Morning Must Reads: June

  • Share
  • Read Later
151 comments
Richard Giles
Richard Giles

Psychologists tell us that 4% of the population are sociopaths, totally self-focused individuals without any conscience, and that a full 64% are followers, those led around by the manipulations of others, which leaves only 32% as self-thinking, conscience driven individuals, divided among all the possible biases.  When realizing that it then becomes rather easy to understand how “the money” can feel so cocky confident in their ability to spend their mega-millions to successfully con the people and manipulate public opinion.  Since the supreme court has ruled to allow “the money” to spend all they want, it is now only possible to compete by spending as much as they do - and “the money” is laughing all the way to the elections. 

Richard_im_Himmel_bei_Gott
Richard_im_Himmel_bei_Gott

 Is there any REAL American here who would vote for a guy who would

choose not to serve our country during a time of war based on religious

grounds, but would hold up a picket sign and march to demand that others

had to in his stead?  

  Just how well do you know your Presidential candidate, the Recycled Republicrap Reject from 2008?    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

53underscore3
53underscore3

Hmmm.

Looks like paulejb is up and about trying to do what he does every day:

Try to take over the world!

paulejb
paulejb

Damn! Obama is turning into Jimmy Carter right before our eyes.

'Obama: Most People "Would Acknowledge That I've Tried Real Hard" '

http://www.realclearpolitics.c... 

Now he is just pathetic.

paulejb
paulejb

"Out of College, Out of Work: Number of College Grads With Jobs Dropped 406,000 in June"

http://cnsnews.com/news/articl... 

Barack Obama's policies are not favorable to college grads and other living things.

paulejb
paulejb

The Obama War on Everybody continues apace.

"Disability Ranks Outpace New Jobs In Obama Recovery"

"More workers joined the federal government's disability program in June than got new jobs, according to two new government reports, a clear indicator of how bleak the nation's jobs picture is after three full years of economic recovery." 

http://news.investors.com/arti... 

rokinsteve
rokinsteve

jmac, I have heard this stuff since I was a teenager.  We are each related to a million people who lived in the past.  And we are all mixed.  It's been proven over and over.  I laugh at this or I'd go crazy.

 

rokinsteve
rokinsteve

outsider, Great post.  And there's millions like pap who would like to go back to those "bad ole days".  Get offa my lawn unless you're mowing it.

outsider2011
outsider2011

THIS is good news:

 

Grover Norquist Pledge Against Taxes Attracts Fewer Republican Candidates.

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Scott Rigell's (R-Va.) message for up-and-coming

Republicans would have been considered political heresy just two years

ago: You don't have to bow to Grover Norquist to win.

"My advice and counsel to 'Young Guns' would be to not sign the

Americans for Tax Reform pledge," the Virginia Republican told The

Huffington Post. The anti-tax oath authored by conservative activist

Norquist had, until recently, been signed by almost every Republican in

Congress or aspirant.

This election season is different. Rigell is one of dozens of GOP

challengers and incumbents who have declined, so far, to take the

Taxpayer Protection Pledge. Their objections range from personal to

political. But underneath is the belief that being locked into a pledge

to never support new revenues in a debt-reduction deal is unpalatable.

Just 45 of 83 of the Republican National Congressional Committee's

current crop of so-called Young Guns have signed the no-tax pledge this

election season, according to a Huffington Post analysis of pledge

signatures. During the 2010 midterm elections, 81 of 92 of that Young

Guns group signed the pledge. The Young Guns program was founded by GOP

leaders to promote and finance up-and-coming congressional candidates.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

outsider2011
outsider2011

This was pretty interesting:

 

Mark Twain invented Mitt

Healthcare, race, the Tea Party, the right

size of government: "Huck Finn" practically predicted the 2012 campaign.

On one side, a childhood bully with more money “than a body could

tell what to do with,” the product of religious fundamentalists, and an

individualist resentful toward bureaucracy and fearful of government. On

the other, the improbable hero of his own story, the son of an absentee

father, a born storyteller with a once-troubled youth. To see this

rivalry played out, you could go to any number of news sources. Or you

could go to one book. Because I’m not talking about Mitt Romney or

Barack Obama. I’m talking about a single character, a 13 - year - old boy

invented almost 130 years ago by Mark Twain.

