Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

Saturday Night At The Movies

Every comedian wants to be an actor…

By Dennis Hartley

…and vice versa: Adam Sandler comes full circle

I have good news and bad news about writer-director Judd Apatow’s Funny People. The good news is that he’s made a terrific 100 minute film. The bad news is that no one will ever get to see it without suffering through an additional 40 minutes of self-indulgence.

Adam Sandler stars as comic-turned-actor George Simmons, who has become an A-list box office draw through a series of low-brow yet successful comedy films (*cough* auto-biographical *cough* type casting *cough*). He lives the requisite movie star bachelor lifestyle to the hilt; soaking in public adulation, living in a Hollywood mansion with a revolving door of beautiful women, etc. His biggest daily chore is sorting through the piles of script offers. Everything in his life is going swimmingly, until the staple of every Disease of the Week Movie appears: The Results of Your Blood Test Are in Scene. Better get your affairs in order, pal (Uh-oh. This isn’t gonna be “ha-ha” funny Apatow?).

Meanwhile, somewhere across town (in the low-rent section) we are introduced to a trio of roommates-Ira, Leo and Mark (Seth Rogan, Jonah Hill and Jason Schwartzman, respectively) who are much farther down the show biz ladder. Ira and Leo are aspiring stand-up comics; Mark is an actor who has recently got his first major break with a starring role on a middling sitcom. Using their own sliding scale of success, Mark is at the top of the pyramid (he’s on TV!) and Leo has a slight lead over Ira, because he has received kudos from Budd Friedman (to fledgling L.A. comics, a “thumbs up” from the founder of the legendary Hollywood Improv is tantamount to an anointment by the Pope).

It looks like it’s going to take a miracle to give Ira’s career a boost (so he can quit that day job at the deli); in the meantime he’s just another rubber-faced no-name standing in front of a brick wall on Open Mike Night. His deux ex machina arrives when George Simmons, still reeling from the bad medical news, figures that it might be good therapy to get back to his roots and do some stage time (on a night when Ira also happens to be on the bill). George sees something in Ira’s act that appeals to him (perhaps it reminds him of himself in hungrier days) and on impulse, decides to offer him mentorship and a job as his personal assistant. It becomes apparent that what George really wants is a genuine friendship before he shuffles off to that Great Gig in the Sky (even if he has to pay for it).

Now it would seem that this would be enough of a setup to carry a feature length movie. For most directors. Unfortunately, Apatow’s third act, revolving around an ill-advised attempt on George’s part to rekindle a romance with The One Who Got Away (Leslie Mann) while her husband (Eric Bana) is out of town just goes on and on and on, at the lumbering pace of a brontosaur (Apatowsaurus?) plodding through a Triassic swamp, crushing all semblance of levity in its path. In particular, there is an inordinate amount of screen time given to the two young girls who play Mann’s daughters. I didn’t learn until the film’s credits that they are Apatow’s kids. Coupled with the fact that Mann is their real-life mom, it instills the film with a cringing sense of nepotistic home-movie overkill. Another pace-killer is the seemingly endless parade of cameos, mostly from some well-known comedians (ironically, the funniest cameo is by Eminem). It started to remind me of those The Cannonball Run films that Burt Reynolds and his pals used to do in the 1970s.

Still, there are some things I liked about the film. Although I will admit that I am not a fan (his name on a marquee is usually anathema to me), I thought Sandler was decent enough in his seriocomic role (it reminded me of his work in Punch-Drunk Love). Rogan and Sandler play well off each other, and Hill (while a bit of a one-note player) fires off some of the film’s best one-liners. Newcomer Aubrey Plaza gives a wry turn as a fellow comic that Rogan has a crush on. Torsten Voges is a scene stealer as Sandler’s German doctor (a hysterical exchange in the doctor’s office between Sandler, Rogan and Voges is an instant classic-it’s too bad that the rest of the film can’t quite match up to it).

