John King did his State of the Union segment in Wyoming today. He spoke with some nice people in the Jackson Hole area who complained heartily about the horrible state of the local economy. They said the health care plan was too complicated because it was a thousand pages and nobody knows what’s in it. They also complained about how horribly high the cost of their health insurance was. They hate all the bickering in congress and even wished that Dick Cheney, a local, would stop criticizing the president, so they aren’t tea baggers. They all said they want Obama to succeed.
John King: To be more successful in his second year what should he do?
Wyoming citizen: Cut spending
King: cut spending ..
Other WC: I think we’re out of control.
King: Cut spending? Why does the spending bother you?
Different WC: We have a deficit. It’s so huge right now. I just don’t think it’s helping our economy. I don’t think it’s helping anybody.
These were all people in their 40s who own businesses there in Wyoming. I suspect they are like a lot of people. King, of course, didn’t pursue it and ask specifically why they thought that spending and the deficit were the cause of the slowdown or why stopping it would fix things, but I would guess they’d all come back with taxes as the standard reply.
Granted, these people are all probably Republicans although they didn’t say it. But what would Democrats have said differently I wonder?
No Drama Obama is reticent about displays of emotion. The Spock in him needs to exert mental and emotional control. That is why he stubbornly insists on staying aloof and setting his own deliberate pace for responding — whether it’s in a debate or after a debacle.
“Mental and emotional control.”
That sounds like an extraordinary set of virtues to have in a United States president. But they are nothing but problems for the emotionally-troubled NY Times op-ed columnist. Her very next sentence:
But it’s not O.K. to be cool about national security when Americans are scared.
In fact, being “cool about national security” or other potential emergencies (say, huge, city-wrecking hurricanes) is exactly what I want my government to be. I want – expect – reasoned, intelligent responses from my government to the problems we face. That’s what I voted for, not hysteria or phony displays of emotional connection.
The ghastly attack by that double agent in Afghanistan, let alone exploding underpants, really didn’t scare me. Here’s an example of what does:
He’s so sure of himself and his actions that he fails to see that he misses the moment to be president — to be the strong father who protects the home from invaders, who reassures and instructs the public at traumatic moments.
I simply can’t believe that anyone would need the president of the United States to be their Daddy. I simply can’t believe that anyone would write that they need the president of the United States to be their Daddy. I simply can’t believe that the New York Times would publish an op-ed columnist who would write that she needs the president of the United States to be her Daddy. I simply can’t believe that our public discourse is so debased that someone as unstable as MoDo has regular access to a wide public – not to rise above her psychological problems and inform us, or provide us with sensible opinions, but merely to trot out her deeply weird neuroses because she apparently thinks everyone shares them.
And that – the abysmal level of our public discourse – scares the daylights out of me.
Ev’rything’s agin’ me and it’s got me down If I jumped in the river I would prob’ly drown No matter how I struggle and strive I’ll never get out of this world alive.
-Hank Williams
I think I may have finally stumped Google. I cannot for the life of me locate the name of the artist who wrote and/or sang my favorite country song of all time. Let me qualify that. That would be my favorite country song title, which is “I’m Gonna Build Me a Bar in the Back of My Car and Drive Myself to Drink” (I believe it came out circa ‘78, if that helps jog anyone’s memory). At any rate, after watching Scott Cooper’s Crazy Heart, I can visualize the film’s protagonist, “Bad” Blake (Jeff Bridges) as that songwriter. This guy IS a country song-with a pocketful of whiskey and a lifetime full of heartache and regret.
Look in the dictionary under “has been country musicians” and you’ll see an 8×10 of Bad Blake. Take a little whiff of the accompanying “scratch’n’sniff” card, and you’ll catch a pungent mélange of stale beer, cigarettes, musty nightclubs and cheap motel rooms. Tooling around the Southwest in his antiquated, “lucky” Suburban, Blake’s life is a never-ending series of shithole one-nighters (in the film’s opening scene, his name gets second billing to a league tournament on a bowling alley sign, which reminded me of the visual gag from This Is Spinal Tap with the amusement park marquee touting “Puppet show…and Spinal Tap”). Keeping his road expenses to a minimum, he tours solo, using pickup bands to back him at each location. Eschewing rehearsals and sound checks, he spends his off hours brushing up on his ornithology (e.g. Wild Turkey, Old Crow and Eagle Rare). Somehow, he still manages to get through his performances. Oh, on occasion, the band has to vamp while he slips out to vomit in the alley-but that’s showbiz.
