. What’s struck me more than anything else about these not-shocking-at-all letters is that Huntsman’s praise of Obama is exceedingly generic while his praise of Bill and Hillary Clinton is full of specifics and gives a sense of how completely engaged they both are in public service.

In other not-surprising news, Obama was caught on a mic at a fundraiser taking jabs at Paul Ryan and the GOP and now poor witto Republicans are complaining that their fee-fees have been hurt. Hard to feel sorry for them when they’re always so quick to criticize everyone else in the world for playing the victim. Anyhow, I caught a few seconds of Rove commenting on the Obama fundraiser comments as I was flipping through channels on Friday night–after he got done with his obligatory hagiography of Paul Ryan, Rove said Obama is probably just jealous of the attention Paul Ryan is getting. I had to laugh at that part.

What I want to know is after the Bittergate and Naftagate episodes from 2008, why is anyone surprised by anything Obama says to different audiences anyway? He’s a Nowhere Man trying to raise money from Democratic donors while chasing after right-leaning Independent voters. So publicly Obama hailed Ryan’s proposal as a serious one, and privately he told his donors that Ryan’s proposal is “not on the level.” All of it is just words to Obama.

In the midst of this, almost as if on cue, David Brooks bumbles away saying that “Obama and Ryan are the smartest, most admirable and most genial men in Washington” and laments over what a pity it is that Obama won’t ask Ryan over for lunch.

If Obama and Ryan are the best DC has to offer (I don’t think they are, but if they are…), then perhaps the great American experiment is already over.

On that note, I’m going to switch over to the fun stuff.

First Lady Reads

Lately I’ve been coming across items about “first ladies,” various and sundry. I’ve rounded them up to share with you. I hope you enjoy.

The (first) First Lady of Flight: Harriet Quimby… On this day in history (April 16) in 1912, America’s first licensed woman pilot, Harriet Quimby, became the first woman to fly across the English Channel. Click here to read the NYT article that ran on Quimby on April 17, 1912. To quote Ed. Y. Hall, aviation historian: “Harriet Quimby was flying 25 years before Amelia Earhart. She carried airmail as early as 1912.” Quimby’s achievement went largely unrecognized, but she continued to break ground in the few months she lived after, until July 1, 1912, when she became the first American woman to die in a plane crash in the US. (Julia Clark died two weeks earlier in a US crash, but she wasn’t American.) For more information, check out this fantastic post about Quimby: Pioneering Aviatrix Harriet Quimby flies into history from Michigan. There’s a nice youtube and neat pictures of Arcadia, Michigan, Quimby’s hometown.

First Lady of the World meets the First Lady of Television… See here. Eleanor and Lucy. My two favorites together. To quote from Carl Anthony’s post:

Within a decade of this meeting, both women would be accused of being Communists, the former for her social activism, the latter for once registering with the party to please her old grandpappy who did belong. In truth, neither of them was Red. Not one hair.

First Lady of the United States meets First Lady of American Cinema… Part 1 and Part 2. There are three pictures of Jackie O and Liz meeting (the only known photos), as well as a wonderful essay by Carl Anthony which reads like the True Hollywood Story of First Ladies, only better. Here’s an excerpt from Part 2:

The death of Onassis on March 15, 1975 and the divorce from Burton in June 26, 1974 (although Liz gave it a second try from October 10, 1975 to July and separated on February 23, 1976, finally divorcing five months later) began a process that helped the real Jackie and Liz to begin defining their lives on their own terms, regardless of the public narrative defined by what the former once called “the little cartoon that runs beneath one’s real life.” Treating them as proprietary commodities, the tabloids felt free to print the most outrageous claims to make their Liz-Jackie storylines sell, but strangely refrained from treading into sensitive areas of the real women’s lives which they themselves had used to craft the public images they wished to convey – and didn’t want contradicted.

First Lady Betty Ford turned 93 this month… One more link to Carl Anthony because he wrote a refreshing “Beyond Rehab” retrospective on Betty Ford’s legacy. Teaser:

The imagination correctly conjures 1974 with maternal pleasantness and welcoming comfort, tied up in a daisy yellow ribbon of straight talk as “The Year of Bettys.”

On February 18, 1974, spiffy Betty Furness began looking out for housewives as not just theToday Show’s consumer advocate but for NBC’s evening news as well, her smoky voice ratting out manufacturers of household goods for high costs and poor quality. On September 14, 1974, after five guest appearances a year before, veteran actress Betty White joined the television sitcom cast of The Mary Tyler Moore Show, appearing as the character Sue Ann Nivens, who hosted a show called “The Happy Homemaker,” dishing out frank-and-beans-on-a-budget as easily as sex advice.

