This morning, I received an e-mail reminding me that Garrison Keillor will be at my local independent bookseller (Yay,Changing Hands Bookstore ) Nov. 29, the day after the UA-ASU game here in Tempe. If each hung out for an extra day....
Just like that, it hit me: what if we could get these two folksy characters together for their own "Duel In the Desert"? I think Garrison is too polite to run up the score, yet I could certainly see Sarah stepping down in the middle of the debate.
I'm SURE we can collectively work up a routine to rival Carlin's baseball vs. football comparison!
]]>So, I checked out Beck's Twitter feed (http://twitter.com/glennbeck ). Sure enough, he posted this: RT @FreetownBill: Pelosi says she's abt 2 bring a vote 2 ban Fox News from covering Congress. http://ow.ly/wveK #ocra cnt B!about 13 hours ago from TweetDeck
The link goes to "The Recliner Commentaries", which published this quote from Hugh Hewitt with their pithy commentary:
***
In an interview with MSNBC's Keith Olberman last night, Nancy Pelosi announced that she would move to bring a vote to the floor of The House of Representatives as early as next week to ban Fox from covering Congress. "That Fox regularly grants access to Republican Congressman to spread their lies and propaganda on their airwaves is a violation of the public trust, and their continued desire to challenge such well documented facts as Global Warming, and the efficacy of single payer health insurance, proves that they are simply doing the work of the special interests. They should thus be stripped of their journalistic access in the halls of Congress," argued Pelosi.This is an unbelievably shocking abuse of power! In the Orwellian world of the Democrats, apparently Freedom of the Press only applies to news organizations that promote the Democrats' Leftist, socialist agendas.
]]>This Just In ........
by Lee Habeeb, Salem Radio Network
More bad news for Fox News ..... sort of.
Oct. 28, 2009 12:43 PM. This just in from Speaker of the House Pelosi. In an interview with MSNBC's Keith Olberman last night, Nancy Pelosi announced that she would move to bring a vote to the floor of The House of Representatives as early as next week to ban Fox from covering Congress. "That Fox regularly grants access to Republican Congressman to spread their lies and propaganda on their airwaves is a violation of the public trust, and their continued desire to challenge such well documented facts as Global Warming, and the efficacy of single payer health insurance, proves that they are simply doing the work of the special interests. They should thus be stripped of their journalistic access in the halls of Congress," argued Pelosi.
&&&
http://hughhewitt.com/blog/g/4e4cadf5-7f1f-4572-baf7-fe5955090c52
Uhhhhh, notice the FUTURE DATE, guys? (It goes on to "predict" that the White House cuts Fox News off of the internet, and that Fox then goes on to surpass the 20 million viewership mark!
Are these two cases of prominent talk show hosts just business-as-usual? Or, does this mark a whole new trend away from the right using shady conspiracy theories and unsourced opinion to fuel their rant-a-thons, moving to using every satirical post on the internet and treating it as fact? It truly feels like we're watching an episode of "Get Smart", with only a couple of minor changes (to the title, to the characters) necessary. And, hey, maybe it is time for The Onion to go public! Maybe it is
The Board's approval was on the agenda for tomorrow a.m., but was pulled by Chair Max Wilson today. The Arizona Republic obtained a letter from the County Manager detailing the reasons to pull the rug out from under the Joe&Vicki&Joe&Andy show. Those reasons include not following hiring procedures, that you can't pull in out-of-state attorneys, that there was no cost estimate, and that Thomas didn't have the authority to appoint them.
But, the one I found very interesting is that Arpaio and Thomas planned to drain the RICO fund (monies seized from "corrupt organizations", etc) to pay the high-priced DC duo, but there is apparently not enough money in the fund for it. And, here is where the Republic's story fails to connect a couple of key dots.
