Anyone who thinks they have all the Answers before they've even heard the Question - is Dangerously Deluded! Real Truth Requires Vigilance, Perseverance and Courage, regardless of Party and who wields Power. Left, Right, Center, Corporations, Government, Unions, Criminals or the Indifferent.
I don't like to generalize and lump a wide swath of people into one big homogenous pile, but this week we've had two huge examples of exactly the kind of completely heathless self-aggrandizing inhuman monstrous Ass-Bandits that Republicans can be.
First we had the House Vote Against the 9-11 Responders
As if the fracking procedure really matters all that much when people who Risked their Lives to Save the Lives of Others are on the line.
It's just bloody Insane!.
Then after all of this posturing that "Tax Cuts Don't Have to be Paid For" - and blocking of Unemployment Benefits in the Senate, we have an updated Jobs Bill which is both Paid For and includes mostly Tax Cuts for Small Business and the Republican Filibuster IT!!!
Senate Republicans yesterday “rejected a bill to aid small businesses with expanded loan programs and tax breaks” even though several GOP lawmakers helped write it and it had been backed by conservative business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The procedural blockade underscores “how fiercely determined the party’s leaders are to deny Democrats any further legislative accomplishments.”
What. The. FRACK are these people ON??
And it's not like we didn't get a warning about this from Al Franken when he said "They Don't Want the Jobs to Improve before the Election".
Franken: And Republicans sort of take this stance that the best thing we can do is slow everything down so as little can happen as possible, so that we can both blame Democrats for not having stuff happen, like jobs bills and stuff like that. And so that, you know, I mean sometimes it’d be a legitimate difference of opinion on something, but sometimes it’s been ridiculous. But I do think that this whole approach of slowing everything down, in many ways I think it’s so that, they don’t want a jobs bill because they don’t want people to get jobs before the election. It’s a harsh thing to say, and I don’t want to impugn the motives of my colleagues, but I don’t get what they’re doing otherwise.
When he said this I thought he was going a little over the top, now I'm like...
That's exactly what it is - they don't want people to get jobs before the election so that Democrats will get the credit for it. They don't CARE how many people are out of work, need assistance and are losing their homes. The first stiumulus wasn't as large as it should have been, because of Republicans and their FETISH for Tax Cuts THEY DON'T CARE who it hurts, they just want the President to FAIL. They want the Democrats to FAIL. The want the Country to FAIL.
I can't believe we're seriously looking at losing seats to These People. Who the Hell can TRUST THEM?
Their entire mantra is "Government Sucks" - so why do they want to be part of something that Sucks, to make it Suck More?
They like to pretend that the Government Doing anything, particularly giving things away is such a horrible thing. Oh yeah? Well, what about the Homestead Act which gave away LAND!!!
You don't have to read History - just pay attention to Tom Cruise's Movie "Far and Away" and this scene which is "Land Race" where Settlers rush to the plot of land that will become their home, as provided by the Government!
Don't ever say the government didn't give white people something for nothing (after stealing it from Native Americans that is - talking about "Spreading the Wealth Around" this Land Race was preceded by the Horrific Trail of Tears).
It's not like Capilistic Ingenuity built the Interstate Highway System, or developed the technology that eventually became the Internet. That was Government! Our Government. But Republicans don't believe in America, they don't believe in the ability of American Government to help us lift ourselves up.
All you have to do is look at the Republcan "Battle Plan" - wherein they promise to...
Raise Taxes on the Poor and Middle Class by Eliminating nearly ALL Tax Deductions, Offsets and Credits.
Lower Taxes on the Rich by yet another 12-15%
Raise Social Security Taxes, while Decreasing Benefits for those under 55 by "Personalizing" up to 1/3rd of it on the Stock Market
Increase the Eligibility Age for Medicare to 69 and Cut Benefits
Replace Medicaid with Medical Savings Accounts
Completely Ignore Climate Change, Stall Green Energy Policies, Environmental Concerns, Safety and Health Regulations
This is America with Republicans in Control Again. One for All and All for Nobody but their Damn Self.