And on August 9, 1974 Betty Ford became a White House wife, at ease before the press whether dispensing chicken hash recipes as evidence of her inflation-fighting meals, making the case for women’s reproductive rights, or pondering whether her kids might have tried pot or how they’d handle pre-marital sex like the nation’s Den Mother chatting over a backyard fence. On the face of it, she was traditional, her Episcopal faith a rock in times of difficulty, her love of husband unabashed and demonstrated in public. The first sign this was a First Lady like no other has been attributed to a reporter asking the startling question of how often she slept with the President and Mrs. Ford shrugging, “As often as possible.”

Continue Reading →

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

Donald Trump and ‘The Blacks’

By on 14 April 2011

**UPDATED AFTER HANNITY INTERVIEW**

“…I do worry… I have a lot of respect for Paul Ryan. I do worry that he’s a little bit far out in front… And I will tell you, me, I’m protecting, I don’t care what plan the Republicans put–I’m protecting the seniors. ..” – Donald Trump, with Sean Hannity on Fox News Channel (more below)

Contrary to other reports, Mr. Trump denies he will announce whether he will run for president on the last installment of “The Apprentice.”

The masquerading cub reporters over at World Net Daily blasted the “exclusive” that he would do just that, but Trump batted it down when speaking with Fred Dicker, whom you might remember when Carl Paladino threatened to “take you out, buddy.”

You just gotta love New York politics.

Fred Dicker got some juice copy and a terrific interview with Trump, who is making the pre-party to the un-announcement a lot of fun, though I sure hope he stays around for a debate or two. I’d love to see him come waltzing into the Reagan Library for a GOP debate.

As I’ve said before, it’s clear that Donald Trump can dish it out, but I’m just not convinced he’ll want to be on the receiving end of private detectives, media and all hell breaking loose as everyone starts picking through his business, his finances and his personal life. I just don’t see that happening.

–updated– On the other hand, I watched Sean Hannity’s interview with Donald Trump tonight. It was his most fascinating to date, especially on China, one of his signature issues, which he segued into the jobs angle. Trump also addressed the scrutiny issue a bit saying, “If I run I will have to disclose my finances and my finances are phenomenal, much better than anyone knows. …I actually look forward to that.”

But Mr. Trump actually had Sean Hannity sputtering until he had to completely shut up when the question of Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget came up. It was classic politician, but delivered in a matter of fact manner that revealed he’s not only unafraid of conservative blowhard gasbaggery on the budget, but he’s got his eye on the people who can make his candidacy a serious shot, should he decide to get in. He even said “the numbers aren’t as bad as you’re thinking,” talking about the deficit.

“…I do worry… I have a lot of respect for Paul Ryan. I do worry that he’s a little bit far out in front, because the Democrats are going to take that Medicare word, that little called Medicare, which to a lot of people means senior citizens, and they’re going to take that word and they’re going to say senior-senior-senior… And the Republicans have to be careful not to fall into a Democratic trap. … And I will tell you, me, I’m protecting, I don’t care what plan the Republicans put–I’m protecting the seniors. The seniors are in a certain way the heart of this country. I’m protecting the seniors. … I think the Republicans are too far out ahead. … This debate is supposed to be led by our President. You have to be very careful that the Republicans don’t go too far out in front. Because they’re going to lose a big election coming in 2012 if that happens.”

At this point Sean Hannity’s head exploded, because Mr. Trump is exactly correct and everything he was saying stood against the Fox man’s talking points. It was a beautiful thing just to see that and is one reason Donald Trump’s media blitz is so delicious to watch. He just doesn’t give a flying fig what these cartoon conservatives think or whether they like him or not.

When Hannity asked if Trump would deal with entitlements he put the Republicans in their place, with an answer that was pitch perfect. Well, almost.

“I always said the worst president was Jimmy Carter. Guess what? Jimmy Carter goes to second place. Barack Obama has been the worst president ever. In the history of this country, Barack Obama is number one.” – Donald Trump

Oh, and he wants to “increase the military” budget. Non-starter. He also gave Reagan credit for the hostage crisis return, completely ignoring history and that it was the late Warren Christopher. Tune in to Hannity tomorrow for the birther edition.

Mediaite has the video.

From the New York Observer:

The show’s host, Fred Dicker — who is also the New York Post’s state editor, read a recent poll showing Obama’s sky-high support among African-Americans.

Trump said the numbers were troubling and pointed to Hillary Clinton as proof that he probably won’t get the kind of support among African-Americans that he deserves.

“I tell it like it is,” Trump said. “[Y]ou’ll hear a political reporter go on and say it had nothing to do with race. But how come she had such a tiny piece of the vote? And you know, it’s a very sad thing.

“I have a great relationship with the blacks. I’ve always had a great relationship with the blacks. But unfortunately, it seems that, you know, the numbers you cite are very, very frightening numbers.”

Dicker said, somewhat rhetorically, that votes should always be based on merit, not on race.

“If that were the case, why did Hillary Clinton do so poorly?” Turmp [sic] asked.

“The blacks” sounds as clueless as when you hear someone say “the gays.”

As you also might expect, there’s plenty of birther stuff in the interview too, with the Dicker-Trump interview audio supplied by the Observer.

Read full story · Comments { 40 }