This day in music - December 7, 1987: Harry Chapin is posthumously awarded the Congressional Gold Medal for his humanitarian work

By Richard K. Barry

In addition to his successful music career, Harry Chapin was engaged in humanitarian efforts to end world hunger. In 1977, he played a key role in establishing the Presidential Commission on World Hunger.

In 1987, he was posthumously awarded a Congressional Gold Medal for that work.

Chapin is best known for songs like "Cat's in the Cradle," "Taxi," "Circle," and "W*O*L*D."

He died in a traffic accident on July 16, 1981 at the age of 38 having dedicated much of his life to various philanthropic endeavours. The title of the Washington Post obituary at the time was "Harry Chapin's Riches: The Troubadour Who Laughed at Fame & Gave Away His Fortune."

 

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Newt the Neocon calls for military action against Iran

Michael Stickings (@mjwstickings) has shared a Tweet with you:

"lrozen: Gingrich calls for regime replacement in Iran, block its imports of petrol, sabotage their refinery, support all dissident grps"

Because, of course, this has worked so well in the past, particularly in the Middle East.

Newt calls himself a student of history, but he hasn't got a fucking clue. Engaging Iran militarily would be a disaster.

Newt's a right-wing militarist, and here he's just sucking up to the neocons, and more specifically to the right-wing Israel lobby that is at the core of neoconservatism, hoping no doubt to secure some Jewish votes (with the early primary in Florida and an opportunity to crush Romney front of mind).

And, of course, he's also a shameless and largely unprincipled partisan. Remember when he was against President Obama's military engagement in Libya?

Save the Fed

By Capt. Fogg

Doomed to repeat history? Of course we are, but the fate I fear isn't the sort of doom that descends upon us from above unless you consider the cesspit of "Conservative" rhetoric to be a higher plane of thought. No, I'm not talking about the market bubble of the late 1920's that was brought about by slashing the top marginal tax rate or the deregulation of the markets that gave us the 1929 crash; I'm talking about where we were fourscore years ago in 1931 when the European banks began to fail and nobody was able or willing to do anything about it. Then as now, we had "Conservative" rhetoric attempting to blame the mess on the usual suspects, like lazy American workers and in Europe: the Jews. We had calls around the world for even more austerity, as if the world could save itself by saving money.

" Instead of easing monetary policy by cutting interest rates and buying bonds, the Fed tightened. The result was a catastrophic chain reaction of bank failures, which caused the money supply to contract by approximately a third, and economic output with it"

writes Niall Ferguson at the Daily Beast, lamenting the gross lack of knowledge of bankers, investors, fund managers, regulators, policymakers, and economists. Ferguson cites Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz’s Monetary History of the United States, which argues that

"the stock-market panic of 1929 turned into a depression because of avoidable errors by the Fed. Instead of easing monetary policy by cutting interest rates and buying bonds, the Fed tightened. The result was a catastrophic chain reaction of bank failures, which caused the money supply to contract by approximately a third, and economic output with it."

The Gold Standard, the massive debt from The Great War, the partisan inability to compromise brought on the disaster we know as the Great Depression and only those countries that dropped that standard and began hiring while gearing up for war, began to recover. Germany led the way and the US followed.

With some Republican spokesmen demanding the return of the gold standard, demanding an end to the Fed, demanding more austerity, demanding that more capital be tied up in the hands of a tiny minority, the money supply diminished and the demand for goods and services curtailed, the few who understand what needs to be done are being shouted down by politicians who insist that the only solution is a bigger cut in the marginal rate, and the angry mob they feed.

"We are indeed fortunate that at least the world’s leading central bankers have studied this history: not only Ben Bernanke but also the heads of the Bank of England, the Bank of Canada, and the European Central Bank. The bad news is that so few politicians and voters understand what they are trying to do, or why. The even worse news is that central bankers by themselves may not be able to stop our depression from turning great."

Worse news even than that, is the fact that people like Dr. Ferguson, a professor of history at Harvard University, a senior research fellow at Oxford University, and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University do not inform the Cains, Bachmanns, Palins or Gingrichs or the rabble who support them, nor would the public trust any "elitist" "Libtard" "pinhead" over the kind of small minded moral abomination now stumbling toward Washington.

(Cross posted from Human Voices)

Ron Paul goes negative on Newt in Iowa

By Richard K. Barry

Well, this is fun. Ron Paul is the first of the GOP contenders to go negative on Newt in Iowa with an ad purporting to show what Paul's team is calling Gingrich's "serial hypocrisy."

Jesse Benton, a Ron Paul advisor, had this to say about the ad:

We wanted to ensure this ad reached as many voters as possible, to debunk the myth that the Newt we are seeing on the 2012 campaign trail is the conservative he has been touted to be all along.

The voters are looking for authentic conservatives who are able to show a decades-long career of consistently walking the walk of Constitutional principles, limited government, and promoting sound economic policies. Ron Paul is the only Republican presidential candidate with that record.

Ron Paul may be whack job libertarian, but he's not going to be pushed around by some poser like Gingrich. No, sir.

You know, politicians are just like other people. Some of them are generally well liked, even by their opponents, and others not so much. Which camp do you supposed Newt fits in?

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Romney's fair warning that his campaign will continue to lie

By Richard K. Barry

You'll recall the recent Romney campaign ad that so obviously took President Obama's words out of context that nearly everyone in the media called them on it.

The New York Times describes the backstory like this:

On October 16, 2008, campaigning in Londonderry, New Hampshire, Obama cast his opponent, John McCain, as out of touch with the problems facing the country – a month after the financial collapse that saw the American economy crater. Obama was expressing his incredulity at McCain’s lack of understanding of the full import of the world-engulfing fiscal crisis: “Senator McCain’s campaign actually said, and I quote, ‘If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.’ ”

Romney's ad was constructed on the lie that the words actually spoken by the McCain campaign were spoken by Obama. It is in fact an old trick, but no less disgusting for that fact. When you draw attention to what someone else said, it doesn't mean you said it yourself, or that you hold the same views. Pretty clear, right? 

