Morning Must Reads: Tack

  • Share
  • Read Later

514 comments
rokinsteve
rokinsteve

jsfox, I wish you a fast recovery.  I've been off Swampland for a week but I'm spending the day catching up while my captured trolls make Mr. Wimpy dolls.  What fun!

rokinsteve
rokinsteve

sacredh, I'm spending the day catching up on swampland while my captured trolls make Mr. Wimpy dolls.  What fun! 

NP042
NP042

Stupid disqus - moved the post

NP042
NP042

Paulie:

You mean I didn't answer the question the way you wanted me to answer it. That always makes you libs start bouncing off the walls.

____

No, you didn't.  And no, you don't.

About the only reaction you elicit is howling laughter.

ahandout
ahandout

IFFY, Willie Brown admits that he "was too generous" in order to get re-elected.  He used his power and his office to give away California to advance his career and guarantee the election of Dems.  You can read it in the article I posted.  You might have to take a remedial class first, but our broken public school system is there for you.

paulejb
paulejb

MrObvious,

"It's very ironic that someone as historically illiterate like yourself tells other that they don't know anything about it."

-------------------------------------------'

This from a chump who believes that history began with the inauguration of Barack Obama on January 20, 2009.

paulejb
paulejb

NP042,

"You didn't answer the question."

-------------------------------------------

 You mean I didn't answer the question the way you wanted me to answer it. That always makes you libs start bouncing off the walls.   

paulejb
paulejb

Ifthethunder...

"California's been going down the tubes since Prop 13 in 1978"

-------------------------------------------

Typical lib! Blame the voters who were tired of having their earnings confiscated by greedy politicians. 

It wasn't Prop 13.

IT'S THE SPENDING, STUPID!

paulejb
paulejb

outsider2011,

"We all comment."

------------------------------------

Indeed, you do. Although why you bother is a puzzle. It is as if you can't help yourselves from blurting out idiocies.  

paulejb
paulejb

outsider2011,

 "So the execs who made the selfish and bad decisions that lead to financial ruin, they would have been fine"

-----------------------------------------------

All the bums in management who caved into UAW demands deserve to go, as do all the excessive union pay and bennies that they handed out like candy.

paulejb
paulejb

bobell,

"So you oppose the Romney tax plan, which would increase federal income tax on all income earners below the top 2 percent or so?"

------------------------------------------------

Do I agree with liberal fantasies, bobell? Hardly.

paulejb
paulejb

ifthethunder...

"How much skin in the game does Rmoney have?"

----------------------------------------------

Typical lib. Green with envy over anyone who has a nickel more than they do. That's just greed, If.

outsider2011
outsider2011

 

Ignore the gaffes. They'll soon be forgotten, and they don't matter

anyway. The real problem with Mitt Romney's trip to Europe wasn't that

he sounded less than convinced about the London Olympics or that he gave

short shrift to Palestinian culture. The problem was that the very idea

of this particular trip—where he went and who he met, at least in

Europe—was based on an outdated and increasingly misleading narrative

about U.S. foreign policy.

In Britain and Poland, at least, Romney appeared to think he was

paying visits to allies who are deeply disappointed by Barack Obama and

who long for a return of American leadership in the form of a new George

W. Bush—or, even better—a new Ronald Reagan. He imagined he would find

soul mates in the British Tory party, just as Republicans used to do

long ago. He imagined that Poles, freshly released from communism, would all thrill to a speech about John Paul II, Solidarity, Lech Walesa, and the Cold War.

He was wrong. Yes, many abroad are disappointed with Obama, and yes,

this administration has made a number of awkward mistakes with Europe, and with Poland in particular.

Yes, those Romney met—again, Poles in particular—were flattered that he

came, and they appreciated the speech. Contrary to media reports, he

made a good impression on the politicians he met, everywhere.

Advertisement

But Romney, or perhaps his advisers, doesn't seem to realize that the

disillusionment with U.S. leadership in Europe isn't solely the product

of the current administration. "New Europe"—the British, the Spanish,

the Italians, the Central Europeans, the pro-American "coalition of the

willing," the countries that supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq in

defiance of France and Germany—was a concept that fell apart a few years

after its formation.

Having attained the support of these allies in 2003, the Bush

administration, not its successors, ignored them, failed to reward or

acknowledge them, and then bungled the Iraqi "occupation" so badly that

they all suffered political setbacks at home. Tony Blair's loyalty to

the United States in Iraq is remembered, in Britain, as a great stain on

his record, not as a moment of triumph and glory. The U.S.-Polish

negotiations over the missile defense program are remembered for the

broken promises made in the Bush years as well as more recent policy

changes. Full disclosure: I am married to the Polish foreign minister.