Published in 1885

during Reconstruction, but set before the Civil War, “The Adventures of

Huckleberry Finn” might be the most nuanced and intelligent account of

the dual instincts of the American mind our literature has to offer. In

the voice of one unforgettable narrator — a confused but insightful,

unlawful but moral adolescent — Twain’s novel shows us more about our

complex and contradictory ideals about government, race, economics and

politics than just about any blog or radio show you’re likely to

encounter.

Concerned with the size and role of government? Start with this intoxicated, anti - federalist rant from Huck’s “pap”

“Call

this a govment!” he exclaims. “The law backs that old Judge Thatcher up

and helps him to keep me out o’ my property. A man can’t get his

rights in a govment like this”

It’s a sentiment we’ve heard

before from the Tea Party in arguments about tax reform, economic

inequality and corporate bailouts. Consider Glenn Beck, for example, in

2009 : “There is a coup going on. There is a stealing of America, and the

way it is done, it has been done through the guise of an election”

Then,

like some irate radio call-in guest, pap’s rant turns quickly racist:

“There was a free nig ger [in town] from Ohio; a mulater, most as white

as a white man, ” who, according to pap, has deprived him of wealth 

—“there ain’t a man in that town that’s got as fine clothes as what he

had”  — education and employment  —  “they said he was a p’ fessor in a

college” — and an electoral voice — “when they told me there was a State

in this country where they’d let that nig ger vote, I drawed out.”

We’ve

heard this before, too — the fear of a culture and government that

elevate a black man above his “station.” Remember Rush Limbaugh’s claim:

“If Obama weren’t black he’d be a tour guide in Honolulu”? Or Arizona

Secretary of State Ken Bennett’s recent demand that Hawaii disclose

Obama’s birth certificate before he strikes his name from the fall

ballot?

The

difference, though, is that Twain sends pap spilling over a tub of salt

pork immediately after his speech, making sure pap ultimately figures

as a comic character in the novel. Pap might take himself seriously, but

no careful reader can endorse his politics after seeing him take his

anger out on a dinner drum.

Even so, Twain is unwilling to let the

matter be resolved swiftly. Elsewhere, the novel criticizes government

authority and excess in earnest, even in the plot itself. The novel is,

after all, the story of an escaped slave and a poor orphan coming to

terms with their humanity in the absence of civil constraint. Their

friendship is enabled precisely by Huck’s disregard for the law. In as

much as we’re rooting for Huck and Jim to get away, we’re also rooting

for the arm of the law not to intervene.

In another

passage, Jim himself raises concerns over government’s reach. To pass

the time, Huck is telling Jim stories about “kings, and dukes, and

earls, and such.” But when Huck gets to the story of King Solomon, Jim

stops him short to explain how he missed the point. The moral, according

to Jim, isn’t about a good mother and a bad one. It’s about the limits

of power. In short, it’s a libertarian parable. A man in possession of

only a couple of children, he explains, “know how to value ‘em,” but a

king overseeing “five million chillen runnin’ roun’ de house, en it’s

diffunt. He as soon chop a chile in two as a cat.” The

implication being that matters of private life shouldn’t be left to

large government bodies.

Huck later comes around to Jim’s point of view. “Sometimes,” he says, “I wish we could hear of a country that’s out of kings.”

But

for all Huck’s speechifying, he actually trusts and respects authority.

In order to hide money from his thieving father, Huck entrusts all his

riches to Judge Thatcher, who then establishes a kind of CD that pays a

respectable dollar a day in dividends. Because Huck neither trusts his

father nor himself with the money, the novel’s chief figure of authority

— indeed the book’s only government official — must intervene where the

individual has failed. He protects those who can’t protect themselves.

He assumes financial responsibility for the poor. And we come to regard

Judge Thatcher and his office as a necessary indemnity against financial

ruin. He figures as both a regulatory committee and a kind of safety

net — perhaps the role Chief Justice John Roberts claimed for himself as

the deciding vote in the Supreme Court’s healthcare decision.

What

about the economy? Well, there’s plenty of that, too. In addition to

pap’s fears about government largess, his screed about the freed slave

from Ohio suggests an innate fear of social and economic displacement.

Like some anti-immigration hard-liners, he feels disenfranchised by the

emancipation of others and believes another man’s financial

opportunities (a non-white’s, that is) are detrimental to his livelihood

(never mind the fact that the man in question holds a position pap

could never achieve). His nativist tirade could be pulled straight from

the pages of NumbersUSA, or a Lou Dobbs broadcast. Remember Dobbs

saying, “The invasion of illegal aliens is threatening the health of

many Americans”? It’s hard not to picture pap first in line to hear that

quip.