It got a lot of press at the time, so no need to go into it again.

What's new is the Romney campaign defending the tactic. Here is what a top Romney operative had to say about it:

First of all, ads are propaganda by definition. We are in the persuasion business, the propaganda business…. Ads are agitprop…. Ads are about hyperbole, they are about editing. It’s ludicrous for them to say that an ad is taking something out of context…. All ads do that. They are manipulative pieces of persuasive art.

Chew on that for a moment. Romney's team is saying that in politics everyone lies so it's not a big deal, in fact, we should expect it. 

Apparently, whenever Romney or his campaign says something, we should assume that we are being manipulated. We should have no expectation that they have any respect for the truth. By their own admission, we should expect that their statements are hyperbolic and out of context. 

This is what they are telling us about how they are and will continue to run their campaign.

Thanks for the heads up, Mitt.

As Greg Sargent writes:

Between this new quote and their boast that the ad’s mangling of context was strategically brilliant because it won reams of media attention, it almost seems as if Romney advisers are trying to persuade political reporters and commentators to abandon any standards they might use to judge tactics and rhetoric throughout this campaign. Of course, one would hope this will have the opposite effect.

Let's hope. 

Final word on this is that as Gingrich continues to surge, we can expect Romney to get more and more desperate. Much as we were all being told that, among the GOP presidential hopefuls, Romney was the adult in the room, it seems that he is also a lying and manipulative adult. Isn't that wonderful?

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Throwing His Balls In

By Carl

 

 

In the great Pokemon battle that has become the Teabaggers v. Mitt Romney, competitor after competitor has been laughed off the pitch: MickeyMousemann, Perryoopsie, Caintrain. The Teabaggers might finally have thrown a Pokeball that might have an effect against Mittman: Newtiechoo

Mitt Romney vows to make his "closing argument" for the GOP presidential nomination, including drawing some sharp distinctions with new front-runner Newt Gingrich.

Romney has led or been near the top of national public opinion polls this year, only to lose ground to Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry., Herman Cain and now Gingrich. They have been viewed as more conservative than Romney, who has drawn the ire of some in the GOP for the health care law he signed as Massachusetts governor.

Newtiechoo has taken a pretty commanding lead in Iowa polling, has pulled ahead in New Hampshire and has a strong lead in South Carolina, all states now critical to a Romney victory. Until now, Mittman had been able to rise above the crowd, confining his direct confrontation to the endless debates.

The two combatants find themselves in similar straits, with similar weapons and similar strengths and weaknesses (save for Newtiechoo's immoral behavior all his life.) This creates a distinct problem for Romney since the "Anyone But Romney" vote is almost three times as big as Romney's poll numbers.

Romney's saving grace is that Gingrich has his own baggage as far as the rank-and-file Teabaggers go. For example, his comments on Paul Ryan's "conservative social engineering" healthcare proposal could not have sat well, nor his flip-flop on an individual health insurance mandate. Both seem to support Obamacare. Both seem to support Romneycare. The debate on the far right will be about the lesser of two weasels.

(crossposted to Simply Left Behind)

Dear Leader Rush defends Dear Speaker Newt

Michael Stickings (@mjwstickings) has shared a Tweet with you:

"pwire: Rush Limbaugh defends Newt Gingrich against GOP Establishment attacks..." (link)

And this is why the so-called "establishment" doesn't mean what it used to. Karl Rove still has a great deal of influence in the Republican Party, as do some of Romney's more high-profile surrogates (e.g., Chris Christie, various figures on Capitol Hill), but Dear Leader Rush? Now there's some serious influence.

To whom do you think the base will listen? To whom do you think the base will turn for its marching orders?

If you think it's the "establishment," you don't understand how the GOP works these days.

Why Rick Perry is against gay rights

Michael Stickings (@mjwstickings) has shared a Tweet with you:

"MacMcClelland: Rick Perry says human rights for gays are 'not in America's interests,' because he's a fucking idiot."

Sometimes you just have to tell it like it is.

This day in music - December 6, 1975: Paul Simon's Still Crazy After All These Years goes to No. 1 on the U.S. album chart

By Richard K. Barry

Still Crazy After All These Years was Simon's fourth studio album. It was a great effort that produced four U.S. top 40 hits: "Gone at Last" (#23), "My Little Town" (#9, credited to Simon and Garfunkel), "50 Ways to Leave Your Lover" (#1), and the title track (#40).

It won the Grammy Award for Album of the Year in 1976.

As a saxophone player, I have a special place in my heart for recording artists who know how to make use of the horn. David Sanborn, Michael Brecker, and Phil Woods played on the album, which is a pretty serious bunch of people to be wielding Antoine-Joseph "Adolphe" Sax's invention on one recording.

This is really a good record. The title track is fabulous, but I've always been partial to "50 Ways to Leave Your Lover." Great use of percussion. And it did get to No. 1 as a single, arriving on February 7, 1976.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Jon Huntsman, sensing an opening and trying to show some Republican bona fides, suddenly becomes a climate change skeptic

Michael Stickings (@mjwstickings) has shared a Tweet with you:

"joshtpm: Huntsman gets wobbly on climate change -- now says scientists need to provide more evidence" (link)

Et tu, Jon? But of course.

And why is he doing this, why is he destroying whatever shred of integrity and credibility he had left (after saying nice things about Cain reduced him to basically zero on both counts anyway)?

Because he thinks it may be his turn for a surge, because Romney appears to be on the decline and because Newt is, well, Newt (with the party "establishment" against him and with his history of self-destructive buffoonery), and because he actually has a shot, however remote, to do surprisingly well in New Hampshire.

And because this -- being a climate change denialist (or at least skeptic) and otherwise embracing the right-wing denial of reality -- is what you have to do to get anywhere in the Republican Party.

Just ask Mitt.

Newt and Mitt: a sad choice for the GOP

By Richard K. Barry

Politico ran a post recenly by John Bresnahan, Jonathan Allen, and Jonathan Martin with the title "GOP's anti-Newt chorus holds its tongue":

Newt Gingrich's critics within the GOP are legion, but for the moment they're something else: quiet.