I would have liked to have seen more emphasis on the world of stand-up, because I think that it is during those brief interludes that the film truly shines. Apatow has a good handle on that (he came up from the comedy clubs) and every scene dealing with the creative process, the camaraderie (and, oh yes-the angst and the backstabbing) ring absolutely true, and I think he could have made a fabulous film just dealing with that subject alone. But then again, I may be a little biased, because I used to be one of those rubber-faced no-names, standing in front of a brick wall on Open Mike Night. Wait a minute…and I had a day job working at a deli, while I was doing stand up gigs at night. Um, excuse me (sfx knocking on computer screen) does, uh, anybody out there need a personal assistant?

Comedy is not pretty: The Jimmy Show, Punchline, Comedian, Mr. Saturday Night, The King of Comedy, Stages, Swingers , Mickey One, Lenny, The Joker is Wild, The Entertainer, The Tall Guy, Shakes the Clown, Pagliacci (1948), My Favorite Year.

.

Pushing From The left

by digby

I don’t know where this is coming from, but I’ve just received several emails telling me that I’m a Dem whore, loser, stupid, boring useless piece of garbage for refusing to acknowledge that Nancy Pelosi agreed to allow a floor vote on single payer bill in the house. Please accept my apologies. I forget to check my blogging instructions this morning and neither did I happen to see this piece of information. (But it’s always a good move to assume my bad faith and despicable motivations anyway.)

I do agree that it’s significant, nonetheless.

Single Payer Gets A Vote
July 31, 2009

Anthony Weiner is about to be the new hero of the progressive crowd after getting a promise from Nancy Pelosi to debate — and vote — on a single-payer plan to solve health care reform.

Weiner got that promise after he agreed to withdraw an amendment to essentially create Medicare for the whole nation in the Energy and Commerce Committee health care markup session this evening.

The Brooklyn-Queens Rep. looked a little surprised when Chairman Henry Waxman said Pelosi would allow that vote, and made Waxman repeat the deal to be sure it was clear and on the record.

It’s an especially big deal for advocates of a single health care system — who see it as cheaper and simpler than the complicated measure being drawn up — because they have been complaining that they have not even been able to get an airing of their position.

And having the vote of the floor of the House will force members to declare a position, and bring much more attention to the idea.

Update: Weiner, who high-fived Tammy Baldwin after getting the deal, crows in a quick press release:

“It’s a Better Plan and now it’s on Center Stage,” says Weiner

Washington, DC – Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA), Chairman of the Energy & Commerce Committee announced today that Speaker Nancy Pelosi has pledged to give Single-Payer an up or down vote when healthcare reform is considered before year’s end.

Congressman Anthony Weiner (D-NY), Co-Chair of the Middle Class Caucus and member of the Energy & Commerce Committee who led the effort with Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI); Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA); Rep. Elliot Engel (D-NY); Rep. Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL); Rep. Janice Schakowsky (D-IL); and Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT), released the following statement:

“Single-payer is a better plan and now it is on center stage. Americans have a clear choice. Their Member of Congress will have a simpler, less expensive and smarter bill to choose. I am thrilled that the Speaker is giving us that choice.”

Good for Pelosi. Even if there’s a fairly non-existent chance of SP being enacted in this go, a sizable vote in favor would be very meaningful at this point, to emphasize how far the progressives have already compromised. Aside from being the right thing to do on the merits, it’s a smart move politically. I hope everyone who believes in real health care reform will vote for it. It would certainly clarify matters and give progressives more strength going into the final negotiations.

Update: Matt Yglesias posted about this earlier today and one of his commenters describes a delicious scene that I’m really sorry I missed:

You missed the most interesting amendment that Wiener offered. While I was watching the health-care markup on Thursday night (because I’m a policy nerd and I think that sort of thing is fun), Anthony Wiener offered an amendment to repeal Medicare. It was, by his own admission, intended as a political trap to force the Republican members to vote for single-payer health care. It was a hilarious debate to watch.