But I wouldn't need to ask him about this disillusionment, because it's

been all over the Polish newspapers for years.

As for the Tories, this is a political party whose leader supports

gay marriage and fears global warming, whose constituents are fully

committed to the National Health Service, which is far more centralized

and government-dominated than anything ever imagined by Obama. As a

result, the U.S. political debate sounds strange and faraway in Britain.

The Republican primary seemed utterly mystifying.

That distance helps explain the lack of coverage this year in Britain

of the presidential campaign. The British press used to follow American

campaigns with the same who's-up, who's-down horse-race excitement as

the American press itself. That isn't happening at the moment, and

although interest will surely pick up as we come into the homestretch, I

don't think it's going to be what it was, not in Britain and not

anywhere else.

Even foreigners now understand that an American president has only a

limited ability to change the course of U.S. foreign policy. Obama's

most important decisions abroad—in Afghanistan, in Iraq—aren't so very

different from those Bush or Romney would make. More important,

foreigners understand that the world is changing and that while the

United States is still the world's strongest power, it isn't the world's

only power. Europeans are just as concerned about their own internal

alliances, about their relationships with the emerging countries in the

rest of the world—Brazil and India as well as China—and about their own

complicated relations with Russia, still a major economic power on their

continent by virtue of its gas reserves. They can't dismiss Russia, as

Romney did, as nothing but a "geopolitical foe."

Indeed, they aren't interested in any of the rhetoric that gets

thrown around during American election campaigns, because it doesn't

really matter. Everyone knows that a new president will eventually

change his tone—as Clinton did, as Bush did—whether it takes one year or

four. So yes, there is disappointment abroad with Obama. But it doesn't

matter as much as Romney's campaign team thinks.

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

outsider2011
outsider2011

 

On Monday, Tucker Carlson’s conservative politics website, the Daily Caller, was hacked, its front-page ads replaced with po rn.

Not one to miss an opportunity for additional publicity, the site has

responded by making the hack the subject of a contest. The first person

to track down the hacker responsible wins a free 9mm handgun.

The gun giveaway isn’t new—this is actually the 11th weekly installment of the D.C.-based website’s Second Amendment-celebrating stunt, which is slated to continue until the Nov. 6 presidential election. What’s new is that the Daily Caller is actually requiring readers to work for their weapon this week. Catching hackers isn’t always a simple task.

And the contest raises a question: Are the type of people who possess

the skills to track down a hacker also the type of people who would be

motivated by a free gun? Intuition suggests that most cybersecurity

geeks prefer to use zeros and ones as weapons. For that matter, how many

skilled hackers are reading the Daily Caller at all?

The guess here is that the site will have more luck with its other

hacker-related gun giveaway—an essay contest that asks readers to

describe what the Daily Caller should do with the hacker once

it finds him (the site apparently assumes the culprit is male). Revenge

fantasies—now that’s something at which I can well imagine the site’s

readers will excel.

http://swampland.time.com/2012...

outsider2011
outsider2011

 

On Monday, Tucker Carlson’s conservative politics website, the Daily Caller, was hacked, its front-page ads replaced with porn.

Not one to miss an opportunity for additional publicity, the site has

responded by making the hack the subject of a contest. The first person

to track down the hacker responsible wins a free 9mm handgun.

The gun giveaway isn’t new—this is actually the 11th weekly installment of the D.C.-based website’s Second Amendment-celebrating stunt, which is slated to continue until the Nov. 6 presidential election. What’s new is that the Daily Caller is actually requiring readers to work for their weapon this week. Catching hackers isn’t always a simple task.

And the contest raises a question: Are the type of people who possess

the skills to track down a hacker also the type of people who would be

motivated by a free gun? Intuition suggests that most cybersecurity

geeks prefer to use zeros and ones as weapons. For that matter, how many

skilled hackers are reading the Daily Caller at all?

The guess here is that the site will have more luck with its other

hacker-related gun giveaway—an essay contest that asks readers to

describe what the Daily Caller should do with the hacker once

it finds him (the site apparently assumes the culprit is male). Revenge

fantasies—now that’s something at which I can well imagine the site’s

readers will excel.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/fut...

outsider2011
outsider2011

 

HARRISBURG, Pa.—For the last six business days, on the third floor of

the shiny new Pennsylvania Judicial Center, government witnesses and

attorneys have waged a daily competition. Who can give the

least-convincing defense of the state’s voter ID law? Who gets to utter

the killer quote that makes the petitioners’ case in Applewhite v. Pennsylvania?