Twice last year, the weekly Phoenix New Times reported on County Attorney Thomas' questionable uses of that public fund advancing. First, they documented $168,000 of expenditures given to questionable church-based and proselytizing programs. Then, they discovered (disclosure: that's my e-mail screen shot in the article) that Thomas spent $11,500 in RICO funds to "sponsor" a "book tour/speaking appearances" by a conservative highly-rated talk show host (during Thomas' reelection campaign, no less - and, yes, the host endorsed and talked him up for the rest of the campaign). There are more, too.
As described, the U.S. Justice Department guidelines for how RICO funds may be spent: racketeering investigations, gang prevention, substance abuse programs, and substance abuse education. Not only did the actual expenditures not fall into those categories and/or were of questionable constitutionality, but even the proposal to use the monies to hire diGenova and Toensing for a non-racketeering post-arrest investigation and prosecution wouldn't pass muster.
I'm glad the Republic published Smith's memo (which they were likely handed in the on-going intra-county battle), and I hope that this post will prompt them to push the story further. (They have shown a reluctance to connect the dots on Thomas and Arpaio stories. Especially when the New Times got there first.)
]]>
Mr. LaPierre did not tell us about the damned lies the NRA has been continuously spreading about secret attempts to take away our guns, and the "statistics" that the NRA is pretending to cook up!
Apparently, the NRA has been using - in order to keep their members/prospective members fired up and sending money - the BS of a secret United Nations effort to take away all of the guns belonging to red-blooded Americans. This meme has been used since the mid-90's, and as the Congressional Research Service noted in 2005, it has never been true. Though <gasp> there has been talk about trying to stem the ILLEGAL MANUFACTURE AND TRAFFICKING of small arms. Former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan tried to shout it from the rooftops in 2006.** There is zero evidence to back up the same claim today.
Sooooo, I was telemarketed the other day by the NRA and what a call it was. First, a live person asked if I was willing to take a one-question poll for the NRA. (Before I could stop myself, I responded "Sure. Shoot.") Then, that person hooked me up with a recorded statement from Mark Twain fan LaPierre. He blathered for several adrenaline-fueled seconds about the evil plans of the evil United Nations. He beseeched me to stay on the line for the poll and to support the NRA.
A different live person came back on the line with the all-important question, which elicited my best Gretchen Wilson-like*** "Hellllll yeah!" The question - which they are supposedly compiling to present as proof of the temperature of the American public: "Do you think 3rd world dictators, along with Hillary Clinton, should dictate our gun rights here in America?"
My enthusiastic answer didn't rattle the telemarketer, who thanked me and hung up as I laughed and checked my caller ID. I was hoping it was SNL or one of those DJ's prank-calling folks. But, it did actually say that it was the NRA, and the phone number led to an NRA recording. Here's the number to call them and give your answer to their poll question (although, shoot, that might take away the scientific validity of their statistics): 1-800-672-3888, press "7".
* http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Speeches.aspx?ID=59
** http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sgsm10537.doc.htm
"Let me also note that this Review Conference is not negotiating a "global gun ban", nor do we wish to deny law-abiding citizens their right to bear arms in accordance with their national laws.
"Mr. President, with your permission, I would want to repeat, because there are people around who either have not heard this, or do not want to hear. We are not negotiating a global ban, nor do we wish to deny law-abiding citizens their right to bear arms in accordance with their national laws."
]]>Having read the book, I knew that that couldn't be an accurate re-telling. Sure enough, Obama was speaking of the primary campaign in 2004, how the AFL-CIO endorsed one of his opponents and how a few unions "broke ranks" and supported him instead. Those unions were "the Illinois Federation of Teachers, SEIU, AFSCME, and UNITE HERE, representing textile, hotel, and foodservice workers." Using his quote after seeing this context is unethical.
So, King then clips off the "So" off the front, which would have indicated that there was a good reason for saying he owes them. He then puts an ellipsis in between "unions" and "When", while NOT putting an ellipsis between "right away" and "I don't mind". The only reason I can come up for his ellipsis-shifting is to give the impression that he is accurately quoting.