Wiener observed that a lot of Republicans had been warning direly about the dangers of socialized medicine and government interference in the health-care market, and so offered “the amendment they’ve been waiting for” to give them the opportunity to vote to end the scourge of single-payer health care in America. As a counterpart to the now-famous Republican flow chart of Obamacare, Wiener had a nice simple chart demonstrating how Medicare works (with just 3 boxes: patients, providers, government). There was also a poignant moment when everyone paused to honor John Dingell, who actually voted for Medicare 44 years ago (and is now on crutches and looking rather feeble).

The Ranking Republican, Joe Barton of Texas, made some nonsensical and indecipherable distinction about “government-mandated” health care versus “government-run” health care, and said that Republicans support the Medicare because it is in the former category (if that’s true, they sure ought to be supporting the current House health care bill). Wiener asked if the Republicans would support a public plan if it looked like Medicare, and Barton dodged the question. Later Barton hit on the semi-coherent response that Medicare only pays 80% of the cost of treatment, so the private insurance market has to pick up the slack to ensure that doctors and hospitals stay solvent. My understanding is that that’s completely false, but at least it sounds coherent.

The debate on Wiener’s amendment got pretty heated, with Rep. Steve Buyer calling Wiener an “intellectual smart-ass” and Wiener calling all the Republicans hypocrites (with good reason, though). Initially, Chairman Waxman not amused by the amendment, since he was trying to keep the markup moving quickly in order to finish on Friday. By the end of the debate, though, Waxman was clearly enjoying it. In the end, despite Wiener’s “double-dare”, all the Republicans voted no (how often do you see a unanimous “no” vote?), thus proving on the 44th anniversary of the signing of the Medicare Act that nobody’s going to mess with Medicare anytime soon.

I would have loved to see that.

It’s nice to see the progressives feeling their oats a little bit.

.

No Deal

by digby

The cash for clunkers program has a bunch of rules, one of which is this one:

Consumers with eligible vehicles qualify for either $3,500 or $4,500 toward the purchase of a new vehicle depending on the fuel economy difference between the old and new cars. This amount is in addition to any rebates or incentives offered by the manufacturer for that model, and dealers are not allowed to use the CARS credit to offset those discounts.

I’ve had a couple of readers write in to tell me that car dealers are telling their customers that the rebates supercede any incentives they had been offering and refusing to deal at all. Evidently, this has something to do with the fact that the rebates got to the dealers instead of the buyers.

Has anyone else heard anything about this?

.

Poor Lil’ Benji

by digby

As you know, the PCCC has been running ads in Nebraska pointing out that Ben Nelson has a little problem with being an insurance company lackey. He doesn’t like it.

Following is a statement released today by Jake Thompson, Senator Ben Nelson’s spokesman, in response to an ad running in the Nebraska media concerning Senator Nelson and health care.

“Nebraskans don’t need outside special interest groups telling them what to think. Senator Nelson has nothing but praise for Nebraska groups working toward health care reform. Unfortunately, he says, these outside groups undermine the sincere and dedicated efforts of people in our state.

“Recently, similar ads have run in Nebraska. Those ads by other special interests prompted hundreds of Nebraskans to call our offices, with 9 to 1 urging Senator Nelson to do exactly the opposite of what the special interest group wanted. In short, the ads backfired.

“If the impact is the same this time, Howard Dean’s Democracy for America will be sorely disappointed. Further, these scare tactics are certain to further divide the public on health care reform, make it less likely Congress will pass real reform and call into question the motives of those who say they want reform, but use the issue to raise money to try to buy influence inside the Beltway.

“Senator Nelson believes that while most Nebraskans want health care reform, they don’t want it rushed; they want it done right. He has said he will consider a “public plan” as long as it doesn’t undermine the health coverage 200 million Americans have now. He supports Medicare, TRICARE and S-CHIP, and each is a public plan. He also helped establish Kids Connection, Nebraska’s public-plan health insurance for children.

“In the Washington debate, various ‘public plans’ are still being considered, but no single plan has emerged. So, it’s ridiculous to suggest that Senator Nelson is “leading the charge” –as the ad says–against something that doesn’t exist.