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/0...

outsider2011
outsider2011

Interesting:

 

Mark Twain invented Mitt

Healthcare, race, the Tea Party, the right

size of government: "Huck Finn" practically predicted the 2012 campaign.

On one side, a childhood bully with more money “than a body could

tell what to do with,” the product of religious fundamentalists, and an

individualist resentful toward bureaucracy and fearful of government. On

the other, the improbable hero of his own story, the son of an absentee

father, a born storyteller with a once-troubled youth. To see this

rivalry played out, you could go to any number of news sources. Or you

could go to one book. Because I’m not talking about Mitt Romney or

Barack Obama. I’m talking about a single character, a 13-year-old boy

invented almost 130 years ago by Mark Twain.

Published in 1885

during Reconstruction, but set before the Civil War, “The Adventures of

Huckleberry Finn” might be the most nuanced and intelligent account of

the dual instincts of the American mind our literature has to offer. In

the voice of one unforgettable narrator — a confused but insightful,

unlawful but moral adolescent — Twain’s novel shows us more about our

complex and contradictory ideals about government, race, economics and

politics than just about any blog or radio show you’re likely to

encounter.

Concerned with the size and role of government? Start with this intoxicated, anti-federalist rant from Huck’s “pap.”

“Call

this a govment!” he exclaims. “The law backs that old Judge Thatcher up

and helps him to keep me out o’ my property … A man can’t get his

rights in a govment like this.”

It’s a sentiment we’ve heard

before from the Tea Party in arguments about tax reform, economic

inequality and corporate bailouts. Consider Glenn Beck, for example, in

2009: “There is a coup going on. There is a stealing of America, and the

way it is done, it has been done through … the guise of an election.”

Then,

like some irate radio call-in guest, pap’s rant turns quickly racist:

“There was a free ni gger [in town] from Ohio; a mulater, most as white

as a white man,” who, according to pap, has deprived him of wealth 

—“there ain’t a man in that town that’s got as fine clothes as what he

had” — education and employment  — “they said he was a p’fessor in a

college” — and an electoral voice — “when they told me there was a State

in this country where they’d let that nigger vote, I drawed out.”

We’ve

heard this before, too — the fear of a culture and government that

elevate a black man above his “station.” Remember Rush Limbaugh’s claim:

“If Obama weren’t black he’d be a tour guide in Honolulu”? Or Arizona

Secretary of State Ken Bennett’s recent demand that Hawaii disclose

Obama’s birth certificate before he strikes his name from the fall

ballot?

The difference, though, is that Twain sends pap spilling over a tub

of salt pork immediately after his speech, making sure pap ultimately

figures as a comic character in the novel. Pap might take himself

seriously, but no careful reader can endorse his politics after seeing

him take his anger out on a dinner drum.

Even so, Twain is

unwilling to let the matter be resolved swiftly. Elsewhere, the novel

criticizes government authority and excess in earnest, even in the plot

itself. The novel is, after all, the story of an escaped slave and a

poor orphan coming to terms with their humanity in the absence of civil

constraint. Their friendship is enabled precisely by Huck’s disregard

for the law. In as much as we’re rooting for Huck and Jim to get away,

we’re also rooting for the arm of the law not to intervene.

In

another passage, Jim himself raises concerns over government’s reach.

To pass the time, Huck is telling Jim stories about “kings, and dukes,

and earls, and such.” But when Huck gets to the story of King Solomon,

Jim stops him short to explain how he missed the point. The moral,

according to Jim, isn’t about a good mother and a bad one. It’s about

the limits of power. In short, it’s a libertarian parable. A man in

possession of only a couple of children, he explains, “know how to value

‘em,” but a king overseeing “five million chillen runnin’ roun’ de

house, en it’s diffunt. He as soon chop a chile in two as a

cat.” The implication being that matters of private life shouldn’t be

left to large government bodies.

Huck later comes around to Jim’s point of view. “Sometimes,” he says, “I wish we could hear of a country that’s out of kings.”

But

for all Huck’s speechifying, he actually trusts and respects authority.