We can't let these crazy power-drunk people back behind the Wheel of Government - Not Again. We may have our problems with how Democrats have governed, we may be disappointed that they left out a provision here or the Public Option there - but Seriously - This. Can't. Happen.
It's past time to get up off the mat people, and start fighting BACK!
Although many pundits openly admit that Shirley Sherrod deserves her day in court against Andrew Breibart, few seem all that willing to openly say whether she has a chance of winning or not. Herein I take a basic look at the case and the law, and invite practicing attorney's to weigh in...
Much of the media has portrayed Breitbart's own commentary on the video as being rather minor, but it is not. It's actually quite extensive, going on to lay out the entire background for the dispute between the Tea Party and NAACP.
In his view, the Tea Party is completely and totally innocent of the charge of Racism. He claims that Democratic Congressmen staged their walk through the crowds inside the Capital Building - it's not like they WORK THERE OR ANYTHING - in an attempt to provoke Tea Partiers, which he also claims failed.
But it got even more blatant when Congressmen Andre Carson and John Lewis and other Congressional Black Caucus members staged a walk through the Tea Party crowd in front of the capitol the day before the health care vote. They claimed they were threatened by a violent mob and were subjected to the vile N word slur fifteen times. With the unpopularity of the toxic health care bill that the majority of Americans did not want, the Democrats needed a November strategy. Neutralizing the growing Tea Party movement with charges of racism was clearly its post-health care reform vote priority.
See, the only accusation of bigotry on the part of the Tea Party was the "N-World" during that one moment even though there were witnesses, it had nothing to do with this...
The core of his argument, to cut to the chase, is that the "Real" Racists are the Congressional Black Caucus and the NAACP.
The NAACP and the Congressional Black Caucus do not want racial harmony. They want political victory, and the race card is their Stradivarius.
We are in possession of a video from in which Shirley Sherrod, USDA Georgia Director of Rural Development, speaks at the NAACP Freedom Fund dinner in Georgia. In her meandering speech to what appears to be an all-black audience, this federally appointed executive bureaucrat lays out in stark detail, that her federal duties are managed through the prism of race and class distinctions.
In the first video, Sherrod describes how she racially discriminates against a white farmer. She describes how she is torn over how much she will choose to help him. And, she admits that she doesn’t do everything she can for him, because he is white. Eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help. But she decides that he should get help from “one of his own kind”. She refers him to a white lawyer.
Sherrod’s racist tale is received by the NAACP audience with nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement. Hardly the behavior of the group now holding itself up as the supreme judge of another groups’ racial tolerance.
As we all now know Mrs. Sherrod was not speaking about something that occurred within her "Federal duties" and this actually is indicated within even just this excerpt when she says "I thought the Department of Agriculture had sent him to me". Why would she say that if she was working for the Department of Agriculture?
This clip also includes her saying "It was revealed to me that it wasn't about Race....it was abut haves and have nots" which also shows that she was actually making a point that was broader than race. Also part of the reason, as she describes it, that she didn't want to work with this particular farmer was because "He was trying to show that he was superior to me"... in other words, he was being a bit of a prick, her negative reaction to hm and reluctance to "give hm the full force of what I could do" wasn't just because he was white - he was being an asshole.
She doesn't refuse to help him, she just gave him a reference to an attorney she thought would give him a fair shake. The point of the story was that he didn't, but what's even more interesting about Breitbart's post is that he didn't stop there.
He posted a second video.
The NAACP which has transformed from a civil rights group to a propaganda arm of the Democratic Party and social-justice politics, supports a new America that relies less on individualism, entrepreneurialism and American grit, but instead giddily embraces, the un-American notion of unaccountability and government dependence. Shirley Sherrod, a federal appointee who oversees over a billion dollars of federal funds, nearly begs black men and women into taking government jobs at USDA — because they won’t get fired.
