Well, tomorrow is December 1st. The shortest day of the year is coming up and we're heading smack into Winter. Depending on where you are that means snow, rain, sleet, hail, freezing just about everything (unless you're somewhere south of the Equator in which case, pay no attention to this post) and wondering when it's going to get warm again.

So I decided under those circumstances, why not play Baby Lemonade tonight? And of course the highly evocative Summer Song off their Exploring Music album from 1998.

Makes perfect sense, no?

Maybe we'll do Christmas songs next week . . . .or not.

Rep. Aaron Schock (IL-18) took his turn at spouting Republican talking points on Morning Joe, with the need to extend all the Bush Tax Cuts. When asked by Pat Buchanan on where Republicans could compromise to ensure that they reach a deal with Democrats before the Bush Tax Cuts expire at the end of the year, Schock's answer -- full extension for all of them -- leaves both Buchanan and Eugene Robinson laughing out loud at the young congressman.

And Schock does look a bit red-faced, of course, but he has no idea how foolish his response sounds to non-Republicans, because in Republican Land tax cuts always create prosperity and jobs (except for the dismal, almost no job creation during the Bush years). And that extending all the Bush tax cuts won't add to the deficit because the tax cuts will magically spur the economy, in some fairytale Republicans tell themselves. And never mind that the national debt nearly doubled under George Bush with unfunded and misguided tax cuts, Medicaid Part D, two wars, etc. That's yesterday's news. Today it's the Democrats who are the fiscally irresponsible ones, left trying to clean up after the Bush disaster.

And this comes from supposedly one of the best and brightest of that crowd who'll run the House in the new year. It boggles the mind. Whenever someone asks a straight-forward question from them they get a load of hogwash which should be greeted with scorn and ridicule, because their answers are ridiculous, but for whatever reasons they're treated as serious people when all the evidence is to the contrary.

Photoshopping POTUS as Spock was so easy, I did it two more times just for fun.

Open thread below...

Apparently I'm not the only one that caught this segment with Rep. John Shadegg on Morning Joe and was completely appalled. With unemployment benefits set to expire for hundreds of thousands of Americans, we get this joker coming on the air and claiming that unemployment benefits aren't stimulative to the economy and those Bush tax cuts for the rich are.

Republicans really are determined to completely destroy the US economy. Tax cuts for the rich and the rest of you can eat cake.

Rep. Shadegg Scoffs At The Fact That Jobless Benefits Are A Benefit To The Economy: ‘No, They’re Not!’:

According to calculations by the Congressional Budget Office, Moody’s Economy, and myriad other economists, unemployment benefits are the single best way to pump money into the economy and generate economic activity, as the unemployed are very likely to spend all of the benefits they receive (thus moving money into local businesses). But during an interview with MSNBC’s Mike Barnicle today, Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) scoffed at the notion that unemployment benefits help the economy. “Unemployed people hire people? Really? I didn’t know that,” Shadegg jeered:

BARNICLE: What about the fact that unemployment benefits pumped into the economy are an immediate benefit to the economy? Immediate…

SHADEGG: No, they’re not! Unemployed people hire people? Really? I didn’t know that.

BARNICLE: Unemployed people spend money Congressman, ’cause they have no money.

SHADEGG: Aha! So your answer is it’s the spending of money that drives the economy and I don’t think that’s right. It’s the creation of jobs that drives the economy…Actually, the truth is the unemployed will spend as little of that money as they possibly can. Job creators create jobs.

BARNICLE: Have you ever been unemployed? Have you ever been unemployed?

SHADEGG: Yes, I have.

BARNICLE: What did you do with the money? Save it?

Go read the rest of the post for more from Think Progress on why Shadegg is just dead wrong here and on the damage not extending unemployment benefits is going to do to our economy. And as they also noted, Shadegg saying he's going to be unemployed soon is likely of little consequence to him.

And while Shadegg joked that he will be unemployed come January since he is retiring from Congress, next year he will be eligible for a federal pension (if he opted for one), as he is turning 62 and served on Capitol Hill for more than five years.

Given his resume, I would imagine some Republican lobby shop has got a cushy job waiting in the wings for him as well.

If you want to know how it's done, watch this video and let Al Green show you.