His love life is in similar disarray; it is a trail of broken hearts, one-night stands with groupies, an adult son whom he has not seen since infancy and a handful of exes (who may, or may not, live in Texas). His romance with the bottle is his longest-standing relationship. Enter a small-town newspaper reporter named Jean (Maggie Gyllenhaal), a divorcee with a 4-year old son. Jean is the daughter of a piano player who is backing Bad at one of his gigs; he asks Bad to grant her an interview as a favor. Preferring his fans to remember him as he was “back in the day”, the initially reluctant interviewee becomes much more enthusiastic about the prospect once he meets the winsome young woman. Sparks fly, and the heat, as they say, is on. In fact, Bad starts feeling much more enthusiastic about life in general (funny about love); he surprises his long-suffering booking agent by agreeing to bury the hatchet with Tommy Sweet (Colin Farrell), a former protégé who is now a country superstar, and open a stadium show for him. Things are suddenly looking up. But as anyone who has seen more than one film featuring an alcoholic protagonist can tell you, it’s about this point in the narrative where you start waiting for the other shoe to drop (“So how’s he going to fuck it up? Pass the popcorn”).
So, is this just another “narcissistic, self-destructive, substance-abusing musician who has hit rock-bottom but just needs the love of a good woman to put him on the road to redemption” story? Well, yes. And no. Writer-director Cooper’s script (adapted from the original novel by Thomas Cobb) does travel down some dusty and well-worn country roads, but thankfully avoids some of the usual clichés before it takes us home. For instance, there are no barroom brawls, and (wait for it) nary even one scene that takes place in a trailer park (THAT was refreshing). Yes, we’ve most definitely seen this story before, but we don’t always get to see it delivered by such a great cast; and that’s the main reason to see this film. There’s a lot of Oscar buzz about Bridges’ performance. Interestingly, as good as he is here, on a sliding scale I wouldn’t necessarily consider it the best thing he has ever done. But if anyone deserves a statuette for a consistently fine body of work, it would be our boy Jeff; I think he’s a national treasure. He’s got a good shot; if history has taught us anything, it’s that Oscar loves drunks (and nuns, according to Kate Winslet in a classic episode of Extras). Robert Duvall has a small but memorable role as Bad’s long-time friend (and bartender, which I guess is one and the same in his case). Duvall and Bridges are a joy to watch in all their scenes together. Gyllenhaal is excellent as always, although I thought her part felt a little underwritten. Bridges does his own singing, and he isn’t half-bad; on a couple of the stripped-down ballads he sounds like he could give Leonard Cohen a run for his money in baritone-rich world-weariness. This is a small and simple film, but it has a pretty big heart…like a good country song.
The Washington Post ombudsman finally responded to the complaints about the paper’s inappropriate relationship with Pete Peterson and his new “news” operation the Fiscal Times. He says there’s nothing wrong with it because Peterson has hired good reporters and the stories will be edited by the paper’s staff.
Dean Baker wonders if he would say the same thing if the paper contacted with the NRAs “Firearms Gazette” or the tobacco industry’s “Smoking Today.” After all, he seems to think that the Fiscal (End) Times can be trusted, with safeguards, to write unbiased copy. But here’s the rub:
Can anyone imagine the Peterson Foundation putting a story showing how much the failure of the Fed to combat the housing bubble added to country’s debt? How about a piece that showed that the U.S. deficit problem is driven entirely by our broken health care system?
No, these pieces, or many others like them, are not going to run in the Fiscal Times, because that is not what Peter Peterson wants to buy with his millions. And, the very good reporters who have signed up to work for the Fiscal Times know very well what the boss wants, even if he does not intervene directly in their reporting.
In fact, Alexander even admitted that the Fiscal Times could not produce one little story without showing its bias. As Alexander noted:
“The story had serious deficiencies.
A footnote said only that Fiscal Times is ‘an independent digital news publication reporting on fiscal, budgetary, health-care and international economics issues.’ But it should have disclosed that it was created and funded by Peterson and noted his interest in the issues.
The story quoted the head of the Concord Coalition, ‘a nonpartisan group that advocates entitlement reform and balanced budgets.’ It failed to divulge that the group receives funding from the Peter G. Peterson Foundation. ….
The story also cited data from a study by the Peterson-Pew Commission on Budget Reform, again failing to note that it was the same Peterson who is behind the Fiscal Times.