But, his second-worst offense is in clipping "...feeling obligated" WITHOUT including the context there. The rest of that sentence is important, but the next few paragraphs help ensure that King's quote-hatchet job belongs in the irresponsible, unethical, sleazy category that we expect more from talk-show hosts and Newsmax columnists than from our Congressmen. (I'll just give the rest of the sentence and let you click on
pp.117-120, The Audacity of Hope - it is worth the reminder of how Obama carefully set forth his beliefs that politicians can NOT be beholden to any particular interests.)
That any Republican feels this kind of sleazy twisting is acceptable is sad. That a Republican Congressman does it and feels that it is justified should warrant some sort of action against him. Unfortunately, it seems that this has become SOP for too many Republican officeholders. And, it has become so prevalent that it is hard for the rest of us to keep up and to keep pointing these sleaze tactics out. Very sad.
]]>
The New York Times has now taken up the torch for this artificially-carbonated non-issue. With the incendiary - and FALSE - headline of Proposed Tax on Sugary Beverages Debated, and lead paragraph stating "The debate over a tax on sugary soft drinks -- billed as a way to fight obesity and provide billions for health care reform -- is starting to fizz over", the NY Times is doing what even the Republicans apparently couldn't stomach.
Who do you think is debating when you read that headline and lede? Of course. Congress.
Heck, the 2nd paragraph misleadingly cherry picks Pres. Obama's comments to further the false implication. To compound it, in the 5th paragraph, the reporter (William Neuman) slyly references how much Sen. Baucus' version would cost, and referring to "an array of taxes... with no mention of any tax on sugary beverages."
It is not until the last few paragraphs of the "report" that Mr. Neuman gives the real story:(1) Obama said "worth exploring" but that there would be significant resistance; (2) the author of the study actually thinks that state and local governments should take the lead on it because of the lack of interest in Congress; and (3) that a few lawmakers consciously decided that it would not be presented in Congress any time in the near future.
I rarely see an NYT report so completely boot a story in this way. And, coming at the critical moment that it did, I am rarely as distressed by such an apparently-willful scare story from the NYT. I urge TPM and fellow TPM'ers to protest this article furthering these attempts to muddy the debate. The Times should take several barrels of these soft drinks to help quench the flames it has stirred up!
]]>Rep. Steve King's (R-IA) remark about Obama throwing "the first punch" is the clearest GOP comment using this meme. He connects Obama's "prominent politicians" remark with his (spurious) we-said-it's-gonna-fund-illegals claim. However, Obama's "prominent politicians" phrase was connected to the "death panel" refutation - NOT the "illegal immigrant" refutation. (See, Palin and Grassley re: "death panels", but no similar prominent pols were beating the "illegals" drum that I can think of.)
As for the portion of King's rationalization that "a lot of us said, well, this health care bill is gonna fund illegals", that part is false, too.** SOOOOOOO, King makes a FALSE connection AND the basis for that false connection is FALSE, too.
That's a double fail, Congressman!
Here's the relevant transcript portion from Obama's speech:
*** Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but by prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Now, such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple. (Applause.) There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms -- the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally. AUDIENCE MEMBER: You lie! (Boos.) THE PRESIDENT: It's not true. And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up -- under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place. (Applause.)***
* http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/new-gop-meme-on-joe-wilson-obama-started-it.php?ref=fpblg
** http://factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/ Page 143 states: "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States." And as we've said before, current law prohibits illegal immigrants from participating in government health care programs.
***Transcript: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-to-a-Joint-Session-of-Congress-on-Health-Care/
]]>It was in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and the resignation of Heckuva-Job-Brownie. Hutchison and Santorum put themselves in the lead of the calls for a Hurricane Recovery Czar - NOT a new FEMA director. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aqEJxLUFjcTU&refer=us Her Senate Majority Leader (Frist) had no idea what sort of structure and control she had in mind. http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0509/08/lkl.01.html (Bush appointed Donald Powell to the "czar" post.)
So much for the cornerstone of Hutchison's protest in WaPo - that she worries about the ability to oversee Obama's appointees.
