Continuing our week of year-enders past. 1964 as seen by a group of correspondents from ABC Radio News. The view from Southeast Asia was pessimistic, and for good reason; we were slowly sinking into the quicksand of a protracted war and no one had much idea what the outcome would be. There was fear of a major confrontation with China because of Vietnam, and naturally the hawks were adamant that a war was inevitable because it was the only way to thwart Chinese domination of the region (aka: Domino Theory). Russia didn't figure so prominently, probably because there was a huge power shift going on in the Kremlin, with Khruschev's ouster and Brezhnev's entrance. It was too early to tell how it would go with a new leader. But China was a big concern, since they had exploded their first Atomic bomb earlier in the year and they were accused of heavily aiding the North Vietnamese.
The subject of German reunification was brought up, with thoughts that most of the former Allied nations would be in favor, but the major stumbling block was the Soviet Union and several of the Warsaw Pact satellites who were most severely affected by German occupation during the war.
Speculation that 1965 would be a better year than 1964 were cautious everywhere except Vietnam. That was going to be the problem. And it was.
This year-end report, A Look At The Year 1965, was originally broadcast on December 28, 1964.
Megyn Kelly got all worked up yesterday over Leo Laurence's piece outlining an initiative by the Society of Professional Journalists' Diversity Committee to, as they put it, "engage in a yearlong educational campaign designed to inform and sensitize journalists as to the best language to use when writing and reporting on people of different cultures and backgrounds". (Notably, Kelly makes it sound as though this were some kind of active campaign, when in fact, as the SPJ notes, "The committee itself has taken no official initiative on the use of the phrase 'illegal immigrant.' ")
So she brought in GOP operative Brad Blakeman and Jehmu Green from the Women's Media Center to engage in a classic Fox 'fair and balanced' debate in which the host and the right-wing guest get to run roughshod on the token 'liberal'. You could pretty much figure where Kelly was coming from when she lobbed this softball to Blakeman:
Kelly: How far could you take this? You could say that a burglar is an unauthorized visitor. You know, you could say that a rapist is a non-consensual sex partner which, obviously, would be considered offensive to the victims of those crimes.
Hey, nothing like a classic "fair and balanced" analogy to make the segment complete, eh? Memo to Megyn Kelly: You're comparing violent criminal acts to a civil misdemeanor, which is what having undocumented status is. (More on that in a moment.)
Obviously Kelly was quite enamored with the analogy, because she returned to it with Green:
Kelly: What if there was a push by the criminal defense... bar to re-brand the use of the word rapist to nonconsensual sex partner?
Finally, she wrapped it all up in a bow with one of the dumbest comparisons of 2010:
Kelly: You know, we did a segment earlier in the year on how little people find the term midget offensive, and so you can't say that anymore. There's so many words that are suddenly becoming hurtful, and part of the group thinks it's hurtful, and the other group doesn't, and you're left as a journalist saying, I don't know what to do.
The term criminalizes the person rather than the actual act of illegally entering or residing in the United States without federal documents. Terms such as illegal alien or illegal immigrant can often be used pejoratively in common parlance and can pack a powerful emotional wallop for those on the receiving end.
MSNBC's Cenk Uygur wondered Wednesday why Fox News' Tucker Carlson didn't call for Sarah Palin to be executed after she killed a defenseless caribou.
After all, Carlson had proclaimed Tuesday that NFL quarterback Michael Vick should have been given the death penalty for killing dogs.
"Now, I'm a Christian," Carlson announced, while filling in for Fox News' Republican commentator Sean Hannity. "I've made mistakes myself. I believe fervently in second chances but Michael Vick killed dogs and he did it in a heartless and cruel way and I think, personally, he should have been executed for that."
Carlson had become outraged because President Barack Obama praised Eagles owner Jeffrey Lurie for giving Vick a second chance.
"[Obama] said, 'So many people who serve time never get a fair second chance,'" Lurie explained, after a phone call with the president. "He said, 'It's never a level playing field for prisoners when they get out of jail.' And he was happy that we did something on such a national stage that showed our faith in giving someone a second chance after such a major downfall."
White House spokesman Bill Burton clarified that Obama "of course condemns the crimes that Michael Vick was convicted of, but, as he's said previously, he does think that individuals who have paid for their crimes should have an opportunity to contribute to society again."