“Nebraskans know Ben Nelson is an independent thinker. He also has a long record in the governor’s office and the U.S. Senate of bringing people together and working constructively so important legislation becomes law. Today, he’s looking to support bipartisan legislation that reduces health care costs, boosts the quality of care and expands coverage to people who can’t obtain it now.

“If this is an indication of the politics going into August, then health care reform may be dead by the end of August.”

Oh, boohoohoo!

The PCCC relies:

“Ben Nelson just called a Nebraska small businessman whose health insurance went up 42% an out-of-state special interest, while never disputing that he is bought and paid for by health and insurance interests who gave him millions to vote against his own constituents. If Ben Nelson stands behinds his spokesman’s words, he just proved himself a fundamentally corrupt and out-of-touch politician who feels perfectly comfortable lying to his constituents and going to bat for private insurers who fear competition and want to rip off the people of Nebraska.”

“We will be increasing our Nebraska ad buy on Monday morning.“

Sidenote: 83% of Nelson’s health and insurance industry contributions are from out of state.

If you care to contribute to this worthy effort, you can go here.

Ben Nelson is threatening to stamp his little feet and hold his breath until he turns blue unless these awful people stop pointing out that he’s a corporate lackey and an egomaniacal jackass — thus proving that he is a corporate lackey, an egomaniacal jackass and a silly, silly man.

Let’s give Ben Nelson something to cry about.

.

Dull Week-end Palin Rumor Mongering

by digby

According to this report, Sarah and Todd are splittsville, which isn’t exactly surprising. It often happens when an otherwise pretty average family (if being a governor is average) gets thrust into the national spotlight. Look at that “Jon and Kate Plus Eight Is Enough To Make Your Eyes Glaze Over” show.

But if it’s true (and who the hell knows if it is) it will be yet another test of conservative Christian family values, which would surely say that Sarah and Todd should stay together no matter how miserable they are.

On the other hand, from a commercial standpoint, Sarah Palin being a single mom would be a goldmine, so there is an upside. Her “everywoman” persona would be complete and I think that’s probably far more compelling — and marketable — than anything else about her.

Even Christian conservatives are gay or have affairs or get divorced and are single parents. In fact, they are exactly like all the liberal elites who are destroying the fabric of society. They just live in a hypocritical, patriarchal universe that is run by the credo “do as I say not as I do.” It works out well for them. But the rest of us really don’t have to listen.

And hey, more power to Sarah and Todd if they can’t work it out and decide to move on. It’s not the end of the world. There are Christian conservative hypocrites doing the same thing every day all over America.

Update: Palin denies it.

But there’s this too:

The Ventura County Star reports:

Just days after officially stepping down as governor of Alaska, former GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin is dropping out of an advertised speaking engagement in Simi Valley …. It was on Thursday that Palin’s spokeswoman Meghan Stapleton made public the news of the decision not to attend the event via Palin’s Facebook page. Up to 900 people were expected to attend the event at $100 a ticket for members and $150 for non-members, but media had been barred from the occasion.

Evidently she said she had too much work to do.

.

Polar Regions

by digby

Steve Benen:

It’s worth noting, from time to time, the practical and ideological problems with this approach to problem solving. The parties disagree — as they should; it’s why they exist — and are more polarized now than at any point in modern political history. Ezra has posted this chart from Nolan McCarty, Keith Poole, and Howard Rosenthal before, but I’m glad he ran it again yesterday. It shows current political polarization is at its highest point since the 19th century:

This political environment obviously makes compromises and “bipartisan” solutions very difficult, since the parties, more so than at any recent point, simply see matters of state in fundamentally different ways. But the polarization among lawmakers in both chambers also, as Ezra noted yesterday, “makes it virtually impossible to govern in a system that is designed to foil majorities and require a constant three-fifths consensus. It’s not good if the country is virtually impossible to govern. Problems don’t stop mounting while we try and figure things out.” There’s been some talk lately about the effort to convince at least some Republicans to support health care reform, the way plenty of Republicans support Social Security and Medicare in previous generations. In those eras, the parties were closer together, and there were center-left GOP lawmakers from across the country who were amenable to outreach.

