P.S. Re: the comments: I'll fish what I can out of the spam filter, when I see them. Or you can post them at my place, which uses (free) blooger. Where is your Typepad God now, Therses?!?!
An election was held in Wisconsin last November. The Republicans won. In a democracy, there are consequences to elections and no one, not even the public employees unions, are exempt from that. There are no guarantees that labor contracts, including contracts governing the most basic rights of unions, can't be renegotiated, or terminated for that matter. We hold elections to decide those basic parameters. And it seems to me that Governor Scott Walker's basic requests are modest ones--asking public employees to contribute more to their pension and health care plans, though still far less than most private sector employees do. He is also trying to limit the unions' abilities to negotiate work rules--and this is crucial when it comes to the more efficient operation of government in a difficult time. When I covered local government in New York 30 years ago, the school janitors (then paid a robust $60,000 plus per year) had negotiated the "right" to mop the cafeteria floors only once a week. And we all know about the near-impossibility of getting criminal and morally questionable--to say nothing of less than competent--teachers fired.
3.) The fundamental thing you need to understand when talking to deficit hawks is that when they say something is painful or that cuts will hurt people, you need to recognize that what they really mean is that the cuts will be painful TO SOMEONE ELSE and hurt people THEY DON’T KNOW AND WILL NEVER MEET. That’s why it’s so easy to be a condescending asshole about the budget. That’s why it takes nothing to suggest raising the retirement age for Social Security. That’s why, after taking a month off from writing on the internet to recover from a cold, he can tell people who work back-breaking manual labor every day of their god damned lives for much less money than he or McMegan earn that they should “contribute” more to their health care costs.
Joe is a Villager: Actually, I will concede one thing to Greenwald: I've been opposed to prosecuting the Bush miscreants--for political reasons, mostly.
And I think the reason for that is -- in the time since I was there, 40 years ago, the Democratic Part has become like the Republican Party, deeply influenced by corporate money. ... Money has flowed in such a flood into both parties that the Democratic Party gets a lot of its support from the very interests that -- when the Republicans are in power -- financially support the Republicans.
Bill doesn't mention that these same interests also own the mainstream media in our country. Our MSM which has become increasingly concentrated in a small number of hands over the last 40 years.
Meanwhile, I never had much interest in a public option. I think the perils of government-delivered (as opposed to funded) services are obvious and immense. Sarah Lyall had an excellent piece in the Times today about her dealings with the British National Health System, which has some very real strengths, but also some terrifying weaknesses.
As is immediately pointed out by the common taters, Joe K. is being foolish. But he knows the corporate line, and he's going to toe it.
If and when the Democrats get to 60, the party's core liberal-progressive interests are likely to demand prompt action on a host of topics. But if every action requires 60—and that's becoming the norm in the Senate—the ironic result will be to empower the party's centrist wing.
Anyone remember when the Republicans had a Senate majority?
This is the role of Howard Finemans and Joe Kleins: to define the left edge of the Overton window. Past here, unserious liberals be. More to the point, unemployable liberals, at least in the corporate media. Stay with the herd, it's safe there!
And that is my point: the tycoon class doesn't just buy our politicians directly (the carrot), they also wield the media that they own (as a stick or as a carrot).
Want a public option? On the right, Rush Limbaugh, FAUX, and the WSJ are all opposed. On the other hand, you have Joe K. and Howard F. Freedom from Choice!
Want to see Bush, Cheney, and company brought to justice for torturing people?
On the right, Rush Limbaugh, FAUX, and the WSJ are all opposed. On the other hand, here's Joe Klein. Freedom from Choice!
Remember our spectacular success in Iraq when we freed the Iraqi people (from food, homes, limbs, and lives)?
Time Magazine's Joe Klein, for instance, last week claimed he has "been opposed to the Iraq war ever since 2002." Readers were expected to forget about his nationally televised declaration in late February 2003 -- the critical days just before the invasion was ordered. "War may well be the right decision at this point," Klein told NBC's Tim Russert. "In fact, I think it probably is."
I post at Swampland occasionally. I've seen Joe Klein occasionally respond to comments. I think I'll try to get him to anwer this one:
Remember those dirty fucking hippies who turned out to be completely correct about Iraq, in sharp contrast to yourself? Do you think it might be possible that those same DFHs are correct about a public option for health care insurance and prosecuting Bush Administration officials for torture?
That would be Bruce Bartlett, a veteran of the Reagan and H.W. Bush administrations, in an email to Steve Benen.
I think he is missing the point, deliberately or else because his ideological blinders prevent him from seeing it.
NBC doesn't want to be liberal. The fact that FAUX nooze crazies allow them to present their right wing, corporate friendly spin as "liberal" is a perfect circumstance for their parent, GE.
Twice in the past month, my private communications have been splashed about the internet. That such a thing would happen is unfortunate, and dishonorable, but sadly inevitable, I suppose. I ignored the first case, in which a rather pathetic woman acolyte of Greenwald's published a hyperbolic account of a conversation I had with her at a beach picnic on Cape Cod. Now, Greenwald himself has published private emails of mine that were part of a conversation taking place on a list-serve. In one of those emails, I say that Greenwald "cares not a whit for America's national security." ... I am not a religious reader of Greenwald--he does go on, and on--and it's possible that I missed extensive posts in which he praises the Armed Forces or makes positive suggestions about how to track possible communications between terrorists abroad and their confederates here. But I sort of doubt that.What I have seen from him, ad nauseum, are intemperate attacks in which he questions the character of--no, it's worse than that: he slimes--anyone who has the temerity to disagree with him.
"...private emails of mine" and "a conversation taking place on a list-serve". OK, Joe. I guess it's like that rule of law thing for the rest of us, but not the important people in the Village.
I didn't realize Glenn Greenwald was training an army of Amazon Warrior Priestesses. But I guess it makes sense. ~
_1278027041051.png "Come back Joe, your country needs you!")
_1278027025738.png "Where have I heard that phrase before?")