They all remember the last time Gingrich held power, as House speaker: the bombast, the reckless personal life, the arrogance and lack of discipline that bordered on dangerous.

*****

But in the face of Gingrich's surge in the polls, most Gingrich critics are keeping it to themselves. Part of it is because, recognizing that Gingrich is connecting with the GOP base better than anyone else in the field, they have little desire to get cross-wise with their own party. Put more bluntly, there is a dawning realization they might have to make peace with Newt the nominee.

Newt and Mitt

There are at least two takeaways here that fascinate. The first is the sense among some very serious conservative political insiders that Gingrich could win the nomination, and the second the recognition that there is so much out there with which to attack him that it would be a disaster if he did.

According to Guy Molinari, a former congressman who had a falling out with Gingrich in the 1980s:

There are so very many stories out there about his failings, moral failings, that he certainly would be a bad pick to bear the title of the president of the United States...I think there is a huge element of risk involved.

Up until very recently, Gingrich was widely considered a joke. It hardly seemed worth the effort to regurgitate so much of the sordid past of the guy who was just on the stage to generate profile for his personal brand. But now he's leading in the polls, it's getting very close to the Iowa caucuses and all this stuff about Newt is going to be coming out piece by piece in the short and long term because there is so much there.

On one level, I am truly amazed that the best the GOP can do is come up with only two realistic options for the nomination: Romney, who is disliked by broad cross-sections of his own party, and Gingrich, whose own "failings" are so very well-known by anyone who cares to pay attention.

And, here's the thing, people will start to pay attention. In our current 24-hour news cycle and blog-soaked universe, Newt Gingrich can't survive this. There's just no way. Certainly not in the general election.

He's gotten a relatively free ride in the short term, but this gets very ugly, very quickly.  

The story of the 2012 campaign, when the books are written, will be about how the Republican Party failed to present a reasonable alternative to an incumbent president who should have been easy to knock off given, if nothing else, how badly the economy was performing.

Even if Gingrich fails to win the nomination, the fact that he is doing this well so late in the process tells us all we need to know. The split between the radical-right and the pragmatic right is going to yield a candidate no one wants: "the immoral-arrogant-prick candidate" or "the guy-nobody-is-passionate-about-but-will-have-to-support-anyway-because-there-is-no-other-choice candidate."

Talk about unintended consequences.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Is Nancy Pelosi waiting to unleash the dirt on Newt?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

ABC News reports:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi now says she is not sitting on a trove of opposition research on former House Speaker-turned-GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich.

In an interview conducted Friday and published Monday, Pelosi hinted that once the time is right she has some juicy stories to tell about her former colleague.

"One of these days we'll have a conversation about Newt Gingrich," Pelosi, D-Calif., told Talking Points Memo. "I know a lot about him. I served on the investigative committee that investigated him. Four of us locked in a room in an undisclosed location for a year. A thousand pages of his stuff."

But this afternoon, Pelosi's spokesman, Drew Hammill, suggested that her comments have been misconstrued beyond the leader's intent.

"Leader Pelosi was clearly referring to the extensive amount of information that is in the public record, including the comprehensive committee report with which the public may not be fully aware," Hammill wrote in a statement.

Yeah, right.

Pelosi and others, not just Democrats but many anti-Newt Republicans as well, have a ton of dirt on Gingrich and will use is as needed over the coming weeks and months, depending on how he does. But, right now, the Democrats, at least, don't need to use it. Because they don't want to knock Newt off his perch as frontrunner and (gasp!) possible (probable?) nominee? No, they want him to win.

Win the GOP nomination, that is, because he'd be much less of a threat to beat Obama in the general election than Romney, who, for all his faults and unpopularity with the GOP base, is fairly appealing to moderates and independents given his reputation as a moderate technocrat who understands business and the economy (that this isn't what he actually is, or is no longer, could eventually turn moderates and independents against him, but at least for now he can ride the perception and avoid the reality).

By "one of these days," then, Pelosi either misspoke, revealing too much when she should have kept quiet, or meant "after Newt wins the nomination, if it comes to that." Or both. As TPM's Brian Beutler put it:

There's no better illustration of how ecstatic Democrats are about Newt Gingrich leading the GOP primary pack than Nancy Pelosi's strategic silence.

Though she wasn't so silent as to avoid providing that glimpse into the future:

Pressed for more detail she wouldn't go further.

"Not right here," Pelosi joked. "When the time's right."

Which is to say that if Gingrich somehow clinches the nomination, there's one hell of an oppo dump coming. 

Pardon me, and so many others, for salivating.

**********

Actually, though, I'm not sure the dirt would matter. The media would dig up the old Newt anyway, and the new Newt really isn't new at all. He's still an arrogant egomaniac who says (and believes) insane things, like how poor (i.e., black) children should be forced to work because all they're good for is criminality.

And if that weren't enough, he's been rather eccentric in his conservatism, promoting relatively humane views on undocumented immigration and even -- yes, even -- responsible views on energy and climate change, two absolute no-nos in today's GOP.

Hey, he even did an ad on climate change with... Nancy Pelosi. And this could be as damaging to him as any oppo research dirt.

How do you think the Republican base will react when this little nugget makes its way around the right-wing insanitarium? The dirt would turn off moderates and independents, to the extent he'd have any such support, but his heterodox positions, past and present, would surely turn off conservatives. He's managing to weather any such criticism now largely because he's seen as much preferable to Romney (and because most people still aren't paying attention), but his record speaks for itself.

Lies, By Airmail

 

By Carl

 

The US Postal Service is in pretty drastic difficulty. Of course, the usual suspects are laying blame at the usual feet:

How did it come to this? The culprits include the internet, labor expenses, and, as with pretty much every problem our country faces now, Congress.

When you analyze the facts a little, as Weismann clearly has not, you begin to understand that it's the last that is responsible for the problems, in toto.

 

Let's take a look...

 

Keep in mind that the US Postal Service is two things: it is one of the few Federal agencies mandated in the Constitution (under the guise of "Post Office," but more on that in a bit,) and it is the only private corporation masquerading as a Federal agency (yes, you can make a case for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and all the other nym-lending agencies, but those are public corporations in which the government holds preferred stock.)