Bonus hypocrisy: Karl Rove earlier Twittered that he didn't get what was up with all of Obama's "czar" picks. Rove - of course - was the Czar to end all Czars in Bush's administration, and was appointed as a sort of "Domestic Policy Czar".
]]>Arizona's Superintendent of Public Instruction got into the act late yesterday, and in a mind-bending sort of way. Granted, I didn't expect him to remain silent. But, to suggest that Obama is encouraging students to take a "worshipful approach" to the speech is going wayyyyy too far.
Here's his quote:
"An important part of educating students is to teach them to read and listen critically. The White House materials call for a worshipful, rather than critical approach to this speech. For example, the White House communication calls for the students to have "notable quotes excerpted (and posted in large print on the board)," and for the students to discuss "How will he inspire us," among other things. There is nothing in these White House materials about approaching the speech critically, or engaging in any critical thinking whatsoever, but only adopting a reverent approach to everything they are being told." http://www.azed.gov/pio/Press-Releases/2009/pr09-03-09.pdf (bolding added)
I think that everything about the "lesson plan" (now) is encouraging the students to think. And - while it doesn't say so - when students think, they will come up with opinions both positive and negative. From spending time in my kids' classrooms and discussing issues with them, I am sure of that.
The greatest ironies in this are that Horne does not ask for those seeing/hearing him to use critical thinking in evaluating his "statement", and his conservative colleagues are the worldwide leaders in encouraging "worshipful" thinking of their leaders, and discouraging "critical thinking".
I look forward to trying to hold Horne to his new-found respect of critical thinking as he begins to campaign for re-election. (Go, Penny or Jason!!!)
(P.S. I will cross-post this to the compilation of school reactions, at http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/azpaull/2009/09/how-is-your-school-dealing-wit.php#comment-3586554, but I was just so flabber-gasted with this new religious flavor thrown in that I felt it should be posted separately.,)
]]>
So, I'm curious. How is your school/school district/superintendent/whatever-the-governmental-unit dealing with this? I'm sure that each of our schools have at least a few of the reactionary parents who are calling in today.
My district sent out an e-mail (and posted it on their website) last night. As many of us do, they are "time-shifting" the speech, making it easy for parents to hold their students out, and agreeing not to use the "lesson plan". (Given that the "lesson plan" contained that bone-headed language at first, I'm not too upset about that.) It is about the middle-of-the-road response I expected. Interestingly, neither the Superintendent nor the Board attached their names to it; the e-mail was from the "Community Relations Manager" and the website notice is unsigned.
I don't have time to survey other local districts myself (nor to make up the Cosmo-like quiz that I initially wanted to do on this), but I'm curious to know what my fellow TPM'ers are seeing. Thanks.
Here's Kyrene School District's (suburban Phoenix-area, moderately-Republican) response:
The President of the United States is scheduled to address school children on Tuesday, September 8, at 12:00 pm EST, which means 9:00 am in Arizona. It is our understanding that the address will offer an opportunity for students to hear about the importance of educational goal setting and putting their best efforts forward in school. Technology allows us to be flexible with the time that we show this message. Kyrene will record the message and broadcast it to our middle school students in Academic Lab and to our Elementary students sometime during the last hour of the school day.
As always, parental preference is respected and this will be honored if you contact your school.
The Kyrene School District views this as an opportunity for students to hear a positive message that is aligned to the state guidelines in Character Education.
Some components of the lesson plan have caused objections. Therefore, the lesson plans will not be used in the classroom.
Our teachers will not be presenting this information in a political manner.
We encourage parents to speak with their children at home regarding the importance of goal setting and education in their lives.
STATEMENT BY NICK BUNZL, IPF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Israel Policy Forum (IPF) announces with regret the departure of our Director of Policy Analysis, MJ Rosenberg, who will leave IPF later this month to become a Senior Fellow at Media Matters Action Network, where he will comment on foreign affairs.