It should be tough to bungle. The new law, passed by state Republican legislators last year, is backed by at least 58 percent of voters. That’s after months of gut-punch headlines—“Justice Department Investigates Pennsylvania Voter ID Law,” “Why Pennsylvania’s Voter ID Law Will Create Chaos on Election Day,” and “Pennsylvania Admits There’s No In-Person Voter Fraud.” And that last headline wasn’t even true.

On July 25, the start of hearings on a possible injunction against the

law, a lawyer from the attorney general’s office had to explain that the

state had merely decided to bracket voter-fraud stories and leave them out of the trial.

“That is not a concession … that voter fraud has not happened,” said Deputy Attorney General Patrick Cawley.

“It is a recognition that the legal standard governing these

proceedings simply does not require the legislature to have proof of

such incidents in order to enact a voter ID law.”

Got that? The state is not trying to warm Sean Hannity’s heart with angry talk

about ACORN. It’s only trying to defend how the new ID law has been

implemented and to prove that it meets equal-protection standards. And

the state is not quite getting there.

Cawley’s opening statement set that tone. When, he asked, was it ever

unreasonable to demand ID? “Boarding a plane, conducting financial

transactions, and entering government buildings without a photo ID is

virtually unthinkable in 2012,” he said. “You walk around this very city

at lunch time and you see photo IDs dangling around people's necks or

clipped to their belts.”

But there’s a difference between an ID for work and an ID requirement

at the polls.

Easy-swipe access to the office doesn’t affect the

“privileges or immunities of citizens.” Access to the vote does.

The anti-ID coalition in Pennsylvania—the local NAACP, the League of

Women Voters, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Public Interest

Law Center of Philadelphia—has been calling witnesses who can’t get IDs

for picayune reasons or witnesses who can prove the state is making

people pay $ 13.50 for ID cards when those cards should be free. During

the hearings, the lawyers not currently arguing the case sit in benches

behind the counsel’s table and pass notes to ensure that nothing goes

unasked.

The government’s witnesses and attorneys don’t have armadas behind

them. Not in the courtroom, anyway. Instead, they gamely argue the facts

of the law then get trapped in logic holes, as presiding Judge Robert Simpson looks on,

poker-faced. On Monday, the petitioners managed to drag David Burgess,

deputy secretary for planning and service delivery, into a discussion of

mismatched state voter databases. Attorney Marian Schneider got Burgess

to count up all of the discrepancies, voter by voter, without context.

“Adding these three numbers together,” she said, “the 758,000 that

you publicly disclosed don't match, plus the 130,000 that did not

actually match, plus the 574,000 whose ID is expired and won't be valid

for voting today—adding all three of those together equals 1,463,758?”

“That's correct,” said Burgess.

“So your analysis shows that there's 1,463,758 voters who don't have an ID that is valid for voting, is that right?”

“Today, correct,” said Burgess, agreeing to a higher possible number of disqualified voters than the state has ever contemplated.

The state’s attorneys steered the ship around, getting Burgess to

explain that the discrepancies were “primarily [due to] differences in

the names” on various lists. But the petitioners had proven that the

people who would enforce the law are still struggling with how to

discuss its specifics. That story repeated itself on Tuesday when the

petitioners got to quiz the secretary of the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania, Carol Aichele.

Aichele was no naïf. She arrived in Harrisburg in January 2011 as a

new member of Gov. Tom Corbett’s Republican administration. Her husband,

Steve, became the state’s new general counsel and later Corbett’s chief of staff. She took command of the state’s voting systems. David Gersch, a Washington-based attorney who’s gotten to handle several of the most important witnesses, was able to rattle her anyway.

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

ahandout
ahandout

 Legendary American humorist Will Rogers used to say:

If I make a joke, people laugh.

But if Congress makes a joke, it’s a law.

And when they make a law, it’s a joke.

Mark Twain had this to say about Congress:

It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.

outsider2011
outsider2011

 

HARRISBURG, Pa.—For the last six business days, on the third floor of

the shiny new Pennsylvania Judicial Center, government witnesses and

attorneys have waged a daily competition. Who can give the

least-convincing defense of the state’s voter ID law? Who gets to utter

the killer quote that makes the petitioners’ case in Applewhite v. Pennsylvania?