"I like how [Carlson] prefaced it by saying he was Christian," Uygur said, during the "Psycho Talk" segment of Wednesday's The Ed Show broadcast. "Is that what Jesus would have done? I love the way that conservatives twist the Bible. If you listen to them, Jesus was a gun-toting, rich-loving Texan."
"And if you're executing people because they killed defenseless animals you may want to remember this," he said, playing a video clip of Palin shooting a caribou on her TLC reality show, Sarah Palin's Alaska.
"Look, I know there is a difference," Uygur admitted. "But is it really that large? Sarah Palin is folksy for killing a caribou, who was clearly trapped and defenseless, if you watch that show. And Michael Vick should be executed? I don't think so."
I just love this song! It's not just the fever dream, minimalist groove, but the fact that it opened my eyes to Bollywood's legendary playback singer Asha Bhosle.
Frank Luntz stopped by and left a comment on my post yesterday about his Social Security memo. Here is my response, point by point:
You would be much more effective protecting Social Security if you focus on stopping all the waste in Washington rather than complaining about my memos. You're all hyped up about my words when it's the policy that matters.
Indeed. Policy is all that matters. You argue for a harmful policy; that is, taking Social Security contributions and investing them privately, or forcing back Social Security Retirement Age to 70, or both. I view those ideas as extremely bad policy.
When Social Security was "reformed" in the Reagan years, Boomers were taken into consideration. Yet you continue to argue for a policy which double-slams them because it would layer on another cut to the one they've already taken. The only way you can sell this policy to the public is to foment fear. Hence, the argument that Social Security is "bankrupt" (it's not), and that people should control their contributions and be permitted to invest them in Wall Street investments.
One look at 401k performance over the past 4 years should be all the illustration anyone needs to know Wall Street is a dangerous place for small investors who rely upon their retirement savings to survive.
As to waste in Washington, on that point we agree. We only disagree on where money is being wasted. I could point to the incredibly duplicative "national security complex" as a complete waste of money. I could point to the two wars we put on the national credit card, too. One of those wars was fought under false pretenses while the other one was put on the back burner. Both carry immeasurable human and monetary prices which did not have to be paid.
There's a reason why Republicans won more seats in the House than in any election in decades and more local and state elections than at any time in 80 years! The reason? You.
Instead of yelling, listen. Instead of condemining the language, focus on the policy. I don't rant and rave. I pay attention to what people say, how they think, and what they want. It's a much more effective approach.
Republicans won more seats in the House because they had an efficient money machine and the anti-incumbent advantage. This isn't about me, or policy, or me trashing the way you twist the policy debate. They won because they had a stoked-up anger machine behind them pushing the narrative forward, and a whole lot of money to inject themselves into everyone's frontal lobe via television, radio and internet ads. It didn't hurt to have an entire 24/7 media machine reinforcing the message, either.
I'll give Republicans this: they understand the value of a consistent and simple message, even if it's not true. Democrats tend to go wonky and in different directions. Message discipline is not a liberal strong point. Yet.
I realize it makes you feel good to trash someone anonymously, but what have you really accomplished? Tonight I have spent 90 seconds responding to you all, and shortly I will spend two hours writing a memo that will reach millions of people and change thousands of minds.
And one final thought: there's a lot more that we all agree on than you realize. From genuinely helping those in need to fixing the education system to finding a fairer tax code, we're often on the same side. If you ever want help on these issues -- if you ever want to be constructive in your approach -- just let me know via this blog.
This is my name. I am not at all anonymous, so let's just leave that behind. As to our commenters here on C&L, they run the gamut. There's nothing wrong with speaking anonymously, and minimizing their arguments because they aren't putting their name on them is just wrong. But for now, let's deal with your final point, which is your memos, your framing, and why it matters.
My post yesterday highlighted something people need to address; namely, that mainstream media sources take your frames and echo them. You know this as well as I do: Say something often enough and it becomes fact.
It's not hard to see why Tucker Carlson inspires such visceral dislike from the likes of sane people such as Jon Stewart. It's the way he wraps the dumbest propagandistic crap in such smug preppy smarm.
Like earlier this week, filling in for Hannity on his Fox News show: There's Carlson hosting a segment on global warming, pretending -- as Fox anchors did all last winter, too -- that those severe storms are somehow proof, as Hannity himself puts it, that "global warming is a fraud" or other denialist nonsense.