The timing of the story was problematic, coming weeks before the Senate may consider the commission idea. The Fiscal Times plans to cover a spectrum of issues, but having its first story focused on one so closely tied to Peterson was inviting suspicion about its motives
.
Finally, the story also was not sufficiently balanced with the views of those opposed to a fast-track commission. “
That’s a lot of mistakes in an article that is only 935 words, all of them favoring Peterson’s political agenda.
That’s how it works in what is obviously a full blown propaganda campaign working several different angles of the mainstream media in different ways. First there was the “documentary” IOUSA, which CNN ran uninterrupted as a feature two days in a row, followed by a panel discussion of experts who all agreed with the premise.
I’m sure there’s more of this wealth protecting propaganda masquerading as news and education in the pipeline. With newspapers in a deep spiral and a competitive media environment desperate for any kind of advantage, I would guess that a few of Peterson’s millions are welcome indeed, in whatever form they take, particularly if Peterson continues to package this material as slickly as we’ve seen and enlist others to validate him with their credibility. The Washington Post had already signaled its intent to sell itself to the highest bidder when it scheduled its pay-to-play industry “salons” with industry earlier this year. This partnership with Peterson is exactly the same thing except that they’ve eliminated the middle men — the reporters — and are just letting the advocates write the stuff directly. Obviously, the Washington Post no longer cares about its crediblity. Caveat emptor.
Keep your eyes open for more Peterson media infiltration. They are obviously gearing up for a full blown attack on social security and medicare and from what I can tell the Villagers are more than willing to help them do it. After all, there’s nothing these pampered celebrities love more than to pretend that “we” are all in this together and must sacrifice our meager social security and health benefits to ensure that wealthy people like themselves don’t have to pay higher taxes. It’s a good deal for them. For us, not so much.
There’s an interesting article in today’s NY Times about Roger Ailes that you should read in its entirety. he’s a fascinating character, although his probably not as unique as people think, except in the sense that he works in TV rather than in print. After all, arch conservative William Randolph Hearst once had a little bit of influence on American politics too.
But this is worth noting, I think:
As powerful as he is within the News Corporation, Mr. Ailes remains a spectral presence outside the Fox News offices. National security had long been a preoccupation of Fox News, and it was clear in the interview that the 9/11 attacks had a profound effect on Mr. Ailes. They convinced him that he and his network could be terrorist targets.
On the day of the attacks, Mr. Ailes asked his chief engineer the minimum number of workers needed to keep the channel on the air. The answer: 42. “I am one of them,” he said. “I’ve got a bad leg, I’m a little overweight, so I can’t run fast, but I will fight.
“We had 3,000 dead people a couple miles from here. I knew that any communications company could be a target.”
His movements now are shadowed by a phalanx of corporate-provided security. He travels to and from work in a miniature convoy of two sport utility vehicles. A camera on his desk displays the comings and goings outside his office, where he usually keeps the blinds drawn.
Mr. Ailes said he received frequent threats over the years, but his concerns for the safety of his family were heightened by an incident at his New Jersey home after the 9/11 attacks. There was an intruder on his property, but no arrest was made. In Putnam County, he has bought several properties surrounding his home. A sign outside his house shows an illustration of a gun and advises visitors that it is under video surveillance.
After 9/11, Mr. Ailes sent a memo to President George W. Bush urging harsh action.
(And yet the anthrax killer didn’t send white powder to Fox, but rather to the other networks. Go figure.)
I’m always struck by how different people reacted to 9/11. You have Tom Friedman driving through Manhattan listening to the Morman Rabernacle Choirblasting out The Battle Hymn of the Republic, urging Don Rumsfeld to “go crazy.” Ailes was advising the President to go batshit on anything that moved. They and others like them felt themselves to be personally targeted and contrived a image of themselves as patriotic freedom fighters beating off the terrorists with their bare hands. And yet,somehow I don’t think the terrorists actually found either one of them worthy of their attention. It’s a very revealing psychology, which Rick Perlstein addresses in the article itself:
Richard Perlstein, author of “Nixonland,” sees a strong resemblance between Mr. Ailes’s political experience and his approach to television.
“Like Richard Nixon, like Spiro Agnew, Fox News can never see itself as the attacker,” he said. “They are always playing defense because they believe they are always under attack, which attracts people that have the same personality formation. By bringing that mind-set, plus the high energy seamless stream of the aggression of talk radio, he has found an audience.”
