I'll be there; come on down and have some fun with us.
Fetch more...
Fetch more...
Stop That Noise!
The headline numbers are great, of course: payrolls are up by 243,000 jobs. Unemployment is down to 8.3 percent. But the inside numbers are good, too.Further evidence that the GOP is flat-out lying when they claim that President Obama has made the economy worse. Or, as Roger Ebert tweeted: "Stock market up, jobless rate falls again, most troops home, bin Laden dead. Over to you, GOP."
Let’s start with where the jobs were created. Professional and business services added 70,000 positions. Manufacturing added 50,000. Leisure and hospitality was up by 44,000. Health care was up by 33,000. For comparison, in the December jobs report, more than 40,000 of the 200,000 new jobs were “messengers and couriers,” which seemed likely to be seasonal hiring. Not so this month.
Revisions are positive, too. November goes from 100,000 new jobs to 157,000 new jobs. December goes from 200,000 new jobs to 203,000 new jobs. So the real number for the just-released jobs report is 303,000 jobs: that’s how many we added in January, plus what we just added to the numbers from November and December. Nicely done, economy.
Fetch more...
Stop That Noise!
As some were quick to point out, the statement put out by Komen doesn’t really clarify whether Planned Parenthood will actually continue to get money from the group. The original rationale for barring Planned Parenthood was that it was under investigation (a witch-hunt probe undertaken by GOP Rep Cliff Stearns). Komen said today that the group would “amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political.”All that means is that Planned Parenthood is eligible to apply for the grants, not that they'll get them. So it's not exactly a concession, and Komen can still turn them down.
Fetch more...
Stop That Noise!
Fetch more...
Stop That Noise!
I'm not going to comb over that question![rimshot] Thanks, folks, he'll be here all week.
Fetch more...
Stop That Noise!
Fetch more...
Stop That Noise!
I've struggled for a long time to understand why we make health care the responsibility of the employer. I understand historically that this grew out of the original labor strife that caused the rise of the unions, and got some employers to offer it as an incentive. From there it grew to an essentially universal perk, and begat the incredibly powerful insurance industry that is lobbying hard to keep it that way. I get that.Let me throw in a couple of thoughts. I think we can all agree that the United States will never have a sole single-payer healthcare insurance system. Not only would it face the opposition that we saw in 2009 and 2010 when "Obamacare" was being debated and there were screams about "socialism!" and "death panels" (despite the fact that the bill that was passed doesn't get anywhere near the single-payer model), it would require an entire re-wiring of the system if we were to start from the ground up. Besides, as long as there is a profit motive in healthcare, it will never change more than it already has. Capitalism always wins.
But this system creates a host of problems:
• people without a job have limited access to health care
• employers are forced to care about the health issues/habits of people whose only relation to them is their employment
• people make job choices based on the health care plan, not on the merits of the job or their career aspirations
• companies in financial difficulty through no fault of the employee create health and/or financial concerns for their employees
• pension plans are burdened with health care for an aging population that many simply can't meet.
And so on. These alone make, for me, a powerful argument for a single-payer system. But alas that's not enough for some conservatives.
Then today, I heard about the Catholic Bishops chafing against certain health care rules on NPR. The rules require employers to provide a health plan that includes family planning assistance, with birth control. Of course these rules don't require the church to do that for church employees, as that is a self-contained enterprise. But they do require it of their hospitals or other services that serve the public.
I understand both sides of this issue. Why should the church be forced to pay for services they find morally reprehensible? And yet why should employees be forced to agree with all their employer's philosophical positions? Do we want employers having a moral litmus test for each employee? Clearly not. And still there is clearly some minimum standard of health care we as a society should encourage, provide, even enforce, especially when it comes to issues as vital as this.
None of this would be an issue if the employer wasn't involved in the health care system. If we had a federal single-payer system, the hospital would be free to offer (and not offer) the services they choose. They could hire the best people to provide those services without regard to their personal morality or health needs. And employees could be insured a consistent high level of care regardless of where they work.
Simple, isn't it?
- CLW
Fetch more...
Stop That Noise!
Fetch more...
Stop That Noise!
Fetch more...
Stop That Noise!
Fetch more...
Stop That Noise!