In order to hide money from his thieving father, Huck entrusts all his

riches to Judge Thatcher, who then establishes a kind of CD that pays a

respectable dollar a day in dividends. Because Huck neither trusts his

father nor himself with the money, the novel’s chief figure of authority

— indeed the book’s only government official — must intervene where the

individual has failed. He protects those who can’t protect themselves.

He assumes financial responsibility for the poor. And we come to regard

Judge Thatcher and his office as a necessary indemnity against financial

ruin. He figures as both a regulatory committee and a kind of safety

net — perhaps the role Chief Justice John Roberts claimed for himself as

the deciding vote in the Supreme Court’s healthcare decision.

What

about the economy? Well, there’s plenty of that, too. In addition to

pap’s fears about government largess, his screed about the freed slave

from Ohio suggests an innate fear of social and economic displacement.

Like some anti-immigration hard-liners, he feels disenfranchised by the

emancipation of others and believes another man’s financial

opportunities (a non-white’s, that is) are detrimental to his livelihood

(never mind the fact that the man in question holds a position pap

could never achieve). His nativist tirade could be pulled straight from

the pages of NumbersUSA, or a Lou Dobbs broadcast. Remember Dobbs

saying, “The invasion of illegal aliens is threatening the health of

many Americans”? It’s hard not to picture pap first in line to hear that

quip.

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/0...

chupkar
chupkar

Re: Freeman. I guess technically he is right but it's kind of missing the broader point of he is a brown skinned people. That's really where prejudice lies. Not in lineage.

jmac
jmac

Obama isn't American's first black president, says the adorable, freckled-faced Morgan Freeman, who's obviously not black.   Wonder if Michelle Obama would qualify as the first black president?   How far back should we go?   But ideologically he could make a point - both LBJ and Clinton  would qualify as nearer to black than Obama.  

rokinsteve
rokinsteve

If a true Marxist from the past could teleport to 2012 he would think he was in a cartoon and die laughing at all the Kenyan-born Marxist-in-Chief nonsense. 

MomentoMori
MomentoMori

paulie's CONSTANTLY predicting the end of something. It's what he does. He's a nihilist, looking for something to annihilate.

53underscore3
53underscore3

20,000 jobs short of the projected 100,000 and paulejb is gleefully predicting the End Of The World As We Know It.

MomentoMori
MomentoMori

"He said that each day was a new day for him and he tries to do something good on each day."

Words to live by. Happy 77th Birthday to Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/...

Ivy_B
Ivy_B

Adam, link to potential Democratic super PAC donors doesn't work.

rokinsteve
rokinsteve

I feel a disturbance in the farce.  Darth Mitt still has a sore rump from the healthcare and the Death Ray backfired on Darth Murdoch.  Burnt toast?    

outsider2011
outsider2011

The Penalty Box

The Romney campaign is struggling to get on-message on health care—a week after the decision.

Republicans may have renewed reason to think well of Chief Justice

John Roberts. Mitt Romney argued Wednesday that Roberts' Supreme Court

ruling uncovered Barack Obama's hidden tax in the Affordable Care Act

while simultaneously proving that Romney's similarly designed measure in

his Massachusetts health care law was not a tax, but merely a penalty. 

Did Roberts do this? Not really, but Romney’s novel claim offered the

latest twist in a winding series of responses to the ruling. The last

week has offered a rare window into the Romney campaign in action.

Buttoned-down and risk-averse, the team is slow to react and sticks to

the script so strictly they’re even willing to endure ridicule. Those

can be highly prized qualities in presidential campaigns. The presidency

requires relentless focus, too. But politics and the presidency also

require a certain dexterity, an ability to be nimble in the face of

changing events.

A blistering editorial from the conservative editors at the Wall Street Journal

argues that the Romney campaign has failed to get this mix right,

particularly in its response to the court’s Affordable Care Act ruling.

Bill Kristol, who was just a guest at Romney’s high-donor event in Utah,

has also penned a bracing piece asking: “Is it too much to ask Mitt

Romney to get off autopilot and actually think about the race he's

running?”

The conservative complaint, which started brewing in the wake of Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s recall victory, is that Romney lacks the entrepreneurial spark to take advantage of opportunities and is merely hoping the other guy loses.

Romney’s July 4 remarks on the health care decision represented an

effort to get back on track: aligning himself with his party and eliding

the challenges of his record in Massachusetts.

When John Roberts’ health care ruling was read on June 28, Romney’s

response was perfectly in keeping with his straightforward

no-exposed-shirttail campaign. Romney spoke in front of a lectern,

disagreed with the ruling and the campaign commenced arguing that

Obama’s health care plan would kill jobs, moving back to the Republican

nominee’s safest and most advantageous turf.