It really is a mindset and a wordview rather than a political identity, as this article about Charles Johnson, the conservative apostate illustrates:
In Johnson’s mind, he has not really changed but merely shifted his focus. Where once he was preoccupied with national security, staking out a hawkish, pro-military position, he now spends more time focusing on his liberal social views, and gripes with conservatives who disagree. “I like to think,” he told me this week, “I am pretty independent of [the] political winds.”
But not totally immune. As I talked to Johnson in his office, an alert flashed on one of his two giant computer monitors. An angry screed targeting him on another website concluded: “I think a visit to Mr. Johnson’s home might be warranted. Anybody got his address?”
Such veiled threats are at least one reason why Johnson, 56, relocated not long ago. He remains in the Los Angeles area, but now is in a gated community. The man who once decried vitriol spread on liberal websites now says: “The kinds of hate mail and the kinds of attacks I am getting from the right wing are way beyond anything I got when I was criticizing the left or even radical Islam.”
Not that I doubt that the right wing hate mail is incredibly vile, because it certainly is. But Johnson has always been slightly paranoid about his personal safety and fashioned himself as someting of a revolutionary. His is a psychology that tends toward conservatism, but really isn’t about politics at all. In fact, it may not even be about psychology, but rather a matter of how the brain is wired.
…Here are some hits from the fruit of Patriarch Peterson’s loins:
While talking with his Mexican bro (and amid a slew of homoerotic utterances, which could have been contrived by producers), P.C. announced: “I don’t really know many Mexicans in New York besides, like, delivery guys.”
Going further, he explained, “Every time I say like, ‘Oh I’m seeing my friend in Mexico,’ they’re like ‘Ew a Mexican.”… But I always tell them you’re like the most beautiful Mexican ever ‘cause you’re like really tall…”
Someone’s gunning for Bartlett’s.
Hilariously, and in a weak attempt to distance PC from Pete Peterson, mama Paige explained that she is divorced from PC’s father, and so PC is not heir to a great fortune. In fact, she and PC lived “comfortably but modestly in an apartment on Central Park West.”
Unless he was living in the maid’s quarters, I doubt it. Read the whole thing. Evidently Ole Grampaw Pete is mortified. And why wouldn’t he be? After all, this is the argument he constantly makes about the need to put elderly ladies on a cat food diet as soon as possible:
“German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer said that the ultimate test of a moral society is the world that it leaves to its children. When I think of how we’re passing on unthinkable taxes and debts, and slipping our kids and grandkids the check, I say we are failing that moral test.”
I think maybe his grandkids might benefit from some unthinkable taxes and debts, don’t you?
Local law enforcement agencies plan to amend their training programs to include the findings of a federal appellate court that ruled a Coronado police officer used excessive force when he Tased an unarmed, nonviolent man during a traffic stop.
If it stands, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling would establish legal precedent for when officers are allowed to use Tasers, forcing some law enforcement agencies to reexamine policies concerning their use of the nonlethal weapons, experts said.
Because the Dec. 28 decision specifies an immediate threat, officers who use Tasers on passive resisters could be held liable for injuries suffered, said Michael Gennaco, chief attorney for the Los Angeles County Office of Independent Review, which oversees the county sheriff’s department.
“That’s why a tight policy is critical,” said Gennaco, who planned to meet with county sheriff’s officials to ensure their policies and training were consistent with the court opinion. “That way, the departments will be much better off than on their own.”
While Burbank officials maintained that strict language governing the use of the nonviolent weapons were in line with the ruling, Glendale city attorneys said they were in the process of a comprehensive review.
“Generally speaking, a Taser is used based on a reasonable officer’s standard at the time,” said Carmen Merino, general counsel for the Glendale Police Department. “It generally may be used when an officer is confronted with a violent and threatening subject, and after warning has been given.”
Burbank officials reviewed their policies and found that while further training is in order, it would be unnecessary to amend the policies, Chief Assistant City Atty. Juli Scott said.
Barring extreme circumstances, Tasers can be used only on those who are actively resisting arrest, are aggressive or in danger of harming themselves or others, Scott said.
“Our policy is very narrowly drawn. We wouldn’t typically want someone to use it on a suspect who is just standing there,” she said. “It is to be used to temporarily immobilize a suspect so that he can be safely taken into custody — not just someone who is not obeying your commands.”