It’s unfortunate that the NAACP’s recent resolution and false accusations have forced us to show you video 1 when video 2 is the bigger problem. That’s not to say video 1 is not a problem, but this country can ill afford, in this time of economic peril, to waste our time poking and prodding at the racial hornet’s nest that was supposed to have been removed with this post-racial presidency. But now President Obama and the modern-day Democrat party reveal they are anything but post-racial.
The emerging Tea Party nation understands that the media has focused on the manufactured racial schism while intentionally ignoring the schism between free market thinkers and government expansionists, that the latter of which is brazen in its desire to transform America into a European-model welfare state with a healthy dose of socialism.
All Sherrod says in the second clip is that it's difficult to fire a Federal Employee, and that's true due to Civil Service rules unless they happen to be a political appointee as Sherrod herself was, at which case they serve at the "Pleasure of the President" and can be removed without any reason or cause at all - just ask David Iglesias. What's so sinister about this statement I can't quite fathom, other than the idea that "black people are using the Government as a Jobs Program paid for on the backs of hard working Whites" or something...
The basic Legal issues are these... did Breitbart commit Libel?
LIBEL AND SLANDER occur when a person or entity communicates false information that damages the reputation of another person or entity. Slander occurs when the false and defamatory communication is spoken and heard. Libel occurs when the false and defamatory communication is written and seen. The laws governing libel and slander, which are collectively known as DEFAMATION, are identical.
A plaintiff who wishes to sue an individual or entity for libel or slander has the burden of proving four claims to a court: First, the plaintiff must show that the DEFENDANT communicated a defamatory statement. Second, the plaintiff must show that the statement was published or communicated to at least one other person besides the plaintiff. Third, the plaintiff must show that the communication was about the plaintiff and that another party receiving the communication could identify the plaintiff as the subject of the defamatory message. Fourth, the plaintiff must show that the communication injured the plaintiff's reputation.
Even as a layman, this appears to be a slam dunk. But was it truly Defamation?
Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person.
So the crux here is that the statement has to be intentionally false and that the defendant has to be aware of the falsity of the statement. Truth is an absolutely defense, but then so is ignorance. If you don't know that your statement is false, then it is not intentional defamation.
Actual Malice is defined as "knowledge that the information was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." Reckless disregard does not encompass mere neglect in following professional standards of fact checking. The publisher must entertain actual doubt as to the statement's truth Actual malice is different from common law malice which indicates spite or ill-will.
Larry Flynt attempted to invoke the Actual Malice standard in his case Hustler Magazine v Falwell but was rejected since his case involved a parody and satire, not an intentionally false statement - even though Flynt did ultimately prevail in that case.
It's pretty clear that Breitbart fits the definition of "common law malice" including spite and ill-will when it comes to Democrats, the NAACP, the President anyone associated with the - including Shirley Sherrod - and anyone who would challenge the Tea Party. He does show a blatant disregard of the facts, even of the scant information shown within the truncated version of the video - and makes clearly disprovable claims about them and about Sherrod.
But is that just intellectual laziness on his part or willful and malicious disregard for the truth?
I think it might be difficult to meet the "Actual Malice" standard if the only evidence is just this one post, but if a pattern of delibeate malice can be shown by - for example - bringing in the evidence of the Full Length ACORN tapes which were reviewed by the Brooklyn DA and California Attorney General showing that nearly all of Breitbart's claims about them were just as false and malicious as his claims about Sherrod I think Andrew might find himself in a fairly hot kettle for fish.
Update:There's also the fact that even after the full tape was released, Breitbart was still calling Sherrod "A Racist" - showing that even when he does have the facts, he continued to Defame Her.
As Chris Hayes Reports, the Obama Administration has been breaking records on Deportation of suspected Illegal Immigrants, increasing the rate by 10% of Bush final year, and 25% greater than his first year.
Under the scenario that Republicans gain control of either the House or Senate, exactly what is it we can expect them to do? Even though some have argued they don't need an agenda, a few indicators have begun to peek out - like this tidbit from Congressman Paul Ryan.
Ken Fienberg on both CBS and CNN via Crooks and Liars where he talks up the current "success" of the program.