The thing is that we’ve always been polarized in various ways, just not politically — city/country, north/south, rich/poor, native born/immigrant, white/black. It’s just that there are times when our two party system doesn’t break down along those neat lines and basically represents two big tents comprising bits of each side of each divide. Indeed, we have that right now on some very important issues such as the high finance and national security. So the polarization is not really complete even in polarized times like these.

But we are polarized politically on much of our domestic policy, even as much as industry spends to buy off members of both parties. This is where the ideological/culture wars are played out in this country, even to the extent that we had a real live civil war over the most thorny polarizing issue in American history.
I think we actually have two different countries in many ways and when it breaks neatly into the two parties, as it would naturally tend to do at times, it creates gridlock if politicians fail to recognize the state of play and use it to their advantage instead of clinging to outmoded coalitions that no longer reflect anything meaningful.

The Republicans actually did that during the Bush years and had they not fallen prey to hubris and gross mismanagement, they could have lasted a bit longer. (Maybe that’s inevitable with a party that is based upon the idea that government is just another profit center, I don’t know.) But they did master the institutions and ran them in a partisan fashion and I’m not convinced that if they had had a president who had a genuine mandate (as opposed to a very dubious ascension to the office) and an administration that was not obsessed with fighting old wars and avenging old slights, they could have had a much more successful run. They understood power in ways that the Democrats don’t.

FDR did(and he sometimes overreached too, as we well know) but he did use the power of his mandate and his institutions completely and thoroughly and didn’t follow some irrelevant social models of propriety over effective governance. And the interesting thing about that graph is that during the depression, there was much less polarization.

Even more interesting is that this is the kind of thing the president was saying to the American people at the time:

For twelve years this Nation was afflicted with hear-nothing, see-nothing, do-nothing Government. The Nation looked to Government but the Government looked away. Nine mocking years with the golden calf and three long years of the scourge! Nine crazy years at the ticker and three long years in the breadlines! Nine mad years of mirage and three long years of despair! Powerful influences strive today to restore that kind of government with its doctrine that that Government is best which is most indifferent.

For nearly four years you have had an Administration which instead of twirling its thumbs has rolled up its sleeves. We will keep our sleeves rolled up.

We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace — business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me‹and I welcome their hatred.

I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master.

The American people know from a four-year record that today there is only one entrance to the White House by the front door. Since March 4, 1933, there has been only one pass-key to the White House. I have carried that key in my pocket. It is there tonight. So long as I am President, it will remain in my pocket.

You can’t help but wonder if people today heard a little more of that and little less bipartisan kumbaaya over high taxes for rich people and industry being “too big to fail,” if the polarization might just drop a bit. In fact, when you read that, you have to wonder the problem isn’t polarization at all, but whether the country just isn’t polarized in the right way.

.

Teach The Controversy

by dday

Ceci Connolly, well-known around these parts, has a “teach the controversy” article out today about the utter B.S. flung about on talk radio and promoted by serial liar Betsy McCaughey that the Democratic health care plan surreptitiously seeks to send roving verbal hit squads out to the sticks to talk the elderly into suicide. Connolly, in her role as a stenographer, dutifully transcribes the claims from all sides of the “debate”. In the second paragraph she gets close to actually explaining the language in the bill:

The controversy stems from a proposal to pay physicians who counsel elderly or terminally ill patients about what medical interventions they would prefer near the end of life and how to prepare instructions such as living wills. Under the plan, Medicare would reimburse doctors for one session every five years to confer with a patient about his or her wishes and how to ensure those preferences are followed. The counseling sessions would be voluntary.

That’s not even totally correct, I wouldn’t call Medicare covering end of life counseling a proposal to “pay physicians.” Unless you want to call Medicare covering hip surgery as a proposal to pay physicians to take out people’s hips.

You can read the provision right here. And the story could have ended there. But Connolly and her editors find it more exciting to give lots of space to those distorting the bill, without really coming down on one side or the other. The heading over Connolly’s articles on this subject say “Tracking the Health Care Debate.” I guess it’s someone else’s job to track the truth.