It should be tough to bungle. The new law, passed by state Republican legislators last year, is backed by at least 58 percent of voters. That’s after months of gut-punch headlines—“Justice Department Investigates Pennsylvania Voter ID Law,” “Why Pennsylvania’s Voter ID Law Will Create Chaos on Election Day,” and “Pennsylvania Admits There’s No In-Person Voter Fraud.” And that last headline wasn’t even true.

On July 25, the start of hearings on a possible injunction against the

law, a lawyer from the attorney general’s office had to explain that the

state had merely decided to bracket voter-fraud stories and leave them out of the trial.

“That is not a concession … that voter fraud has not happened,” said Deputy Attorney General Patrick Cawley.

“It is a recognition that the legal standard governing these

proceedings simply does not require the legislature to have proof of

such incidents in order to enact a voter ID law.”

Advertisement

Got that? The state is not trying to warm Sean Hannity’s heart with angry talk

about ACORN. It’s only trying to defend how the new ID law has been

implemented and to prove that it meets equal-protection standards. And

the state is not quite getting there.

Cawley’s opening statement set that tone. When, he asked, was it ever

unreasonable to demand ID? “Boarding a plane, conducting financial

transactions, and entering government buildings without a photo ID is

virtually unthinkable in 2012,” he said. “You walk around this very city

at lunch time and you see photo IDs dangling around people's necks or

clipped to their belts.”

But there’s a difference between an ID for work and an ID requirement

at the polls. Easy-swipe access to the office doesn’t affect the

“privileges or immunities of citizens.” Access to the vote does.

The anti-ID coalition in Pennsylvania—the local NAACP, the League of

Women Voters, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Public Interest

Law Center of Philadelphia—has been calling witnesses who can’t get IDs

for picayune reasons or witnesses who can prove the state is making

people pay $13.50 for ID cards when those cards should be free. During

the hearings, the lawyers not currently arguing the case sit in benches

behind the counsel’s table and pass notes to ensure that nothing goes

unasked.

The government’s witnesses and attorneys don’t have armadas behind

them. Not in the courtroom, anyway. Instead, they gamely argue the facts

of the law then get trapped in logic holes, as presiding Judge Robert Simpson looks on,

poker-faced. On Monday, the petitioners managed to drag David Burgess,

deputy secretary for planning and service delivery, into a discussion of

mismatched state voter databases. Attorney Marian Schneider got Burgess

to count up all of the discrepancies, voter by voter, without context.

“Adding these three numbers together,” she said, “the 758,000 that

you publicly disclosed don't match, plus the 130,000 that did not

actually match, plus the 574,000 whose ID is expired and won't be valid

for voting today—adding all three of those together equals 1,463,758?”

“That's correct,” said Burgess.

“So your analysis shows that there's 1,463,758 voters who don't have an ID that is valid for voting, is that right?”

“Today, correct,” said Burgess, agreeing to a higher possible number of disqualified voters than the state has ever contemplated.

The state’s attorneys steered the ship around, getting Burgess to

explain that the discrepancies were “primarily [due to] differences in

the names” on various lists. But the petitioners had proven that the

people who would enforce the law are still struggling with how to

discuss its specifics. That story repeated itself on Tuesday when the

petitioners got to quiz the secretary of the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania, Carol Aichele.

Aichele was no naïf. She arrived in Harrisburg in January 2011 as a

new member of Gov. Tom Corbett’s Republican administration. Her husband,

Steve, became the state’s new general counsel and later Corbett’s chief of staff. She took command of the state’s voting systems. David Gersch, a Washington-based attorney who’s gotten to handle several of the most important witnesses, was able to rattle her anyway.

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

ahandout
ahandout

 Willie Brown, former Assembly Speaker for the former great state of California, describes how Democrats destroyed the state.

Says getting re-elected was more

important

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Willie Brown: Architect Of A Money

Meltdown?

Reporting

Pallas Hupé

SAN FRANCISCO (CBS13) ―

He is one of the most recognizable politicians in the state: former Assembly

Speaker Willie Brown. He helped create the California you live in today but

does he take credit for the bad along with the good? His frank answers in a

sit-down interview were more than a little surprising.

"I may have been one of the key architects of many of the things that have

created a challenge for my successors," Brown admitted during his

interview.

Architect may be a fitting word. This is the man who helped draw up the

blueprints for the 21st century California government.