The whole philosophical argument about tasers rests on the idea that in a free country, representatives of the government are not allowed to brutalize citizens just to make their jobs easier. It says something that they have to make that explicit to police officers, but they do. I’ve read far too many comments and articles from police officers and their defenders saying the opposite. Perhaps this ruling will at least serve to make police departments aware that they need to make this clear.
It’s not the whole story. Tasers are unsafe and they are killing people who present no deadly threat and have been convicted of no crime. Their use should be severely restricted if not banned. But at least the idea that police should not be able to tase people for any reason they choose is being challenged on a basic constitutional basis. If you don’t make it clear to people who have been given tremendous power over individuals in every day life that they will be held accountable for abusing that power, they will … abuse it. It’s the way the world works. In a free society, I think it’s to everyone’s advantage to understand the limits of what police can do with an immobilizing weapon of pain, don’t you?
If a woman had ever posed naked for Playboy, do you think Republicans would endorse her for the US Senate? No, I don’t either.
But a macho, right wing dude showing off his hot bod for the ladies? Not a problem:
Long before he was a politician, the Republican candidate vying for Ted Kennedy’s U.S. Senate seat posed nude for the centerfold of Cosmo. Scott Brown won our “America’s Sexiest Man” contest and appeared in the June 1982 issue. In those days he was a 22-year-old law student at Boston College who was cramming for finals just days before stripping down for our photographer.
“Here at Cosmo we’ve had bachelors go on to be actors, models, and reality show stars, so we’re thrilled that one has gone on to become a politician,” says Kate White, Cosmo’s editor in chief. Obviously we know how to pick ’em. This particular bachelor has always had political ambitions and even admitted to being “a bit of a patriot” when we interviewed him.
A very little bit apparently.
How long before Levi Johnston can run for congress?
Hundreds of sea lions that abruptly blew out of San Francisco Bay’s Pier 39 last Thanksgiving have apparently found a new home at another tourist attraction — 500 miles north on the Oregon coast. Thousands of California sea lions started showing up in December at Sea Lion Caves, a popular tourist draw because of the Stellar sea lions living in the caves.
The California sea lions appear to have made the trip because of an abundance of anchovies at the Oregon site, 11 miles north of the town of Florence.
Scientists say there is no way to say how many of the newcomers came from Pier 39, where the numbers fell from a peak of 1,701 in October to just 20 by the end of November. But it is likely some did, since they easily swim 100 miles a day searching for food between Mexico and Alaska.
Some of the California newcomers came into the cave, but most seem to prefer a nearby rocky beach.
Kim Raum-Suryan, a biologist at the Hatfield Marine Science Center in Newport, noticed the number of California sea lions at Heceta Head had doubled to some 5,000 in December and, like other scientists, figures the simple answer is food.
I couldn’t imagine Pier 39 without the sea lions but I’m glad they’re fat and happy.
In light of all the hoohah this week about Tim Geithner and AIG, it seems like a good time to reprise one of his most illuminating quotes — from just last March:
Geithner began with praise for his former colleagues at the New York Fed and with a joke aimed at Pete Peterson, a CFR patron, about his contributions to the organization.
Geithner also gave a hat-tip to Peterson that may rankle some of Peterson’s critics on the left, who oppose his push to cut spending on Social Security and Medicare.
“We are all fiscal hawks now because of Pete Peterson,” Geithner said, at least half-joking. “There are no doves left.”
with the amusement park marquee touting “Puppet show…and Spinal Tap”). Keeping his road expenses to a minimum, he tours solo, using pickup bands to back him at each location. Eschewing rehearsals and sound checks, he spends his off hours brushing up on his ornithology (e.g. Wild Turkey, Old Crow and Eagle Rare). Somehow, he still manages to get through his performances. Oh, on occasion, the band has to vamp while he slips out to vomit in the alley-but that’s showbiz.
). Robert Duvall has a small but memorable role as Bad’s long-time friend (and bartender, which I guess is one and the same in his case). Duvall and Bridges are a joy to watch in all their scenes together. Gyllenhaal is excellent as always, although I thought her part felt a little underwritten. Bridges does his own singing, and he isn’t half-bad; on a couple of the stripped-down ballads he sounds like he could give Leonard Cohen a run for his money in baritone-rich world-weariness. This is a small and simple film, but it has a pretty big heart…like a good country song.
, 
, 
, 
, 
, 
, 
, 
, 
, 
, 
, 