You know what would have been an interesting wrinkle in the article? Besides actually saying who’s right and who’s wrong, I mean. The tidbit that Sen. Susan Collins actually introduced this language back in the spring.

On May 22nd, Senators Collins and Jay Rockefeller introduced the “Advance Planning and Compassionate Care Act,” according to a press release sent over by a source. The measure provides Medicare funding “for advance care planning so that patients can routinely talk to their physicians about their wishes for end-of-life care,” the release says.

Collins praised the measure, which may be included in the Senate health care bill, in the release. “Our legislation will improve the way our health care system care for patients at the end of their lives,” she said, “and it will also facilitate appropriate discussions and individual autonomy in making decisions about end-of-life care.”

Maybe someone should ask Senator Collins whether she’s concerned that Federal funding for end of life consultations could result in “government-encouraged euthanasia,” as we keep hearing. Come to think of it, maybe I’ll ask her.

What a reporter like this would say is that they have a fact-check department, and they write articles about their fact-checking, and the point of this article is to highlight the “debate”. I don’t really understand how that illuminates much of anything. An article with the opening line “A campaign on late-night radio promoting theories that the Earth is flat and sailors fall off the side of the world just past the horizon have sparked fear among seafaring families” wouldn’t be particularly helpful to anyone. I do think Democrats have shown a basic unwillingness to decide whether to ignore B.S. like this and let it fester or attack it and give it more attention, but a journalist writing about it should probably make pretty clear that only one side is telling the truth. There is actually no convention of balance in journalism, that’s a recently invented altar upon which the modern press corps bends and prays.

.

The Comforting Violence Of Jack Bauer

by digby

Batocchio has posted another in his series of trenchant essays on the torture issue that is well worth reading if you are still struggling with understanding how we came to this place. Here’s just a short excerpt:

Movement conservatives’ public support for torture has contradicted even their own cherished mythology. The only constant has been their unyielding conviction in their own righteousness. Consider – they love to invoke WWII, if simplistically and inaccurately, yelling that every new threat is a new Hitler and anything less than belligerence is “appeasement.” Yet they ignore that during WWII, we prosecuted the same torture and abuses they’ve defended under Bush. The Cult of Saint Ronnie still worships the poor policy and cartoonish morality of Reagan denouncing the Soviet Union as an “evil empire.” (In his recent Reagan book, Will Bunch relates that Reagan himself regretted using the phrase, and later the far right accused Reagan of being Chamberlain for dealing with the Soviets.) Yet the torture program instituted under Bush borrowed directly from the hated Soviets. The key reason given for invading Iraq was that it had WMD and was an imminent threat, but Saddam Hussein was also depicted (fantastically) as the next Hitler and (accurately) as a dictator and torturer. The Hussein regime’s victims were invoked more often after the invasion as a way to browbeat Iraq critics. So how is it that what made Hussein evil became good when done by the United States? When Iraqi Muntadar al-Zaidi threw a show at Bush, several far-right conservatives approved of the broken hand and ribs he received in prison. As Roy Edroso quipped, “I always suspected that when they were denouncing Saddam’s torture chambers, they were just angry that they didn’t get to say who got tortured.”

I think that’s right. But I have to say that it’s purported Christians for whom I’ve lost the most respect in all this:

The disconnect from professed Christians on the torture “debate” is particularly astounding. Given how central the crucifixion story is to Christianity, and that it depicts Jesus tortured and then executed in one of the most cruel methods ever devised, it’s mind-boggling to see anyone claim that supporting torture and Christianity are compatible – or that Jesus would support waterboarding. According to Christian doctrine, Jesus’ suffering redeemed him and the world – but it’s not the Romans who Christians are supposed to emulate in the story! “Turn the other cheek,” “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” and “As you have done to the least of my brethren, so have you done unto me” are hardly pro-torture slogans. But in the hearts and minds of movement conservatives, not even Churchill, Saint Ronnie or Jesus himself can compete with the comforting violence of Jack Bauer.

Read the whole thing. It’s great.