It's obvious, right off the bat, that Carlson either doesn't know, or doesn't want his audience to know, that climate is not the same thing as weather, and that global warming means just that -- it's a global phenomenon, and not just an Eastern Coast of the United States phenomenon:
Carlson: But despite the frigid temperatures and record snowfall this season, global warming true believers are still trying to spin the weather.
Carlson seems to have trouble grasping a simple principle: Global warming means more severe seasonal storms, precisely because it is putting more moisture into the air. Indeed, one of his guests, Betsy Rosenberg, tries to explain this to him, but Carlson is just too intent on forcing his spin onto everyone else.
Carlson: You know, I was interested to hear Betsy use the term biblical, because this is of course a religion, and one with particularly fervent believers. ...
Then he closes with a particularly snide shot:
Carlson: Good luck with your religion, I hope your spaceship lands.
Of course, Carlson is just keeping up the tradition at Fox of lying to its audience 24/7, especially when it comes to global warming.
But he really seems to enjoy being a complete dick about it.
Casino Jack, starring Kevin Spacey, is in limited release right now if you're interested in the machinations of D.C. politics. Part straightforward re-telling of past events, and part fiction based on said events, the two often mix so it's hard to tell what is real and what is a story device. A bit confusing but worthwhile.
Take this short fantasy scene where the real Senator John McCain asks Abramoff a question in a Senate hearing. Abramoff daydreams what he'd really like to say to McCain, and others situated in the room who've benefited by his actions but are now there condemning him, instead of invoking his Fifth Amendment rights as he knows he must.
This scene is NSFW. Easily Kevin Spacey's best performance since Recount, and maybe his best in a film role since winning an Oscar for American Beauty.
C-SPAN's Book TV's Peter Slen asked publisher Jenn Risko why George W. Bush was doing so well with the sales of his recently published memoir and we got some blather about how relaxed he looks these days and how people are just curious as to what went on behind the scenes with his administration and other similar nonsense.
I happened to catch some of Hannity's show where he devoted the full hour to pimping W's book on Fox, so I think Ms. Risko forgot to mention a couple of reasons why the sales are going so well. Other than Fox doing their best to push the sales of Bush's book as Hannity was doing, we also have the fact that many conservative organizations buy up books in bulk from the authors they want to push and give them away for free to make sure they end up in spots where they don't belong on the best seller's list.
Sadly C-SPAN only seems to cater to right wing authors. John and Dave never had a chance of getting an appearance on the network to talk about their book, Over the Cliff, but they'll give every right wing nut job a full hour on there at every opportunity. And they'll also pretend Georgie's book is doing just fine with sales without any help from the usual suspects out there pushing the right wing propaganda.
Here's the beginning of Hannity's hour long love fest with W if you've got the stomach for it.
MSNBC's Cenk Uygur wondered Wednesday why Fox News' Tucker Carlson didn't call for Sarah Palin to be executed after she killed a defenseless caribou.
After all, Carlson had proclaimed Tuesday that NFL quarterback Michael Vick should have been given the death penalty for killing dogs.
"Now, I'm a Christian," Carlson announced, while filling in for Fox News' Republican commentator Sean Hannity. "I've made mistakes myself. I believe fervently in second chances but Michael Vick killed dogs and he did it in a heartless and cruel way and I think, personally, he should have been executed for that."
Carlson had become outraged because President Barack Obama praised Eagles owner Jeffrey Lurie for giving Vick a second chance.
"[Obama] said, 'So many people who serve time never get a fair second chance,'" Lurie explained, after a phone call with the president. "He said, 'It's never a level playing field for prisoners when they get out of jail.' And he was happy that we did something on such a national stage that showed our faith in giving someone a second chance after such a major downfall."
White House spokesman Bill Burton clarified that Obama "of course condemns the crimes that Michael Vick was convicted of, but, as he's said previously, he does think that individuals who have paid for their crimes should have an opportunity to contribute to society again."
"I like how [Carlson] prefaced it by saying he was Christian," Uygur said, during the "Psycho Talk" segment of Wednesday's The Ed Show broadcast. "Is that what Jesus would have done? I love the way that conservatives twist the Bible. If you listen to them, Jesus was a gun-toting, rich-loving Texan."
"And if you're executing people because they killed defenseless animals you may want to remember this," he said, playing a video clip of Palin shooting a caribou on her TLC reality show, Sarah Palin's Alaska.