Fetch more...
Stop That Noise!
Fetch more...
Stop That Noise!
Fetch more...
Stop That Noise!
Fetch more...
Stop That Noise!
Fetch more...
Stop That Noise!

Fetch more...
Stop That Noise!
Romney won because he had the most money. And because he had the most money, enough of the Tea Party "base," which was supposed to hate him like gum disease, decided thusly: What the hell? The important thing is to get the Muslim Kenyan Usurper Negro out of the White House, so this is the horse we have to ride. There were something like 13,000 commercials aired in Florida over the past couple of weeks. Ninety-two percent of them were negative, the overwhelming number of which said negative things about N. Leroy Gingrich, Definer of Civilization's Rules and Leader (Perhaps) of the Civilizing Forces, on behalf of the man who told us on Tuesday night that we should follow him into the old America of hope and joy and not bumper stickers. That is how you win the Inevitability Primary. You buy Inevitability. It doesn't come cheaply.Besides a lot of money, the other thing that Mitt Romney has going for him is that he is running against thoroughly unlikeable opponents. Mr. Romney is no Mr. Personality, but the striking thing is how lucky he was to run against people like Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and Rick Santorum, all of whom generated a hateful vibe, even for Republicans. It's hard to imagine carrying on a pleasant conversation with any of them, but at least with Mitt Romney, you know he's going to be able to pull off the cocktail party chatter until you're hammered enough not to care. I think one of the big factors in his win last night was that Florida Republicans saw Newt Gingrich bombasting on TV and thought Wow, do I want to watch that asshole for the next four years? Mitt Romney didn't need to outspend Newt Gingrich five to one: all he had to do was pay for his TV time and let him talk.
Fetch more...
Stop That Noise!
Fetch more...
Stop That Noise!
It's tough getting elected as a Republican in the People's Republic of Broward County, one of the bluest stretches of Florida's political real estate. Still, US Rep. Allen West pulled it off in 2010, when he bested Rep. Ron Klein.As I noted previously, this is just his stepping stone to his show on Fox.
But now the Florida Senate's proposed map for Congressional seats indicate it could be even tougher for the tea-party favorite to win District 22. The proposed district is 4 percent more Democratic than it currently is.
Fetch more...
Stop That Noise!
Fetch more...
Stop That Noise!
Fetch more...
Stop That Noise!
The upper tribe is now segregated from the lower tribe. In 1963, rich people who lived on the Upper East Side of Manhattan lived close to members of the middle class. Most adult Manhattanites who lived south of 96th Street back then hadn’t even completed high school. Today, almost all of Manhattan south of 96th Street is an upper-tribe enclave.He's describing the WASP's, regardless of the fact that in the last fifty years, there are a lot more non-white, non-Anglo, non-Protestants in those enclaves. But why let that ruin the Cultural Stereotypes Festival?
Today, Murray demonstrates, there is an archipelago of affluent enclaves clustered around the coastal cities, Chicago, Dallas and so on. If you’re born into one of them, you will probably go to college with people from one of the enclaves; you’ll marry someone from one of the enclaves; you’ll go off and live in one of the enclaves.
...we need a National Service Program. We need a program that would force members of the upper tribe and the lower tribe to live together, if only for a few years. We need a program in which people from both tribes work together to spread out the values, practices and institutions that lead to achievement.Guess what; we had that once. It was called the draft. It brought together the "tribes," and it seemed to work pretty well. (The only downside was that if that if there was a war, some of them ended up dead.)
If we could jam the tribes together, we’d have a better elite and a better mass.
Fetch more...
Stop That Noise!
Annoy a liberal, vote for Newt!If by "annoy" she means make liberals break out in paroxysms of maniacal glee, then she's right. The idea that this guy is seen as a serious contender for the office of President of the United States is hilarious on a scale that makes Mel Brooks jealous.
Fetch more...
Stop That Noise!
To protest a bill that would require women to undergo an ultrasound before having an abortion, Virginia State Sen. Janet Howell (D-Fairfax) on Monday attached an amendment that would require men to have a rectal exam and a cardiac stress test before obtaining a prescription for erectile dysfunction medication.Heh, indeedy.