Every week he holds court in the same corner booth in a San Francisco restaurant. It's a

perfect place to be seen and people watch - with people walking by the open

window where Brown sit and is visible from the sidewalk. It is also a place

where, on the day of the interview, belly dancers slink around the tables of

the intimate but eclectic establishment. Still, the clang of their finger

cymbals don't detract from a good game of dice played by Brown and his regular

guests.

"That's the best hand we've seen today," says Brown, who undaunted,

rolls another round...no longer taking changes with state's money but vying for

a cut of the lunch bill.

Eventually, the man who was once one of the most powerful people in the

state speaks - and makes some powerful statements about the unforeseen consequences

of his political decisions.

"In the world of politics we don't think in these terms," Brown says

of the political decisions in the Statehouse. "We think very short-range:

how can they be helpful in getting us re-elected. Period."

It's a very bold admission from a man with a deep history here in California. It's been 15 years

since Willie Brown left the Statehouse. In that time, the state saw

unprecedented growth both in California's businesses and in

its housing market. He also oversaw the expansion of the state government and

the protection of its employees.

"I had actually participated in moving legislation to reduce the

retirement age for teachers and I did it with great pride and I created it in

my resume as one of my great achievements."

He also realizes, though, that he helped set up the problems we see today:

state IOU's, furlough Fridays, and layoffs on a scale the state has never

before had to face.

"Nobody took the time to do the analysis that would have persuaded us we

needed to add money to make it work," says Brown.

Before his time, state jobs were almost entry-level, nearly blue collar in

their description. Now, those workers are protected civil servants with the

same benefits as the private sector. It's a change Brown now believes was

short-sighted, even self-serving. He freely admits that he benefitted with a 15

year run as speaker and a long political career. Still, he doesn't believe

politicians deserve ALL the blame. He puts some of the blame on us, the voters.

"The public is equally guilty," he says emphatically, "we are

equally guilty of being generous, literally to a fault with retirees."

Beyond that he won't commit to any answers about how to fix what's NOT working

because he believes that you have to play the hand you're dealt. He's far from

apologizing for what he did, either.

"I think politicians should never apologize for making a decision based on

new knowledge, superior knowledge, or better ideas."

The biggest challenges he sees? Under-funded education, refusal to raise taxes

and a resistance to cut programs in a legislature he believes is hamstrung by

term limits. What he sees most threatening of all, though, is what he calls a

ticking time bomb: retiree benefits for state workers.

"Job security, zero requirement on the performance side, longevity or

seniority for a promotion," counts out Brown speaking about some of the

concerns regarding state workers. "So when we said we're going to start

making you comparable [to the private sector], we didn't move it all. So it was

half done? It was less than a half - less than half!"

When asked what he most regrets about his time in Sacramento?

"Not being as attentive to the long-range implications of some of the

policies that I advocated."

 

paulejb
paulejb

bobell,

"Paule -- I'd like to see you try to live on income at the level of those who pay no federal income tax."

-----------------------------------------------------

"Q: But almost half the filers don't pay federal income tax. How come?

A: It's because of the way the tax code is written. In 2010, a married couple filing jointly didn't have to pay any income taxes if their income was less than $18,700; couples older than 65, if their income was $20,900 or less. And even if you make more than that, the standard deduction — which goes up each year — and a myriad of other deductions and tax breaks reduce income tax exposure. In 2009, the most recent year for which Internal Revenue Service data is available, filers with adjusted gross income of less than $30,000 made up 83% of all the nontaxable returns. According to the Tax Policy Center's calculator, a couple with two kids younger than 13 that makes $30,000 would get $5,000 back under current laws."

http://www.usatoday.com/money/... 

You will have to narrow that question down a bit, bobell.

outsider2011
outsider2011

No matter how many times you run to the end of the thread, you're still running away Paulie. 

paulejb
paulejb

outsider2011,

 "you need a history lesson."

----------------------------------------

Not from the left wing know nothings here at Swampland. What you chumps know about history wouldn't fill a gnat's arse.  

paulejb
paulejb

MrObvious,

"I guess it's all a dream."

------------------------------------

No, Ob. It's a nightmare in the Palestinian Authority controlled West Bank and the equally terrorist controlled Gaza Strip.

The corruption is rampant, the spread of hate is rife and the chief currency is death. 

ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®©
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®©

File this under "spambot is a moron, example 16,000":

paulejb

Obama's pals at GE pay no taxes either. What does that do you your math, skippy?

Precisely nothing, since no one you support is in favor of making G.E. pay taxes.

I, on the other hand, say that if G.E. is a person, as the wingnut Supremes claim, then it should pay taxes like one.

~