It's hard to imagine a greater irony than Glenn Beck whining about his critics supposedly quoting him all out of context, since they only run small sound bites and leave out the context, blah blah blah. Because, you know, Beck has quite a track record when it comes to that practice himself. Indeed, Jon Stewart recently had some fun at Beck's expense over his fondness for truncated video quotes.

Still, that was what Beck was doing yesterday. And it was all because Howard Dean said something mean about Fox News:

I would bring back the Fairness Doctrine so you couldn’t have a spectacle of a Fox Flooze, which just makes stuff up and is a propaganda outlet. You would actually have to have some sanctioned human beings talking to the other side. And MSNBC would have to do the same. They would have to have some conservatives on there too. I think that’s much better for the country. ...Americans don’t know what’s going on and therefore the media can have their way with them intellectually.

To which Beck responded:

BECK: I would ask Mr. Dean to help me out. What is it that we make up?

I would ask you to just take a moment here. Do you really believe that I could or anybody here at Fox News could just make things up and remain on the air?

Ummmm .... YEAH!!!!! How about on a 24/7/365 basis?

And it isn't just Beck, who of course has a nearly unbeatable track record when it comes to making crap up. Just this morning we got another fine example of Fox News making crap up:

Fox & Friends reported that a school in central Florida had banned the "traditional Christmas colors" red and green from classrooms. In a statement to Media Matters, the school's district spokesperson, Regina Klares, has denied this, stating, "There is not a ban on the colors red and green at Heathrow Elementary."

This is not the exception, it is the rule at Fox News. There are simply no standards for truthfulness there; otherwise Beck would be right -- he wouldn't have been able to go on air and lie day after day, week after week, unless it was his job to lie. Which tells you everything you need to know about Fox News.

In an interview, in response to a question about recent protest marches in the UK, retired Manchester United soccer star Eric Cantona said he didn't think protests were very effective:

"We don't pick up weapons to kill people to start the revolution. The revolution is really easy to do these days. What's the system? The system is built on the power of the banks. So it must be destroyed through the banks.

"This means that the three million people with their placards on the streets, they go to the bank and they withdraw their money and the banks collapse. Three million, 10 million people, and the banks collapse and there is no real threat. A real revolution.

"We must go to the bank. In this case there would be a real revolution. It's not complicated; instead of going on the streets and driving kilometres by car you simply go to the bank in your country and withdraw your money, and if there are a lot of people withdrawing their money the system collapses. No weapons, no blood, or anything like that."

He concludes: "It's not complicated and in this case they will listen to us in a different way. Trade unions? Sometimes we should propose ideas to them."

Cantona's call appeared to touch a popular chord and generated an instant response. Nearly 40,000 people have clicked on the YouTube clip, and a French-based movement – StopBanque – has taken up the campaign for a massive coordinated withdrawal of money from banks on 7 December. It is claimed that more than 14,000 people are already committed to removing deposits. The movement is also gaining increasing attention in Britain.

The trio of French Facebook users now leading the campaign have appealed to people across Europe to provoke a bank crash. "It is we who control the banks, not vice versa," they write.

Continue reading »

Rachel Maddow has some negotiating advice for President Obama after his announcement that he will support the Republican's plan to freeze wages for federal employees -- if you're going to make a concession, get something for it in return.

And from Dave Dayen over at FDL, apparently Organizing for America thinks this is somehow a good idea -- OFA Tries to Get Supporters to Write Letters to the Editor Praising a Federal Worker Pay Freeze. I hate to break it to them but if I send a letter to the editor, it's not going to be one praising this bone headed decision.

MADDOW: Since the start of the Obama administration, Charlie Brown and Lucy with the football has been the go-to metaphor for liberals trying to explain what happens when the White House tries to negotiate with Republicans.

The Republicans, of course, are Lucy, kindly holding the football. And every time Charlie Brown thinks he‘s got to deal with Lucy or Obama thinks he‘s got a deal with Congressional Republicans, everybody‘s going to work together, Lucy is going to hold that football. She‘s going to hold it steady.

And then, just as Charlie Brown is about to kick it, she pulls it away. And Charlie Brown never learns. Lucy always pulls it down at the last moment causing Charlie Brown to kick at nothing and fall down over and over and over again.