 

Yes, the Internet and e-mail have made first class mail almost...almost...superfluous. And the decline in total mail volume has clearly hurt the postal service. Remember, the Postal Service must guarantee delivery to every citizen in the United States, regardless of how remote that person may be.

 

And ever since Congress allowed for the privatization of express delivery services to FedEx and others, a very profitable arm of the postal service was amputated, the bleeding never staunched.

 

By the way, none of the delivery services has to guarantee delivery to anyplace. They can make you get in your car and drive to a local facility where you can pick up your package, and then it's up to you to get it home. Good luck with that.

 

Which now raises the second facet of this point: the Postal Service must clear any rate increases with the Postal Regulatory Commission, membership on which is subject to Senate confirmation and Presidential appointment.

 

Meaning that, if for example, the USPS was to ask for a rate increase that recognizes that bulk mail now makes up the lion's share of its carrying obligation (the "universal service obligation"), if the commission is comprised of smart people that rate will be allowed. But half the current commission (a commissioner's seat is vacant, awaiting Senate approval) is not smart, but Republican.

 

And we all know the lobbying that goes on in Republican quarters. Indeed, a rate hike in bulk mail would not only trigger protests from the junk mail senders (who have a substantial lobbying presence) but the banks, credit card companies, retailers...well, you get the picture.

 

So, once again, the revenue stream is hampered by a Congress which wants private industry to make as much money as possible, except for this particular private corporation, which it views as a government agency.

 

Which now introduces point #2: labor costs.

 

It's true, the US Postal Service seems at times to be the employer of last resort: if you're too old to go into the military and can't get a job anyplace else, there always seems to be some post office somewhere that could use a hand.

 

Remember, the USPS is under a Constitutional mandate to deliver your mail, anywhere, and under a statutory obligation to deliver your mail anywhere...within six days. End of discussion. All for less than 50 cents. That means manpower, because the USPS can't go to the capital markets to raise funds to, say, automate better. That means that 80% of the Postal service budget is spent on people. By contrast, Fedex (which can float bonds to raise capital) can automate to their hearts delight (as can UPS) and cut delivery services without anyone forcing them not to. Fedex still spends over half its budget on payroll related items. UPS, almost two thirds.

 

That doesn't sound out of line with the USPS when you think about it, but the USPS is a government job.

 

And as with so many government jobs, the pay is crap but the enticements to stick it out are great.

 

Like a pension. The Postal service pension obligation is somewhere in the billions of dollars annually, like any other large government operation.

 

Unlike any other government obligation, the Congress deemed fit to "tax" the Postal Service $5.5 billion dollars each year as a contribution to the pension fund, and if you factor out that olbigation, the USPS turns a pretty stunning profit right up until 2010 (it still earned $400 million dollars, pre-pension funding.)

 

Mind you, that funding is to shore up pensions payable over the next several decades, not the immediate obligations (which are fully funded, thankfully.)

 

So the USPS is a private corporation when they want it to be, but a public corporation when they want it to be, which means things are pretty muddled and it really is all Congress' fault. If Congress treated it like a government operation, that entire pension would be funded out of our tax dollars instead of our tax dollars.

 

Huh?

 

That's right: you and I subsidize that bulk mail thingie in both our postage and whatever small fundings Congress deems appropriate.

 

And it's this part that Weismann actually gets right: the Postal Service can't shut a branch without Congressional approval, despite the fact that 25,000 of 32,000 branches run an operating loss. It can't act as a private corporation when it has to.

 

(crossposted to Simply Left Behind)

Does Karl Rove matter anymore?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Turd Blossom and his ex-boss

"Veteran GOP strategist Karl Rove said Monday that the head of the Republican National Committee (RNC) should step in to 'discourage' presidential candidates from attending the upcoming debate moderated by Donald Trump," reports The Hill.

The recent rise of Newt Gingrich, the whole Herman Cain thing, the flirtations with Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry over the summer, the popularity of Donald Trump as a possible candidate (way back when), the ongoing cult of Ron Paul, and Mitt Romney's deep unpopularity with the GOP base (even with Rove and the "money" backing him) -- all of these point to one thing: the impotence of what passes these days for the Republican "establishment."

Once upon a time -- actually not so very long ago -- the GOP was controlled by an establishment that, while undeniably conservative, was nonetheless pragmatic. Hence, at the presidential level, Reagan, Bush I, Dole, Bush II, and McCain, all electable candidates with broad appeal (Bush I lost re-election largely because of Perot, while Dole was running an unwinnable campaign against a popular incumbent in Clinton and McCain ran into the Obama juggernaut at a time when the Republican brand was, as it is still, garbage).

Once upon a time, a Karl Rove, and indeed Karl Rove himself, could have maintained control over the process and, with the snap of his fingers, shut down anything like this ridiculous Trump-moderated debate. But now that the GOP has shifted so far to the right, dominated by ideologues and moved largely by talk radio and Fox News, with propaganda flowing directly to the base and not through establishment channels (and mediators), with the Internet and social networking obviating the need for any such "establishment" to filter the communication between the politicians and their supporters, there's only so much he can do. And however much he may protest, it's not really up to him, is it?

Karl Rove still matters, of course. There's still a need in politics for organization, for ground campaigns and advertising and the like, but times have changed and no longer can he, and others at the "center," control the process or the party.

Hence Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, and Donald Trump. Hence the utter craziness of the 2012 Republican presidential race. Because, yes, what's going on now makes Rove look like a sensible pragmatist. And that's certainly saying something.

The Muppets vs. Big Oil (?!)

Michael Stickings (@mjwstickings) has shared a Tweet with you:

"thinkprogress: Fox News: The Muppets are 'brainwashing' young people to hate the oil industry"

Conservatives are hilariously stupid, aren't they? (If only they didn't have so many ignorant adherents.)

Thanks for never failing to deliver, Fox News.

**********

Here's the Think Progress post:

Life's a happy song, but not when Fox Business is singing along. The network is upset that the new Muppets movie, The Muppets, features an oil tycoon as a villain, with various contributors complaining last week that the film amounts to "indoctrination" of young people into "hating corporate America" that borders on "Communist[ic]." Dan Gainor of the conservative Media Research Center agreed with host Eric Bolling that "liberal Hollywood is using class warfare to brainwash our kids" and the discussion rambled on from there...

The discussion unraveled into attacks against President Obama, the 99 Percent movement, and Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA). Andrea Tantaros, host of "The Five" over on Fox News, implored that Tex Richman embodies "The American Dream," and Bolling suggested that teaching that wealth is bad amounts to Communism.

Poor Corporate America. Poor Big Oil. Boo-fucking-hoo. This woe-is-us thing they and their surrogates always do is pathetic.

Even if this were the case, which it's not. The movie, which I really enjoyed, is an old-fashioned story (not in 3D, thankfully, and full of charming musical numbers) about love and friendship and community, about being yourself and embracing who you are, about difference and acceptance, about values we all can cherish. It's quite wonderful -- and wonderfully American. And of course it doesn't promote the cruelty and brutality of today's conservatism, hence its rejection by conservatives like these morons. (So, yes, in that sense, the Muppets are against right-wing Corporate America, but not against capitalism -- they get their show on network TV, after all.)

And, seriously, attacking the Muppets? I've just got one thing to say to that:

The lessons of Herman Cain

By Mustang Bobby

It really wasn't a big surprise that Herman Cain suspended his campaign for president this weekend. (By "suspending" it as opposed to formally ending it, he avoids some legal issues with fund-raising and the FEC.  Plus, he keeps a glimmer of hope alive for the Cain-bots.) It's hard to believe that anyone truly thought that he would ever be the Republican nominee, and even if he was, that he had a serious chance at winning the election. We like to encourage these kind of quixotic campaigns for the entertainment, but we also know that when it comes back to reality, it isn't going to happen.

The Very Serious People and pundits will all now say that there was an important lesson in the four months of Mr. Cain's ride in the polls above 1%: that we should learn from his candor and his flaws and his loopy 9-9-9 tax plan and his utter lack of knowledge of foreign policy that a high school kid skimming Yahoo! news tweets would know better. There are candidates who may not be career politicians, but they can be a voice in the selection of our leader, and that is essence of the American dream.

Oh, come on -- seriously? The GOP and their enablers inside the Beltway should really wonder if they have a grip on reality when someone like Herman Cain -- even if only for a few weeks -- was atop the leader board in the GOP primary while other candidates with a lot more experience and insight such as Jon Huntsman or Gary Johnson languished at the bottom. It was like Pauly Shore being in the lead for an Oscar while Kenneth Branaugh couldn't get a notice. And if you were able to get Herman Cain to speak honestly about his real goals and why he went through all the trouble and exposure, he would probably confess that it was all about selling books and getting the attention that some people really crave. He was this year's Sarah Palin... remember her? And people wonder why most people are cynical about politics and the turn-out for elections wouldn't keep a mildly funny sit-com alive on the CW.

The Iowa caucuses are in less than a month. By then Mr. Cain will be little more than a memory on the 2011 highlight reel that runs on New Year's Eve, and the party will be focused on the next wild and crazy one to run; I hear Donald Trump is thinking about getting back in. It's always fun to think of what it would be like with a complete outlier in the White House, but the reality is that we all know deep down that we would be truly messed up if we thought for an instant that we would ever trust the nation and the world to someone who really didn't want the job in the first place. 

(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Newt-onian physics

By Carl 

There's an interesting dynamic now taking shape in the GOP race: the rise of Newt Gingrich:

Newt Gingrich drips with disdain for sound-bite politics, but last week he authored perhaps the best bumper sticker of the Republican primary race. "I don't claim to be the perfect candidate," he said. "I just claim to be a lot more conservative than Mitt Romney and a lot more electable than anyone else."

In and of itself, that's a remarkable statement: Gingrich hasn't been on the national political scene since he was forced out as Speaker of the House way back in the Clinton administration. Even President Dumbya was smart enough to stay away from this pudgie toxic waste dump of stoopid.

But when you consider how Gingrich both withered away -- revelations of his demanding a divorce from his wife on what could have been her death-bed, complete with notepad of how to divide the marital assets, his numerous affairs with women clearly out of his league, his tantrum when he was forced to sit in the back of Air Force One on a state visit -- and his intervening years -- making television commercials with both Al Sharpton and Nancy Pelosi, calling out Paul Ryan's budget plan, accepting money from Freddie Mac while deriding them publicly, coming out in favor of a healthcare mandate, to name just a few -- make his "comeback," however temporary it is fated to be, pretty astounding.

It would not be unlike Eliot Spitzer deciding to run for president, and becoming the front-runner by basically making shit up about his past: "Twitter? What's that?"

I'm pretty convinced by now that President Obama and the Democratic party are egging on this "flavor-of-the-month" gallop by the various nags and dodgepots in the horserace to accomplish two things: to force the nomination into Mitt Romney's hands and then to force an insurgency candidacy by (choose your poison).

Newt is just the current bookmark until the race begins in earnest early next year. The ideal scenario for the Democrats would be a bloody, heated battle between Newt (or whomever) and Mitt that would last well into the spring, exhausting the financial resources of both while tallying up much-needed ammunition for the general campaign.

I know, it's really unfair to hold a candidate to his own words, but what the hey, right?

That Newt believes he is more electable than anyone else running is a black mark on both the Republican party and Newt himself.

Newt's self-image is grossly out of proportion to his actual essence as a cad, liar, and coward. Somehow, tho, he's managed to surround himself with enough desperate people to "yes" him to death. This, I think, explains the mulitude of enticements that have been put in his way. Too, I think his success has come about because he operates at his best in an environment that applauds mediocrity. If Newt was playing tee ball today, he'd get a trophy for getting the bat off his shoulder, is what I'm saying.

As for the party, that Newt can still be taken seriously as a candidate speaks to the shallowness of the gene pool, which happens when a small but vocal minority of your party has oversized influence. It would be nice to see the Olympia Snowes and Amo Houghtons of the GOP get a chance in the spotlight, but those candidacies would be non-starters, precisely because they want to work to make the country a better place, not pray it does.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

This day in music - December 4, 1965: The Byrds' "Turn! Turn! Turn!" hits #1

By Richard K. Barry

"Turn! Turn! Turn!" was written by folk music icon Pete Seeger, who recorded the song before The Byrds covered it as a follow-up to their hit "Mr. Tambourine Man."

In a book called Songwriters on Songwriting, by Paul Zollo, Seeger says the following about the lyrics of the song, which are based on a passage from Ecclesiastes:

I don't read the Bible that often. I leaf through it occasionally and I'm amazed by the foolishness at times and the wisdom at other times. I call it the greatest book of folklore ever given. Not that there isn't a lot of wisdom in it. You can trace the history of people poetically.

I got a letter from my publisher, and he says, "Pete, I can't sell these protest songs you write." And I was angry. I sat down with a tape recorder and said, "I can't write the kind of songs you want. You gotta go to somebody else. This is the only kind of song I know how to write." I pulled out this slip of paper in my pocket and improvised a melody to it in fifteen minutes. And I sent it to him. And I got a letter from him the next week that said, "Wonderful! Just what I'm looking for." Within two months he'd sold it to the Limelighters and then to the Byrds. I liked the Byrds' record very much, incidentally. All those clanging, steel guitars -- they sound like bells.

"Turn! Turn! Turn!" became an international hit in late 1965 when it was covered by the American folk-rock band The Byrds, reaching #1 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart and #26 on the UK Singles Chart. 

The Byrds went through a number of changes in personnel from the time they formed in 1964 until they disbanded in 1973. The lineup at the beginning was Roger McGuinn, Gene Clark, David Crosby, and Michael Clarke, and then Chris Hillman joined them shortly thereafter.

Although The Byrds managed to attain the huge commercial success of contemporaries like The Beatles, The Beach Boys, and The Rolling Stones only for a short period of time (1965–66), they are today considered by critics to be one of the most influential bands of the 1960s, particularly in their early influence in the folk-rock genre.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

NFL 2011: Week 13 picks

By Michael J.W. Stickings

It's been a busy week in U.S. politics, what with the continuing rise of Newt and the predictable end of Cain, and, with U.S. politics the usual focus of this blog, we've been ramping up our coverage of the 2012 presidential race. So we've been a bit light on the football. Alas. I even neglected to put up a Thursday post for the Philadelphia-Seattle game.

The Kid picked the 'Hawks, while Richard and I went with the Iggles.

And, watching the game, I felt stupid. Philly's terrible. Sure, they're got enough talent, say, to win a game now and then, and even to beat a decent team like the Giants, but they've got so many problems, so many glaring weaknesses. I never bought into the whole "Dream Team" nonsense, but I did pick them to win the NFC East, in part because of their talent but also because I didn't think much of the Giants and thought the Cowboys weren't quite there. (The football media always talk up the NFC East for a variety of reasons -- east-coast bias, old rivalries, four teams with national coverage going back decades -- but in recent years, including this one, it's been the most overrated division in the league.)

But the signs were there, weren't they? I should have paid more attention to them: the unlikelihood of Vick a) playing up to last year's standard, and b) making it through a full season; inexperience and lack of talent at LB; Nnamdi playing in a new system that wouldn't utilize his strengths (and also Nnamdi getting older and maybe not being quite as good as everyone thought); DeSean Jackson's bad attitude; and, last but not least, Andy Reid, one of the worst supposedly good coaches in the league. Enough said. It's no wonder they suck. (If you want a lengthy analysis of all that's wrong with them, go check out Bill Barnwell's recent requiem at Grantland.)

No, the Seahawks aren't good either, but they were at home and at least try hard. Like I said: stupid, stupid, stupid.

Oh, and that Marshawn Lynch is pretty darn good. Who knew? (Well, my wife, for one, who started him on her fantasy team this week. No wonder she's kicking my ass this year.)

Alright, let's get to the picks...

As you may know, my associate editor Richard, a friend of ours nicknamed Comfortable Kid, and I are tracking our picks this year, with posts going up each Sunday at 11 am. We get one point for each correct pick, along with two bonus points if we get our Upset of the Week right. If we get our Lock of the Week wrong, we lose two points as a penalty. 

I usually post how we did the previous week along with season-to-date standings, but I have neither the time nor the energy tonight. (I'm writing this at 1:05 am, after watching the wonderful movie Beginners, and after a long day, and will be busy all morning.) I'll get it up later today, after the Steelers game. (Unless my beloved Steelers are losing badly. Then I'll get off the couch and try to get on with life.)

**********

Okay, it's Saturday, December 24, Week 16. I'm finally getting around to updating the standings, going week by week. Here's how things stood after Week 12:

Last week

MJWS: 13-3 = 13 points
The Kid: 11-5 (plus upset) = 13 points
RKB: 10-6 = 10 points

Season to date

RKB: 119-57 (7 upsets right, 2 locks wrong) = 129 points
MJWS: 118-58 (4 upsets right, 3 locks wrong) = 120 points
The Kid: 108-68 (5 upsets right, 4 locks wrong) = 110 points

**********

I can, however, report that after some mediocre weeks I went 13-3 last week. I just regret taking the Bears over the Raiders as my upset. I was going back and forth, as I noted in our post last week, but I should have gone with the Redskins. Why didn't I? Because they, like the Eagles on Thursday, were playing on the road against the Seahawks, who have the best home-field advantage in the league with that awesome 12th man -- and because I don't exactly believe in Mike Shanahan (another of the worst supposedly good coaches in the league, though I'm not sure if anything really thinks he's good anymore) and Rex Grossman.

Anyway, here are this weeks games (not including Philadelphia at Seattle on Thursday):

Tennessee at Buffalo

Kansas City at Chicago

Oakland at Miami

Denver at Minnesota

Indianapolis at New England

Cincinnati at Pittsburgh

Carolina at Tampa Bay

N.Y. Jets at Washington

Atlanta at Houston

Baltimore at Cleveland

Green Bay at N.Y. Giants

Dallas at Arizona

St. Louis at San Francisco

Detroit at New Orleans

San Diego at Jacksonville

Stickings' Pickings

Picks: Buffalo, Chicago, Miami, Denver, New England, Pittsburgh, Carolina, N.Y. Jets, Houston, Baltimore, Green Bay, Dallas, San Francisco, New Orleans, San Diego.

There's no way I'm going 13-3 this week (especially not after losing a game already).

Let's get to my lock and upset, where I provide some substantial analysis.

Lock of the Week: New England.

Allow me to quote Cousin Sal, from his weekly gambling post at Grantland, addressing the prop bet of the Pats scoring over 34 points against the Colts: "This proposition might as well read, 'On a scale of 1 to 10, how big an a-hole does Bill Belichick feel like being?' I'm not sure if the NFL has anti-bullying regulations, but it might put some in place after this game Sunday."

There's a lot of parity in the league, and, sure, you know what they say about any given Sunday. But there is no realistic scenario in which the Colts win this game. It's the surest thing all year.

If you want to play it a bit riskier, how about the 49ers at home against the Rams? Okay, that's actually not much riskier. The Rams did beat the Saints in Week 8, but that was at home and the Saints don't exactly have a great D.

Baltimore should also clobber Cleveland.

Upset of the Week: Miami.

We base our possible upsets on pick distribution in Yahoo pick'em. If a team is picked by 35 percent or less, we allow that as an upset pick. Last week, as I mentioned, I was going back and forth between two possible upsets, the Skins over the Hawks or the Bears over the Raiders. This week I see 12 possible upsets.

Yes, twelve. Let's take a look:

1) Titans over Bills -- Buffalo has imploded after an impressive (but mirage-y) start to the season. The Titans don't exactly overwhelm you on offence, but Chris Johnson broke out last week and could have a huge game today. And Hasselbeck is good enough not to lose the game. Oh, and Fred Jackson, one of the best RBs in the league this year, is out for the Bills. I'm taking Buffalo at home in a squeaker, but I'm not at all confident about it.

2) Chiefs over Bears -- Pittsburgh didn't play well last Sunday night at Arrowhead, and the whole thing just made me sick to my stomach, but, you know, the Chiefs' D, while inconsistent, isn't bad, and of course the Bears won't have Cutler behind center. Can they stop Matt Forte? Yes, because they won't have to worry about Caleb Hanie and a generally unimpressive receiving corps. Now, while the Bears might not be able to put up many points, will the Chiefs be able to get it going at all against the Bears' D? Remember, the Chiefs are starting Tyler Palko again, who at times last week looked absolutely horrendous. Kyle Orton may take over at some point, but there's just not enough talent at the "skill" positions. I'll take the Bears at home, but K.C. could pull this one out.

3) Dolphins over Raiders -- I just don't believe in Carson Palmer. Granted, I don't believe in Matt Moore and the Fins either, but they're at home against a team coming in from the west coast and are playing some decent football. Remember, they almost took down the 'Boys last week in Dallas on Thanksgiving. I'm taking Miami as my Upset of the Week.

4) Vikings over Broncos -- I don't believe in Tebow either. (I won't get into it again here.) But there's no denying that he makes things happen when he needs to, usually in the last few minutes after he's played a generally terrible game, barely able to throw the ball straight. But the Broncos aren't winning because of Tebow but because because their D has been coming together nicely, especially the pass rush led by Von Miller and Elvis Dumervil, and because they've been going through an especially weak part of their schedule (Raiders, Chiefs, Jets, Chargers over the past four weeks, winning them all). They should beat the Vikes, who won't have AP again, but Minnesota has enough talent on D, including Jared Allen and some decent LBs, to make this interesting. Well, "interesting." It'll be a crappy game. And for the first time this year, I'm going with Tebow.

5) Bengals over Steelers -- I'll admit it, the Steelers' D just isn't what it used to be. It gives up way too many late-game scores and doesn't dominate anymore. And while the Steelers have shown they have an impressive passing game, Big Ben's injured (thumb) and has been inconsistent (despite putting up huge numbers). What worries me is that the Steelers don't seem to know what they are and often seem to be unwilling to play to their strengths by spreading the field and airing the ball out the way the Pats and Pack do. They just don't have that killer instinct, so to speak, and we saw that in their game at Cincy a few weeks ago. After getting off to a great start, they suddenly sputtered, letting the Bengals get back in the game and barely holding on at the end for the win. And full credit to the Bengals, who have a solid D and great offensive leadership in Dalton at QB. I suppose I'll take Pittsburgh, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if Cincinnati pulled off the upset.

6) Panthers over Bucs -- Basically, Newton over Freeman. That's what it comes down to. Oh wait, it won't be Freeman, who's likely out. So Newton over Josh Johnson. Carolina can't stop the run, but it's not like the Bucs have a powerful offence. And the combination of Newton, Steve Smith, DeAngelo Williams and other RB Jonathan Stewart can put up a lot of points when it gets going. Yeah, I'm going Carolina as my #2 upset after Miami.

7) Redskins over Jets -- Two teams I loathe. The Redskins did win in Seattle last week, and Grossman has been playing fairly well, and maybe Shanahan will get the hell out of the way and let Helu be the starting RB the rest of the way, but the Jets are the better team. But the game's in Washington, I have no confidence that Sanchez can play well (despite his four-TD performance against the Bills last week), and the Redskins have enough talent, particularly with Santana Moss back from injury) to make it interesting.

8) Texans over Falcons -- Matt Ryan on the road is much different than Matt Ryan at home. Now, you say, who the hell is T.J. Yates? Good question. We know he's the third-stringer forced into a start due to injuries to Schaub and Leinart, and we suspect that he's not that good, or at least, giving him the benefit of the doubt, can't be good due to his inexperience. But the Texans still have that awesome running game with Foster and Tate and still have a solid receiving corps in all-pro Andre Johnson, Jacoby Jones, Kevin Walter, and Owen Daniels. Yates would have to suck mightily for that offence not to put up points against the Falcons. Plus, on the other side of the ball, the Texans have an outstanding D, led by the likes of LBs Brian Cushing and DeMeco Ryans and CB Johnathan Joseph, not to mention a solid d-line with tons of sack potential. Yes, Ryan has his weapons, too, but something tells me Houston pulls off the upset in what really shouldn't be considered an upset at all.

9) Giants over Packers -- Just kidding. (Wait, Green Bay has to lose sometime, right? Right? Okay, maybe not. But, you know, it's possible that the G-men take down the Pack at home this week. They've got enough offence to say with Rodgers & Co., and if they get their pass rush back they could actually make it tough for Rodgers to get it going. Seriously.)

10) Cardinals over Cowboys -- Dallas didn't exactly look all that great against the Fins last week and may be looking ahead to the Giants next week. So it's a possible trap game on the road. Do you believe in Romo? Is it possible to believe in Romo? Can he do it? Look, Dallas is by far the better team, and that's my pick, but if Beanie Wells, coming off a huge 228-yard rushing performance last week (the star of my fantasy team, to be sure) after six mediocre-to-bad games in a row, can keep the 'Boys D focused on the run, maybe, yes, just maybe, Kevin Kolb, returning from injury, can hook up with Fitzgerald a few times for big plays. You never know. Any given Sunday and all that.

11) Lions over Saints -- In what could very well be a shootout, you just never know. Certainly we know the Lions can get it going behind Stafford and Calvin Johnson. The Saints were pretty awesome last week, though, putting up 49 on the Giants, and there are just too many questions about Detroit's run game.

12) Jaguars over Chargers -- You never know. Any given Sunday and all that. Especially with Norv Turner and the INT machine known as Philip Rivers involved. And the Jags' D is pretty good.

See what I mean? It's quite a week. Three easy locks and 12 possible upsets.

Crazy. Who doesn't love the NFL?

Barry's Tea Leaves

Picks: Tennessee, Kansas City, Miami, Denver, New England, Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay, N.Y. Jets, Atlanta, Baltimore, Green Bay, Dallas, San Francisco, New Orleans, San Diego.

Lock of the Week: New England.

Upset of the Week: Miami.

(Note: Richard is suffering from a bad bout of the flu this weekend. So no analysis.)

Comfortable Kid

Picks: Buffalo, Chicago, Oakland, Denver, New England, Pittsburgh, Tampa Bay, N.Y. Jets, Houston, Baltimore, Green Bay, Dallas, San Francisco, New Orleans, San Diego.

Lock of the Week: San Francisco.

San Francisco over St. Louis. Steven Jackson's playing poorly and San Francisco is the first team since the 1928 Providence Steam Rollers to not allow a rushing TD through 11 games. Sam Bradford hasn't shown us that he can beat a team through the air, so I don't anticipate St. Louis giving the Niners much of a fight this weekend.

Upset of the Week: Houston.

The Texans are starting their third-string QB, which has helped them become an underdog in this game. I still think they can win this game. Three factors weigh into this upset pick: Atlanta tends to play notably worse away from home; Houston's defence is vastly improved and can shut down Mike Turner and Matt Ryan; and Houston has one of the best ground games in the league with Ben Tate and Arian Foster in the backfield. They've got a good shot at winning this one.

Iowa and the new Republican reality: Gingrich surges into the lead, Paul rises to second, Romney stumbles down to third

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Despite their undeniable significance, I don't want to make too much of the Iowa caucuses, let alone of a single poll still a month out from the vote, but what appears to be going on there reflects what's happening nationally.

As Jed Lewison reports at Kos, a new Des Moines Register poll shows Gingrich in the lead at 25 percent, with Paul in second at 18 percent and Romney in third at 16 percent, with Bachmann (8), Cain (8, but he's now out), Perry (6), Santorum (6), and Huntsman (2) well back.

Looking at polls going back to June, the trends are clear:

-- Gingrich is surging, up from just 7 percent in late October.

-- Paul has also improved, jumping up from 12 percent in late October. (Both he and Newt were at 7 percent in June.)

-- Romney has been steadily declining: 23 to 22 to 18 to 16 over the four polls.

As Lewison writes, "he's not only run into a polling ceiling, he's starting to lose ground... and he's losing it just as he's gearing up to try to win the state." I've been saying for a long time now that Romney has a low support ceiling. It may be getting lower, particularly with Gingrich emerging and Paul picking up steam. Romney could rise again if Gingrich falters (and if Newt self-destructs either by being himself or because people start paying attention and see him for what he is (and has been throughout his political career), but with so little time before Iowa and New Hampshire, that may not happen until it's too late, if ever.

-- The rest of them are done. In particular, Perry's hopes of a comeback. It's over.

I don't consider Paul a serious contender despite the intensity of the support for him. (For an example of that, see this piece I wrote for The Huffington Post on Friday. It looks at the ad Paul is running against Newt, but it's really about Gingrich as the frontrunner and the current state of the GOP race. But I included a throwaway line about how Paul will never be the nominee and that was enough to arouse the ire of Paul's fanatics. Check out the comments, including my responses.)

As we're seeing in Iowa and elsewhere, the race has turned into Gingrich vs. Romney. Given his low ceiling, Romney was depending on the anti-Romney conservative vote being split among a number of candidates -- that is, on no one rival emerging to unify the conservative vote. It looked bad for him when Perry surged into the lead after the Iowa Straw Poll over the summer, but that didn't last long, not with Perry doing so badly in the debates and generally embarrassing himself. It was fine when it was Cain as his main rival, because Cain wasn't really a serious contender.

But now, with Gingrich? It doesn't look good, and Gingrich, unlike Perry, seems to have what it takes to stay on top (assuming he keeps Bad Newt -- that is, the real Newt -- in check), at least long enough to win Iowa, place a strong second in New Hampshire, and then win South Carolina, building up his ground campaigns and securing the necessary support, both financial and otherwise, to pick up even more steam from there.

Romney should be worried. Very, very worried.