"We need some gender equity here," she told HuffPost. "The Virginia senate is about to pass a bill that will require a woman to have totally unnecessary medical procedure at their cost and inconvenience. If we're going to do that to women, why not do that to men?"
Fetch more...
Stop That Noise!
Eric Bolling, who hosts something called Follow The Money on the Fox Business Channel, accused The Muppet Movie of undermining capitalism. (Out there in this great land of ours, there are people who marinate in this swill for several hours every day.) After a decent interval, the Muppets have now taken Bolling's arguments apart at their own press conference, proving, among other things, that Mr. Murdoch's media empire has given a television show to someone who can't win a debate against two piles of felt:
Fetch more...
Stop That Noise!
Just how rich is Mitt Romney? Add up the wealth of the last eight presidents, from Richard Nixon to Barack Obama. Then double that number. Now you're in Romney territory.It really doesn't matter to me how rich someone is. The true test of character is what they do with their fortune once they've got it.
Fetch more...
Stop That Noise!
Host Steve Doocy highlighted the fact that Gov. Romney hasn’t exactly bragged about his Mexican roots before. “The other night when I saw you at one of the debates in Florida,” Doocy said, “you mentioned for the first time in my memory, where you were talking about that anti-immigrant allegation by Newt Gingrich. You were talking about how your father was born in Mexico. It’s the first time I’d heard you say that. Is that helping you with the Latino community in Florida?”Let's see what he says when he gets to a state with a large Mexican population. I've heard him speak Spanish -- ejole -- and I can't wait for him to greet the crowd with a rousing iAl rato, vato! That should be fun.
Romney replied “You know, I wish I could claim that I’m Hispanic…”
That’s a bit of a weird thing to say, but let’s hear him out. Does he admire the rich cultural heritage, the strong current of faith, the diverse culinary tradition? Romney continued “…and it would help me with the Latino community here in Florida and around the country, but my dad was born of American parents living in Mexico.”
Oh, right, he didn’t say he wished he was Hispanic, just that he wishes he could claim it.
Fetch more...
Stop That Noise!
Fetch more...
Stop That Noise!
Fetch more...
Stop That Noise!
Fetch more...
Stop That Noise!
Obama can sit there and let all the tax [cuts] lapse, and then the Republicans will have enough votes in the Senate in 2014 to impeach.There's nothing so pathetic as the yawp of someone who's fifteen minutes of fame was twenty minutes ago. The fact that he's considered a "major figure" in Washington tells you more about the state of things at the Kool Kidz table than anything else.
Fetch more...
Stop That Noise!
Fetch more...
Stop That Noise!
Fetch more...
Stop That Noise!
Fetch more...
Stop That Noise!
Fetch more...
Stop That Noise!
In 2006, Obama published a mild polemic, “The Audacity of Hope,” which became a blueprint for his 2008 Presidential campaign. He described politics as a system seized by two extremes. “Depending on your tastes, our condition is the natural result of radical conservatism or perverse liberalism,” he wrote. “Tom DeLay or Nancy Pelosi, big oil or greedy trial lawyers, religious zealots or gay activists, Fox News or the New York Times.” He repeated the theme later, while describing the fights between Bill Clinton and the Newt Gingrich-led House, in the nineteen-nineties: “In the back-and-forth between Clinton and Gingrich, and in the elections of 2000 and 2004, I sometimes felt as if I were watching the psychodrama of the Baby Boom generation—a tale rooted in old grudges and revenge plots hatched on a handful of college campuses long ago—played out on the national stage.” Washington, as he saw it, was self-defeatingly partisan. He believed that “any attempt by Democrats to pursue a more sharply partisan and ideological strategy misapprehends the moment we’re in.”Public vs. Private -- Michael Kinsley discusses the boundaries between a politician's public and private life.
If there was a single unifying argument that defined Obamaism from his earliest days in politics to his Presidential campaign, it was the idea of post-partisanship. He was proposing himself as a transformative figure, the man who would spring the lock. In an essay published in The Atlantic, Andrew Sullivan, a self-proclaimed conservative, reflected on Obama’s heady appeal: “Unlike any of the other candidates, he could take America—finally—past the debilitating, self-perpetuating family quarrel of the Baby Boom generation that has long engulfed all of us.”