Continue reading »

Today's "summit" between the House and Senate leaders and President Obama looks a little like Bristol Palin pretending to be a dancer on TV. Everyone shuffles around, but it doesn't look pretty or feel quite right. Everyone has a favorite and everyone's rooting for theirs to win.

After the summit, the first couple stepped up: Mitch McConnell and John Boehner. They mentioned bifurcation as a compromise on the vote. Looked pretty, sounded good, but they knew they had Dave Camp on the judges panel waiting to shoot it down.

On the other side, President Obama stepped up with an optimists' view and sunny outlook, claiming that these summits would continue, that people wanted them to work together, and naming his priorities. Extending middle class tax cuts, ratifying the START treaty, and extending unemployment were on his to-do list. Applause all around.

And now the voting begins. Here's what's on the table with a 12/24 deadline looming large:

• Unemployment extensions: Democrats want a year-long extension. Republicans want no extension.
• Extension of Bush tax cuts: Democrats want middle class tax cuts and the stimulus tax cuts extended. Republicans want all tax cuts extended for all income levels. Wild card: BlueDog Democrats
• START Treaty: As amazed as I am to even include this in the list, here it is. It must be approved by 2/3rds of the Senate before the end of the 111th Congress or the entire committee process begins again in the next session, meaning it could be delayed as much as another year, for nothing more than political grandstanding.
• Medicare "Doc Fix": This delays the cut to doctors' reimbursements for 20% as it has each year. Note: It looks like this has now been pushed into the next session of Congress, since the president signed a 30-day extension today.
• Defense Appropriations Bill, which currently includes DADT repeal and DREAM Act: DADT is the sticking point, of course, despite today's report from the military affirming minimal disruption if it's repealed. The only leverage the administration has on DADT repeal beyond the principle of the thing are pending court challenges, which they've kept alive in order to have that leverage. If it is not repealed in this session, it creates a policy mess for this administration and those who come behind it.

Those are the bargaining chips. How do they fall, in light of this appearance of bipartisanship which isn't really that at all? Assume the Republicans will not give an inch on tax cuts. Assume they're willing to allow unemployment extensions to expire. They should feel some duty toward our military and national security, so I imagine START and appropriations will be on the table.

Will they trade a one-year extension of the full tax cut package for a one-year extension of unemployment insurance? Will the DREAM Act survive or be sacrificed for DADT repeal? It really comes down to this: No side will get everything they want. All sides may get something they want. What do we want most?

How would you put all this together and get it done before December 24th?

Granted, every administration comes in with an agenda and the appointed troops to carry that out. The Reagan Administration was no different. But the agenda during the Reagan years appeared to be more bent on dismantling what had already been in place and what had, for the most part worked, in exchange for an almost wholesale desire to turn back the hands of time. Rex Lee, a Reagan appointee to the position of Solicitor General carried a whole bag of reversals with him. As a member of that generation of New Conservatives as well as a Mormon background, it was his job to argue, question and dismantle as much legislation adopted from previous administrations as possible. And of course, all under the guise of compassion . . .of a kind.

Rex Lee: “The mere fact that one administration does reach a different conclusion, with respect to the merits of busing, has nothing to do with that administrations commitment to civil rights. Let me just say this – as Mayor Tom Bradley of Los Angeles put it; most parents, whatever their color and whatever their background, simply don’t want their children being bused across town, back and forth, to school. There are at least two reasons that busing, wholly aside from any racial considerations, simply is not a good idea, educationally. One is that it chews up the prime time that should otherwise be available for school work and for homework. And the second is, that it eliminates the opportunities for parents to be involved in the educational process. Neither of those has anything to do with race.”

Robert Schakne (CBS News): “Your criticism of policies such as busing suggest that the courts, which established those policies were in error. Are you saying in effect that the judges who’ve been making these rulings, many of whom were appointed of course by Democrats, have been too liberal. That there’s a need for change in the composition of the courts?”

Lee: “What we’re really saying Mister Schakne, is this; that a couple of decades of experience have now taught us some things. The courts did the best job that they could with the information they had available to them. They always do, on a case to case basis when the matters come before them. It would be irresponsible government not to call to the court’s attention, on a continuing basis, updated information, new experience, new understanding that we have on the basis of what we’ve learned since those decisions came down.”

No end of fascination, this history of ours.