All of us at Israel Policy Forum offer MJ our appreciation for his eleven years of forceful pro-Israel advocacy with us on behalf of sustained American engagement in the Israel-Arab arena and of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
MJ has played a key role in helping IPF keep these issues before three successive US administrations, the Congress, the American Jewish community and the public. For the past decade, IPF Friday, MJ's weekly opinion column, has become one of the most widely read pieces on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Often controversial, always provocative, MJ developed a signature style that pushed the envelope in a way that drove much needed discussion and debate on the issue, particularly online.
On the one hand, MJ's passion and creativity will certainly be missed by IPF; but on the other, we couldn't be happier for him. In recent years he has become a natural blogger, and in his new role he will have the chance to focus his energies there.
We offer him our thanks, and wish him the best of luck.
]]>Turns out, this is another astroturf group trying to stir up the scare on healthcare reform. The beverage industry is passing themselves off as a group of concerned Americans opposing a food (and soft drink) tax. Except, guess what?
THERE IS NO PROPOSAL FOR A SUGARY SOFT DRINK TAX IN CONGRESS! Not in HR3200, not in any other proposal, and not in any other piece of legislation pending.
Can you say SCARE? I expect it is just a matter of hours before Republicans start latching onto this industry-financed bit of misinformation.
The TPM ad takes you to the triply-misleading website "nofoodtaxes.com". The group's name is "Americans Against Food Taxes". Misleading because (1) they're really only concerned about SOFT DRINK taxes; (2) it is an industry-group, not a collection of "Americans"; and (3) there is no soft drink tax proposal in sight.
They acknowledge misleading aspect #1 on their home page, where they acknowledge "Discriminatory and punitive taxes on soda and juice drinks..." are not the way they want to go.
They acknowledge misleading aspect #2 on their "about" page, where they disclose all of the industry groups and corporations backing the fortune being paid to their DC lobbyists/PR firms (http://www.prwatch.org/node/8524; http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Americans_Against_Food_Taxes). No Americans (defined as "natural persons" who are citizens of the U.S.) are disclosed as contributing to this astroturf group, even though they claim to be the voice for families and individuals (who won't give up their Cokes until pried from their cold, quenched hands).
They don't acknowledge misleading aspect #3, instead pointing (on their home page, no less) to an editorial in the Enid (Okla.) News claiming there's a "misguided" "scheme to levy a new tax on 'fat' foods." No sources for the claim.
Sure, there has been off and on chatter about a tax on soft drinks that might have an impact on obesity. Even an article in the New England Journal of Medicine (http://yaleruddcenter.org/resources/upload/docs/what/industry/SodaTaxNEJMApr09.pdf). But, that only addresses soft drinks, and it does NOT qualify as a "scheme". More importantly, there is NOTHING afoot in Congress, notwithstanding occasional protestations from Republicans in Congress. To confirm this, I searched the various articles and editorials for references to something concrete, I searched at thomas.loc.gov under "soft drink" and under "calorie", and I reviewed the Joint Committee on Taxation's review of the revenue proposals in H.R. 3200 (http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/hr3200rt.pdf). Not a gosh-darned thang anywhere.
Now, without saying whether a tax on sugary soft drinks is good or bad, I think we can all agree that an industry association fronting as a grass roots group and implying that Congress is planning to tax foods (and, oh yeah, soft drinks) at a moment when the entire country is focused on health care reform proposals is flat out wrong.
I researched and wrote this post because I was startled to see such BS on TPM, and I wanted to share my findings and impressions in the hope that noone at this site will be fooled by this scare tactic.
(Full disclosure: I consumed one 16oz DIET soft drink while researching and writing this blog.)
]]>
But, as I was driving around this a.m., I was wondering how the regulars here find items to read and comment on. Is it the list of recommendeds, is it the list of recents, is it the dashboard (which would seem to be especially hard for those who are "following" dozens or hundreds)?
Personally, I usually browse the most recommendeds and the most recents - I only occasionally look at the dashboard. (Which then makes me wonder, do I only "follow" people as a way of giving them a vote of confidence?)
So, how do YOU TPM?