Obama was not exaggerating the toxic battle that has poisoned the culture of Washington. In the past four decades, the two political parties have become more internally homogeneous and ideologically distant. In “The Audacity of Hope,” Obama wrote longingly about American politics in the mid-twentieth century, when both parties had liberal and conservative wings that allowed centrist coalitions to form. Today, almost all liberals are Democrats and almost all conservatives are Republicans. In Washington, the center has virtually vanished. According to the political scientists Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal, who have devised a widely used system to measure the ideology of members of Congress, when Obama took office there was no ideological overlap between the two parties. In the House, the most conservative Democrat, Bobby Bright, of Alabama, was farther to the left than the most liberal Republican, Joseph Cao, of Louisiana. The same was true in the Senate, where the most conservative Democrat, Ben Nelson, of Nebraska, was farther to the left than the most liberal Republican, Olympia Snowe, of Maine. According to Poole and Rosenthal’s data, both the House and the Senate are more polarized today than at any time since the eighteen-nineties.
It would be hard for any President to reverse this decades-long political trend, which began when segregationist Democrats in the South—Dixiecrats like Strom Thurmond—left the Party and became Republicans. Congress is polarized largely because Americans live in communities of like-minded people who elect more ideological representatives. Obama’s rhetoric about a nation of common purpose and values no longer fits this country: there really is a red America and a blue America.
So what’s the standard today? And what should it be? The Internet virtually guarantees that any gamey information about a politician will probably come out. It has accelerated the so- called race to the bottom: Even if a news outlet makes a decision to suppress some information, less scrupulous competitors make that impossible. (The Washington Post once declared in an editorial that, while it didn’t report news based on rumors, sometimes the existence of a rumor, true or not, was itself news. This got the Post in tremendous trouble, but it’s actually quite true.)The Mousetrap keeps on going... Ben Brantley checks in on the longest-running play in modern history.
What has changed since 1980 is my basic premise: that many voters — enough to matter — would find information about a politician’s private (i.e., sex) life politically relevant. Many, probably most, don’t. It turns out that the real sophisticates here are the voters. It’s the journalists who are prudes. I’m not saying this is a good thing. But it does change the equation.
When even evangelical Christians are willing to overlook a politician’s three marriages spiced with open adultery as long as he’s good on school prayer, we clearly have moved to a new point in this ongoing discussion.
LONDON — It was a dark and stormy afternoon when I ventured into the old building with the twisting staircases, on one of those London side streets that always seems to be in different places when you look for them. Oh, I knew what I was in for: screams, gunshots, a whistling psychopath, fraught minutes in the dark and rigid postures of fear. But I hadn’t come to St. Martin’s Theater to be frightened or even stimulated. I was there for comfort.Doonesbury -- WWND.
Well, that and the chance to pay my respects to a woman who had given me bountiful comfort since my childhood: Agatha Christie, whose play “The Mousetrap” was just about to begin its 24,655th performance. Hundreds of thousands before me, starting before I was born, had followed this same path, making a cheerful pilgrimage to a mecca of sanitary murder.
The house was hardly full on this Tuesday afternoon. But there were 90 or so schoolchildren in attendance, many of whom I was told were seeing their first play. I heard several foreign languages (including American, of course) being spoken by the adults seated near me. More than at any point in my career as a theater critic, going to a play felt like being part of a field trip to a historic site.
“The Mousetrap” was something I had never sought out in the past. I knew it was there – the longest-running play in modern history (it opened in 1952) – in the way that I knew Big Ben and the Tower of London were there. But now that the show was coming up on its diamond anniversary – as is, may I remind you, the reign of a certain pigeon-shaped monarch – I felt it was time to make a courtesy call, and see how the old girl was holding up.
I mean the play, not the queen, though parallels between the two are encouraged by the management. The program includes a large picture of a be-gowned and be-pearled Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh standing on the grand but shabby country-house set of “The Mousetrap” on the occasion of its 50th anniversary in 2002. And many of the values that “The Mousetrap” would seem to embody are not unlike those associated with the Queen herself: perseverance, stately coziness and equanimity in the face of disaster.
Fetch more...
Stop That Noise!
Fetch more...
Stop That Noise!