.

Going Too Far

by digby

Howie Sez:

Do you know who pays for the racist campaign against Obama? GEICO, NutriSystems, Proctor & Gamble, and… United Postal Service. Yep, those are the advertisers who pay for the TV time so that deranged sociopath Glenn Beck can get up and spout his divisive hatred and racism. And today the top online civil rights group Color of Change urged its 600,000-plus members to petition companies who advertise on Glenn Beck’s radio and television shows to urge them to cut off their advertising on Beck’s programs. The mobilization comes after Beck called President Obama a “racist” who “has a deep-seated hatred for white people” during an appearance Tuesday on Fox and Friends.

Color of Change has also been urging CNN to fire their own racist shill, Lou Dobbs for his gratuitous birther campaign, which CNN irresponsibly uses to pump up lagging viewership.

“What Beck is doing is race-baiting at its worst, it’s dangerous and it’s hard to imagine any company wanting their brand associated with it,” said James Rucker of ColorOfChange.org. “Beck has now shown that his extreme views are more appropriate for a street corner than a major media program. He no longer deserves the backing of mainstream advertisers.”

I don’t even think they are appropriate for a street corner, but he does have a right to spout them. And likewise, people have a right to withhold their money from those who profit from such views.

Klein and Ailes needs to rein in these asses before they kill the golden gooses. Advertisers do have limits.

.

Astroforging

by dday

Creating fake grassroots organizations to show presumed local support for typically corporate initiatives is known as astroturfing. Corporate lobbies forging letters from local groups to show that same fake support should be called… I don’t know, astroforging?

As U.S. Rep. Tom Perriello was considering how to vote on an important piece of climate change legislation in June, the freshman congressman’s office received at least six letters from two Charlottesville-based minority organizations voicing opposition to the measure.

The letters, as it turns out, were forgeries.

“They stole our name. They stole our logo. They created a position title and made up the name of someone to fill it. They forged a letter and sent it to our congressman without our authorization,” said Tim Freilich, who sits on the executive committee of Creciendo Juntos, a nonprofit network that tackles issues related to Charlottesville’s Hispanic community. “It’s this type of activity that undermines Americans’ faith in democracy.”

The faked letter from Creciendo Juntos was signed by “Marisse K. Acevado, Asst Member Coordinator,” an identity and position at Creciendo Juntos that do not exist.

The person who sent the letter has not been identified, but he or she was employed by a Washington lobbying firm called Bonner & Associates.

Staffers found five forged letters of this type, including one from the local chapter of the NAACP, just in Perriello’s correspondence. So you know there are lots more. This seems like the uncovering of a scam that’s been going on for years. In fact, this company, Bonner & Associates, has been at this for decades. Ed Markey wants an investigation from his perch in the Global Warming subcommittee.

Obviously the power of lobbyists has grown so much to become completely divorced from the Constitutional dictate of petitioning government for redress of grievances. In addition to writing legislation, owning political campaigns and having politicians jump in and out of their companies, lobby shops more recently have taken to these deceptive techniques of aping grassroots activity. They have funded and supported the teabaggers, and they’re now offering training sessions on how to approach Congressional town hall meetings during the August recess.

• Artificially Inflate Your Numbers: “Spread out in the hall and try to be in the front half. The objective is to put the Rep on the defensive with your questions and follow-up. The Rep should be made to feel that a majority, and if not, a significant portion of at least the audience, opposes the socialist agenda of Washington.”

• Be Disruptive Early And Often: “You need to rock-the-boat early in the Rep’s presentation, Watch for an opportunity to yell out and challenge the Rep’s statements early.”

• Try To “Rattle Him,” Not Have An Intelligent Debate: “The goal is to rattle him, get him off his prepared script and agenda. If he says something outrageous, stand up and shout out and sit right back down. Look for these opportunities before he even takes questions.”

They are busing people around the country to different town halls. Sound like the Brooks Brothers riots to you? Members of Congress somehow still think these meetings reflect the considered opinions of constituents. They should look at Tom Perriello’s mail.

.