]]>In my reading and research on Dangerous Pastor Steven Anderson (whose "church" is wayyyy too close to my home and my office, btw) yesterday, I was prompted to do some checking on the tax-exempt status of his "Faithful Word Baptist Church". Some commenter (here or over on the New Times site) claimed that FWBC doesn't have tax-exempt status because it is an "independent Baptist church" (and such congregations don't avail themselves of that govt-granted benefit).
I didn't do much checking on the latter point, but I did check FWBC's status, and it seems contradictory to me. Anderson registered FWBC as a non-profit with the Arizona Corporation Commission. (http://starpas.azcc.gov/scripts/cgiip.exe/WService=wsbroker1/names-detail.p?name-id=12540118&type=CORPORATION) And, his 2008 budget was only $32,000, of which he took $700 as salary (per his 2008 annual report filed with the Commission - he isn't required to attach financials any longer).
However, he has not applied for tax-exempt church status with the IRS, and he has not even registered with them as a non-profit charity (as other independent Baptist churches HAVE done). (http://www.irs.gov/app/pub-78/forwardToSearch.do)
Soooooo, if he's claiming to be a non-profit with the state govt, yet not with the IRS, is he filing the proper returns and paying the correct taxes? Is he misleading donors as to the church's status and the deductibility of their contributions? (Sure, he hasn't had a big operation to date, but I'm guessing that his notoriety will bring a stack of donation-bearing envelopes to his desk.) Can he have it both ways? Anyone know?
]]>
Sure enough, here are the couple of sentences in the Las Vegas Review Journal today:
Reid also said the Employee Free Choice Act, designed to help unions organize more easily through card-check votes and mandatory binding arbitration, has fallen off the Senate's radar for now.
"We have too many other things on our plate," he said.
http://www.lvrj.com/news/55332617.html
Roll Call adds that it is unlikely that he would bring it up for a vote even if the schedule suddenly cleared. http://www.rollcall.com/news/37994-1.html
Here's the AFP's e-mail:
Dear ,
Ever wonder if we can win tough public policy battles like health care and cap-and-trade?
Well, today we scored a big victory on a crucial issue that looked impossible just a few months ago.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced that the outrageously mis-named Employee Free Choice Act -- or Card Check -- is NOT going to be brought to a vote this year!
Card Check would effectively take the secret ballot away from American workers when it comes to deciding whether or not they want to join a union. It would take a cherished freedom away from millions of Americans, and at Americans for Prosperity we've been fighting it tooth-and-nail throughout the year.
A few months ago, President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and their Big Labor allies were confident of passing this legislation, which would dramatically expand the power of unions by giving them millions of new union members along with their "forced dues."
We launched a "Save Our Secret Ballot" effort with rallies in key states like Pennsylvania (where union organizers aggressively attacked us), North Carolina, Arkansas and Virginia. We urged grassroots activists like you to call and email your Senators and House members. AFP was one of several free-market groups who took up the fight to stop this union power grab. TO SEE PHOTOS AND COVERAGE OF OUR GRASSROOTS EVENTS CLICK HERE.
Faced with this grassroots uprising, the big-government side had to back away -- and today they did.
So, we should take heart! Yes, we face a big challenge on stopping the health care takeover. Sure, the cap-and-trade battle is not easy. But, if we fight aggressively, fight hard and remain committed we can win -- just like we won the Card Check battle.
Today, I was in Wisconsin where Americans for Prosperity Foundation hosted a series of Town Hall meetings across this great state with special guest John Stossel of ABC's "20/20". AFP Foundation provided citizens with a forum to discuss a government takeover of health care. The crowds were huge and energetic: 1,900 in Madison (last night), 500 in La Crosse today and over 1,200 earlier this evening in Wausau, which is the home district of House Appropriations Chairman David Obey, who has refused to hold town hall meetings with his constituents.
***
I'm a bit surprised that - even with so much of our attention elsewhere - this only merited a story in Roll Call. But, I have a feeling that more media outlets will pick this up as the right wing starts to crow loudly about it over the next couple of days.
]]>