Despite all of Feinberg's happy talk above the Press-Register has revealed this.
BAYOU LA BATRE, Ala. -- Ken Feinberg said today he hasn't been able to start writing claims checks because BP PLC has not yet deposited any money into the $20 billion escrow fund it promised to create.
Feinberg, who was appointed last month to administer individual and business claims stemming from the oil spill, held an early morning town hall meeting in Bayou La Batre on Saturday before meeting with the Press-Register editorial board in downtown Mobile.
Feinberg said he is leaning toward giving partial payments to companies and people who are indirectly impacted by the spill -- an outlet store in Foley hurt by the decline in beach traffic, for example.
He also said he would do something for real estate owners to cover a decrease in property value.
BP officials and President Barack Obama agreed last month that the oil company would put $5 billion a year over the next four years into an account to pay for spill-related costs, such as claims, environmental restoration and cleanup costs.
This might just be a bureaucratic snafu, and in the long run may not be a big deal, but when we also look at how BP has treated local Scientist and experts by trying to legally shut them up about what the ecological and environment impacts of the spill has really been...
BP PLC attempted to hire the entire marine sciences department at one Alabama university, according to scientists involved in discussions with the company's lawyers. The university declined because of confidentiality restrictions that the company sought on any research.
Wherein I Call Out Anderson Cooper for his Lies and Smears about the Netroots supposed "Engaging in the same tactics as the Right" - and Officially Call for him to correct HIMSELF and Apologize.
Cooper : I mean, I don't -- I don't get -- as somebody who is not particularly partisan on the left or the right, I try not to view things through the lens of being liberal or being conservative. I don't get -- it just seems like, whether you're a conservative or whether you're a liberal and you have a blog, it doesn't seem like the truth really matters. It's just, you say whatever you want to say, whether you're on the left or the right, to prove your point, and if you're wrong, no one ever says they're wrong. No one ever seems to apologize.
The first problem with Coopers construction is that it's based on a false premise, that those on the left - writ large - are deliberately engaging in factionalism where truth and facts becoming secondary to ideology and partisan gain.
Anyone whose spent more than 30 seconds on any major progressive site, particularly this one, knows that's not true because We Self edit and Self Correct. We do point out mistakes, we do even Take Down Posts which other members find racially, religiously or otherwise offensive. I understand Cooper's effort to remain "non-partisan" by proclaim "both sides do it" - but the effort to achieve False Neutrality often leads to creating a False Reality.
Cooper has Smeared us as Liars as bad as Brietbart and he deserves a response.
Certainly, anyone can make an honest mistake, anyone can have an intemperate moment and shoot off the cuff, the question is - can you admit and fix that mistake or do you double-down on it because your ego and ideology demand it?
Can you admit it when you're wrong?
Anderson's charge is that both the left and the right equally fail in this test.
i submit He. IS. Wrong. Not everybody does it. Not everybody lies.
Generalizing this broadly as he has, is just as offensive and wrong-headed as a Racial Smear would be. Bring Specifics Anderson or else you must take back the charge.
certainly there are general tendencies between left and right, but lets be honest here. The general stock-in-trade of the right has been in creating and maintaining a pack of falsehoods that support their economic and social agendas, the general path of the Left has been to counter those falsehoods with Facts, even when they don't necessary lead where we might like them to. If there is a fundamental difference between the two ideologies, it's the one (the Right) operates with absolute certainty, and then fills in the gaps later - while the other (the Left) generally operates with constant questioning, correction and testing of our theories to ensure their provability.
The Left argues with each other constantly and openly, which is why we often seem in disarray even in victory - the Right functions in constant Lock Step, without question, without dissent, without allowing truth to spoil their certainty. Trying to get the Left all going the same direction is literal like herding cats, getting the Right to go all the same way simply requires pointing out "where the Liberals are" and they automaticaly go stampeding the other way at FULL Warp.
This is of course a generalization, and there are clearly exceptions in both directions, but I think it generally holds true.
Wanna see what happens when someone goes off the approved reservation in Right-wing World? This...