"Look, I know there is a difference," Uygur admitted. "But is it really that large? Sarah Palin is folksy for killing a caribou, who was clearly trapped and defenseless, if you watch that show. And Michael Vick should be executed? I don't think so."
One of my New York-native friends said her relatives were calling the post-blizzard city a "zombie apocalypse."
It's bad enough that NYC has laid off 500 sanitation workers in the last two years (you know, instead of taxing Wall Street) or that there were plows sitting idle because they didn't have enough people to drive them, or that people died because the EMTs couldn't get down their streets.
Make fun of Philly all you want, but by canceling Sunday night's Eagles game, we kept 60,000 cars off the streets at the height of the blizzard that didn't need to be there. Looking at the pictures of New York with abandoned cars and buses everywhere is just surreal. (Of course, Mayor Mike Bloomberg's street was nicely plowed.)
Not to mention, NYC residents couldn't go back to work. Manhattan was cleared, but people couldn't get in to work from the outer boroughs. Wonder how much taxable revenue was lost this week?
This is why it's such a bad idea to run government like a business. This isn't a business, it's a government. It has to provide basic services, no matter what.
It's probably no secret that Wall Street has the same attitude toward New York City that they have toward the rest of the country: "You're lucky to have us." That's why, instead of taxing them, Bloomberg bends over backwards to make them happy. After all, they might move to New Jersey!
So Bloomberg keeps cutting. He laid off 500 sanitation workers and privatized much of the snow plow operations. Guess what? Plows sat idle because employees of the private contractors were on vacation during the holiday.
Better hope for a warm winter because the number of city sanitation workers has dipped so low that they might not be able to handle a big snowstorm, union officials say.
"The city is rolling the dice," said Harry Nespoli, president of the Uniformed Sanitationmen's Association. "We're noted as the best snow-fighters throughout the world."
The city has hired only 200 sanitation workers since 2008, but hundreds more have retired, Nespoli said.
There are fewer than 5,800 sanitation workers on the job, compared with 6,216 one year ago and 6,473 in 2008. And there are no immediate plans to hire new sanitation workers before the winter.
"We're going to do the best that we can with what we have, but it might take longer to dig out the city," the union chief said.
"We cover more than 6,300 miles during a major storm. That's like going to California and back twice."
Yes, the city not only laid off hundreds of sanitation workers, they put the supervisors back on the street and made them take a $5000 pay cut. (Not great for morale, since landlords don't offer a rent cut.)
District Council 37 came up with its own list of ideas, saying the city could generate more than $500 million a year by cracking down on uncollected taxes and reducing the number of city contracts.
"Layoffs of any city worker will end up costing the city money," said DC 37 Executive Director Lillian Roberts.
"Layoffs in the city's Department of Finance are particularly self-defeating. These are revenue-generating positions. The millions in tax revenue that goes uncollected because the Department of Finance is understaffed amount to tax breaks for the wealthy," Roberts said.
Hmm. Bug -- or feature?
Meanwhile, Bloomberg is now taking the blame. (For someone who loves to grade the public schools and attack teachers, he's curiously reluctant to criticize his streets commissioner -- who, I'm told, had his own street plowed all the way to the blacktop as soon as the storm stopped.)
What's so shocking is that we are experiencing the complete collapse of city government. There is no Sanitation Department, which is usually fantastically reliable during snow storms. EMS is paralyzed in responding to most streets. There's no Access A Ride, and the police have disappeared. There is no mass transit out here in a city that depends on it more than any city in America.
This isn't a minor failure. The collapse of city infrastructure in my part of the outerboroughs -- and from what I've read on line in parts of Brooklyn -- is comparable to what happened in New Orleans during Katrina. I don't want at all to equate what's happening to the people here to what happened there -- but I do want to compare the bizarre collapse or withdrawal of services due to incompetence.
What's worse, is that none of this was necessary. All Bloomberg had to do was let the system run the way it always runs. Declare a snow emergency and let the Sanitation Department do its thing. For inexplicable reasons he's been trying to defend, he didn't declare a snow emergency. Apparently, rumor is that another aspect of Bloomberg's spectacular incompetence was that he redeployed plows that would usually be out here and in Brooklyn, into Manhattan so they could be plowed even more frequently than normal.
Oh, and by the way? Compare and contrast. Here's the mayor's street in Manhattan, Monday afternoon, and a street in Rego Park, Queens:
