Feed on

Did you know the hit reality show “Jersey Shore” was quickly “co-opted by the would-be hip” but overcame this potential liability “by staying true to its artificiality”?

This must be true, I read it in The New York Times, in a story describing how Snooki and her swine were cast before the pearls of Florence, Italy, courtesy of MTV.

Do you spend a lot of time logged in and looking for the truth? Could be you’re searching in the wrong places, or at least on the wrong sites. Try God’s Blog, and don’t forget to tell him what you think of his work.

Scott Walker rides again!

From Think Progress:

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (R) has rejected more than $9 million in grants from the Affordable Care Act that would have “focused on fighting drug and alcohol abuse; assessing health impacts of public policies; and signing up state residents who qualify for state health programs.”

The next county down has the state record for number of beer cans in the ditches per mile for the country, or something. And they think it’s something to be proud of. A friend who signed up for Badger Care Basic, or whatever the Medicaid buy-in is called, thought it was outrageously expensive at $135 a month; it’s now $250, and she hasn’t had a raise in that year-and-a-half.

The silver lining here is that every health-care provider in the state whole-heartedly agrees with me: Scott Walker is truly a jerk.


I’m not in love


Ten years of torturing the truth

George Bush’s avuncular cheerleader for torture, Donald Rumsfeld, is facing another civil suit. Good news, but why no criminal charges from Barack Obama’s Department of Justice?

You are not alone

Patty Griffin:

Rick Perry’s Prayapalooza!

You can watch it live here if you have nothing better to do and want to watch scary fundies get worked up at the thought of the world ending:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


This song actually once influenced me to get back together with someone I shouldn’t have, but I love it anyway. Richard and Teddy Thompson:

The DFHs were right

The part they’re leaving out

Thom Hartmann points out what you’re not hearing in the media about the S&P downgrade:

Have you seen, anywhere, in any media, or even heard reported or repeated on NPR, the following sentence? “We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act.

It’s right there on Page 4 of the official Standard & Poors “Research Update” – the actual report on what they did and why – published on August 5th as the explanation for why they believe Congress – and even the Gang of Twelve – will be unable to actually deal with the US debt crisis.

Perhaps it’s just lazy – the bullet points at the beginning of the report don’t mention the Republicans or taxes, but instead just say, for example (part of one of six quick bullet-points): “[T]he downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges…”

In order to figure out that one of the reasons why is that “Republicans in the Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues,” a hard-working reporter would have to read to page four of the eight-page report.   It’s just too much effort for most reporters?

Although they do also mention this in the very first sentence of the report: “We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process.” (Italics mine)

Or could it be that many reporters – and virtually all of the television talking heads – are themselves relatively high income-earners who don’t relish the idea of higher taxes?

Or could it be that reporters are afraid that if they report the actual language of the S&P Research Report, then Republicans will punish them by denying them “access” – i.e. refusing to show up on their programs – which is the career and show kiss-of-death for radio and TV programs that rely on big-name politicians to work?

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

eXTReMe Tracker