But that was the easy part. It was clear from conversations with

campaign aides in the wake of the ruling that there was no plan to

manage or respond to Romney’s exposure on the question of his

Massachusetts health plan—particularly the provision that was nearly

identical to President Obama’s. When one aide was presented with a 2010 quote

from Romney praising his Massachusetts “tax,” he questioned whether

Romney really said that. Offered evidence, the aide responded:

“Possibly.” In the week since the decision, the lack of focus is

reminiscent of Romney’s muddled response during the primaries to

questions about his tax returns and record at Bain. All of these

questions are issues the campaign could see coming. Romney’s exposure on

health care is the largest of all—a storm that has always been on the

horizon.

Romney’s immediate response may have been disciplined, but it was

tone deaf to what the party was thinking and saying. Republicans had

seized on John Roberts’ reasoning in his decision that the individual

mandate is constitutional based on Congress' power to tax. President

Obama, delighted as he was to have his signature legislative

accomplishment saved from the shredder, has steadfastly argued that this

provision is not a tax, but a penalty. It may have been a tax for the

purposes of the Supreme Court debate that kept the law alive, but once

the law stumbled from behind the marble columns, it was a penalty.

Republicans laughed at this reasoning and enjoyed watching White House officials and allies try to explain the distinction. The laughter was in unison until Monday when Eric Fehrnstrom, a senior Romney aide, said that the candidate disagreed with Republicans and agreed with the president: The provision should be considered a penalty.

Why on earth would he do this? Intellectual honesty might be a reason. Fehrnstrom, the aide who introduced the Etch A Sketch analogy into the campaign, was manifestly not wiping away Romney’s past. He was accepting that it was indelible. Romney had a nearly similar provision in his Massachusetts health care law which he had repeatedly called a tax. If Romney were to call Obama's penalty a tax, he would have to own up to his own measure being defined that way.

http://www.slate.com/articles/...

outsider2011
outsider2011

Typical GOP hypocrisy.

 

When Romney spun bad jobs numbers

As governor, Mitt Romney asked not to be

held to standard he's holding Obama to today.

When Mitt Romney inevitably slams President Obama later today

regardless of how good or bad the new jobs report is, he’ll likely say

something along the lines of how  the president needs to stop making

excuses about inheriting a down economy.

But when Romney himself

was running a government, in his case the state of Massachusetts, he was

even more defensive about his lack of control of the employment picture

than Obama is today. A new video

unearthed by the liberal research group American Bridge shows Romney at

a press conference in June 2006 admonishing reporters

on disappointing jobs data. “You guys are bright enough to look at the

numbers. I came in and the jobs had been just falling right off a cliff,

I came in and they kept falling for 11 months,” he explains.

“And

if you are going to suggest to me that somehow the day I got elected,

somehow jobs should have immediately turned around, well that would be

silly. It takes awhile to get things turned around. We were in a

recession, we were losing jobs every month,” he added.

The argument that he accused reporters of making unfairly in 2006 is

almost identical the argument Romney makes today against Obama — that

the president should have turned around the economy from day one, and

that the chief executive should be held responsible for disappointing

job growth. Romney has suggested this year that he wouldn’t be satisfied

with the president unless the economy was creating 500,000 jobs

per month (an absurd number), but as governor, he suggested a different

standard. “I’m very pleased that over the last a two, two and a half,

years we’ve seen pretty consistent job growth,” he said during the press

conference. Slow, steady growth could be said about Obama’s record as

well, which has seen consistent growth every month, though slower than

anyone would like.

In fact, while Romney said in 2006 that he

shouldn’t be blamed him for the 11 months of jobs losses at the

beginning of his single term as governor, Obama’s record was almost

identical. The president saw  job losses lessening during his first

months in office before finally turning positive 12 months out.

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/0...

MomentoMori
MomentoMori

 

over 758,000 registered voters in Pennsylvania — representing 9.2

percent of the state’s 8.2 million registered voters — do not have photo

identification cards from the state Transportation Department, based on

a comparison between voter registration rolls and the Transportation

Department database.

It's not about maintaining the integrity of the vote, It was NEVER about maintaining the integrity of the vote.

It's all about rigging the vote, because the GOP knows it can't win fairly.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpoi...