Amy Holmes Fail!

It is always annoying when a pundit says something that, as a viewer, you know is flatly untrue but the host of the show apparently is not aware of the error. (And I don't mean statistics that can be interpreted in multiple ways - even if a certain party stretches credibility for the sake of their interpretation.)

A noteworthy example from last year was when Newt Gingrich said on The Daily Show that Richard Reid (the "Shoe Bomber") was read his Miranda rights (by the Bush Justice Dept) only because "he was an American citizen" - when, in fact, Richard Reid is NOT an American citizen and, in that way, his situation was no different than the "Underwear Bomber". This showed the hypocrisy of the GOP (and the political Right) as they were blasting A.G. Eric Holder and the Obama Administration despite the fact they were following the same protocol that the Bush Administration had (when the GOP had not raised any objection to the reading of Miranda rights). (Note: While Jon Stewart did not correct Newt Gingrich during the interview - he did acknowledge Newt's factual error after they came back from commercial break).

Well, on last Friday's Dylan Ratigan Show, there was a factual error stated by conservative pundit Amy Holmes. There was a discussion of the budget and the need to make significant alterations to the entitlement programs when Ms. Holmes said:

Back in 2005, George Bush tried to do this and some say he wasted an entire year of his presidency and that's when Harry Reid was Majority Leader and Harry Reid didn't want to do it... so as long as Harry Reid is in charge of the United States Senate and the Democratic Party, I don't think you're going to see real progress.

I heard that and Dylan Ratigan just let it go. The fact is that Harry Reid was NOT Majority Leader in 2005! The Republican Party had 55 seats in the 109th congress and the Majority Leader was Bill Frist. George W. Bush could not get his privatization of Social Security plans through the Congress controlled by his own party. The public hated the proposal... according to the Brookings Institute:

Observors noticed that the more the President talked about Social Security, the more support for his plan declined. According to the Gallup organization, public disapproval of President Bush's handling of Social Security rose by 16 points from 48 to 64 percent--between his State of the Union address and June.

Anyway, I didn't want to do this post to re-debate the Bush plan. I just wanted to point out the inaccuracy of Amy Holmes and the failure to correct by Dylan Ratigan. And, in the bigger picture, the hugely relevant point is that as Republicans try to re-write history (again!) with regards to their fiscal discipline --- it is important to always keep in mind the famous quote typically attributed to the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynahan:

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Strike Three

Someone needs to get Dylan Ratigan a DVD of SchoolHouse Rocks as a refresher course on how a bill becomes a law. Recall that the financial reform bill passed with zero votes to spare; all Republicans outside of the New England triumvirate of Snowe, Collins, and Scott Brown voted against the bill... not because it didn't go far enough a la the NAY vote from Democratic Senator Russ Feingold but for reasons such as, to quote Richard Shelby (R-AL), it being a "legislative monster" or, as House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) more famously said, it was like "killing an ant with a nuclear weapon".

Well, late last week, Ratigan had Michael Crowley from Time Magazine on his show to discuss the passing of the bill and Crowley reported:

I think (the Obama administration) feel like the financial reform bill was the best they could do. Again, in a perfect world, they might have done some things a little differently, but the numbers in the congress are very hard for the Democrats.

That makes sense does it not? Dealing with the "Party of No" means you end up selling out key principles to get those last couple votes. It happened in the health care bill with the special deals for Nebraska, Louisiana, and Florida. Now it happened in this bill with the deal for Scott Brown and the watering down of other parts of the bill (such as the stripping out of new regulations on the rating agencies). As ugly and as unfortunate as this is, such is Washington D.C. with a Republican Party trying to score political points on every single issue by opposing what a Democratic Party majority is trying to accomplish.

Ratigan, unwilling to see it for what it is, instead says:

Teddy Roosevelt had the audacity to break those institutions up and resurrect a truly creative, dynamic, adaptable country. This president doesn't seem to have that where-with-all.

Well, yes, props to Teddy Roosevelt. He is not on Mount Rushmore for no reason. However, Roosevelt had the authority to do his trust busting because of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. It's not like he was the one who got that passed (and it had passed almost unanimously... one vote against in the entire congress... perhaps the 1890 version of Ron Paul?) So the heck with "where-with-all", what is the authority he wants Obama to use to impose new rules on Wall Street? No matter how much of a Big Government, socialist, communist, etc. the right wing thinks Obama is, he is still bound by the Constitution and the laws and statutes enacted in the past 220+ years and, as such, we are left a legislative process which produces the Dodd-Frank Act and all the problems it doesn't address because the members of Congress do not want them addressed.

Strike Two

I am tired of Mr. Ratigan sort of ranting in multiple directions with regards to the availability of capital in this country. He has spent weeks, if not months, just ranting and raving about how all the banks (or, at least, the big Wall Street banks) "steal" all the money and that is why there is no capital in the system, no investment going on and, hence, no jobs being created.

He is still arguing that point (actually, it is somewhat reminiscent of Ross Perot and the "giant sucking sound" from the NAFTA debate of 1992 as he talks of the banks sucking all the money out of the backdoor of the financial system); however, he is now concurrently latched onto the idea that many corporations are hoarding cash*.

So, I guess the situation if you follow his narrative is the Treasury/Fed is just printing money out of thin air and flooding the system with money but that there is no money available for businesses to invest in their innovative ideas while other corporations will not spend any money because there are worries about new regulations or something.

It's quite a portrait he paints! However...

...this brief interaction between Peter Morici and Richard Quest from Your Money on CNN on Sunday (7/18) will probably give a better understanding of what is going on in 30 seconds than watching a week worth of Ratigan:

PM: To create jobs, businesses need customers and capital. The customer side? There's just not enough demand for what Americans make.

RQ: Peter may be right that there's an imbalance in the US-China relationship but there's not a lot the U.S. can do about it as long as it keeps sucking in those imports.

* Seriously, this is a link worth clicking. It's funny because I found this link after referencing the comment from Peter Morici. I was just adding some references to the post as I typically do and I thought the hoarding cash argument could be linked because when Ratigan shows his chart of corporations hoarding cash, he lists his source as Barry Ritholtz, author of Bailout Nation (a tremendous book by the way), so I google "Barry Ritholtz hoarding cash" and expect to find a post about the problems of corporations hoarding cash and how the Obama administration is impeding the recovery - but that is not what it is at all!

Strike One

Last week, I watched with interest the coverage of the passing of the financial reform bill on The Dylan Ratigan Show. I have several thoughts/observations about his coverage that I am going to spread across a few separate posts.

First off, the show uses this caption:

SENATE PASSES WALL ST. "REFORM" 60-39.

I point this out only to make sure everyone knows (although if you're bothering to read this... you probably already do know) that the bill passed with zero votes to spare (that will be more relevant in a subsequent post). Oh, and I was mildly annoyed by the quotations around the word "reform" because of it's implication - but that annoyance was really moot considering he spent days flat out saying it was not true reform.

Anyway, Mr. Ratigan decided to make a big deal of a poll that said that 80% of the population doesn't think it fixes the problems or will prevent the next crisis or whatever (Ratigan didn't seem to really think the exact phrasing of the question was important I guess). And he says this:

The American voter has a pretty clear view of this. Four out of five people in that Bloomberg poll say they don't think this does anything to fix the problem. The problem they see is that the banks are too big to fail, the banks give 40% of the funding to all politicians. Politicians then do what the banks want them to do ultimately when to comes to protecting their core businesses.

With all due respect to my fellow citizens, I say with great confidence that there is NO WAY Americans have "a pretty clear view of this." This is an extremely complicated issue and I suspect >50% of the members of congress couldn't discuss this topic with any depth of understanding and clarity.

And for TeaBag Nation who throw hissyfits about members of congress not reading bills... I suspect, in this case, they are completely correct but I do not think it matters because most would not understand it anyway.

Ratigan: Venezuala of BS?

I feel confident saying that Rachel Maddow is unanimously liked and respected by all two Furriners bloggers. My colleague may have decided that watching America's Biggest Loser or The Real Fat Housewives of New Jersey Surviving In The Wild is better use of his time than watching The Rachel Maddow Show but, you know, to each his own. It is certainly less embarrassing than his love for Justin Beiber.

Anyway, the respect for Ms. Maddow is not shared for Dylan Ratigan. I am the only one who takes him at all seriously. What can I say? He can be fun to blog about because, at times, he gets so over the top. I will say that as long as the airwaves have the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, & Rick Sutcliffe, he may not be the "Saudi Arabia of Bullshit"... but he seems to be a lot closer than he thinks.

For example, I consider the following to be a striking contradiction in rhetoric. To be fair, there can be a nuanced interpretation where he does not seem like a hypocrite but to paraphrase Anderson Cooper: I'll report, you decide.

First quote is from his introduction of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La) on June 22nd where he calls out the Obama administration for the deep water drilling moratorium:

As it stands, it seems insane to prevent anybody from being able to work that lives there.

Then, on June 29th, Ratigan says this:

"If nothing, it (the BP oil spill) teaches us that relying on off-shore drilling, relying on traditional fossil fuel as it stands right now is simply not sustainable and works to the direct potential future diminishment if not meaning destruction to portions of our country. Not only is it grossly inefficient and expensive, as we saw on April 20th, it's deadly."

Is that not somewhat bi-polar?

And consider the phrasing on that first quote: "insane to prevent anybody...". Insane?!!? Is that not too forceful an adjective for what is admittedly a very difficult issue? And prevent anybody? Let's be clear, we are talking about less than 33 rigs out of the approximately 3,500 rigs operating in the Gulf. Does this sound like "prevent anybody" is the appropriate terminology for this situation?

I guess my argument is that, unlike the Rhodes Scholar (Dr. Maddow), Ratigan has yet to develop a coherent (or at least a consistently coherent) ideology for what is the role of government in today's society.

I suppose if I could stomach Glenn Beck, I would have tons of bullshit to blog about. That said, Saudi Arabia is one step too far for me.

We Have Seen The Enemy

The BP Oil Spill is a tragedy. I know what you're thinking. Yeah, no shit sherlock! Just hear me out as to the context of what I mean.

I assume all of us have certain quotes or observations we've come across over the course of our lives that just stick with us for some reason. They aren't necessarily the most eloquent quotes or astute observations but, nevertheless, for some reason, they remain active in your brain. One such observation for me was, I think, made in George Carlin's Brain Droppings (published back in 1997)... I'm not even 100% sure about that because it has stayed with me for over 10 years now.

Anyway, Mr. Carlin, ever the commentator on language, observed that modern society has misunderstood what makes something a "tragedy". A plane crash, in his observation, was not a tragedy. Death and destruction from an earthquake or hurricane or tornado also not tragedies. His argument was that, in the classic sense, the word tragedy refers to a specific kind of art form - developed (I think) by the Greek playwrights in the centuries before the birth of Christ - where the protagonist inadvertently brings about their own downfall because of their own actions and/or (flawed) character traits. I checked an online dictionary and it does still have this as the primary definition:

A drama or literary work in which the main character is brought to ruin or suffers extreme sorrow, especially as a consequence of a tragic flaw, moral weakness, or inability to cope with unfavorable circumstances.

So, excepting that real life is obviously not a drama or literary work, I contend that it is the weakness of the American people that has led to the circumstances that brought about the oil spill. It seemed for a little while there that I was not hearing anyone else voice this opinion but then I watched Dylan Ratigan on Tuesday and he unleashed this rant which is better than what I would have come up with:

"Regardless of all the fingerpointing, when it comes down to it, we all...share responsibility for what is unfolding in our country - not just in the past eight weeks but over years here. And the past eight weeks being the most obvious example of it. Regulators who do everything but regulate... in fact, seek to accomodate in the hopes of getting a high paying job when they leave the government. Politicians who choose policy based on what's popular and don't provide any leadership to do what is necessary to end our dependence on fossil fuel - specifically foreign energy or dangerously obtained energy (deep water drilling). Ultimately, it comes down to us (being) so focused on our short-term gains and indulgences... don't pay a lot at the pump. Avoid a lot of the real cost of energy because we refuse to actually see what we stand to lose in the long term in order to enjoy the pleasures of the moment... that cheap gas." -- Dylan Ratigan (6/15/10)

So, that echoes my take. It is wrong to just yell and scream at BP and allow ones self (no matter how tempting) to lose sight of the context of their actions. They and other oil companies are drilling off our coasts because we permit it. The people of the Louisiana elected politicians that aggressively pursue off-shore drilling... even in the face of this disaster (see here or here or here). Ditto for Mississippi.

So while I acknowledge it's unreasonable to expect all of us to transform ourselves into Ed Begley, Jr. It is still a truism that we should only expect change if we demand change. Otherwise, we should expect to remain our own worst enemy and we will see more classic tragedies in the decades to come.


Note: To give credit where is due, I should say that the cartoon was borrowed from The Atlanta Journal Constitution and was found online here.

I Could Not Agree Less

It is one of my pet peeves of Dylan Ratigan that he ends so many of his interviews with the phrase "I couldn't agree more"; he could be talking to a far left liberal like Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) or a far right conservative like Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) and he ends up buying the shit they're selling (no offense, Alan!).

This comes to mind because I was watching the Thursday (6/10/10) DR show and Mr. Ratigan posed this question to Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) (often referred to as the #3 Republican in the House (behind John Boehner and Eric Cantor)):

DR: "Is there a political opportunity for conservatives or Republicans... to call out the Democrats as you just did (my note: he actually had done no such thing) and push to actually address Too Big To Fail, to actually force capital requirements as Susan Collins, a Republican, has done?"

I mean, does Ratigan have any idea what he says on his own show? It was Ratigan who was strongly advocating for the Brown-Kaufman Amendment in the senate bill because it truly addressed TBTF. He should be very well aware that three of 41 Republicans voted for that amendment! How are they going to credibly "call out" Democrats when they have no interest in legitimately addressing the issue?

Moreover, it was also Ratigan himself who has long called out Republicans for a talking a good game (such as Mike Pence's oft-repeated talking point "Freedom to succeed must include the freedom to fail") while not actually being willing to follow through when a crisis hits. Keep in mind, it was the Reagan administration that bailed out Continental Illinois in 1984, it was George H.W. Bush administration who bailed out the savings and loans in 1989, and the George W. Bush administration bailed out the airline industry in 2001 and, obviously, passed TARP in 2008.

So without passing judgment on the wisdom of any those financial rescues, it is clear that bailouts, rescues, emergency loans, by whatever name you wish to call them, are a bipartisan tactic.

A former president once (in)famously said:

"Fool me once shame on... shame on you... fool me can't get fooled again." -- George W. Bush

I guess what I am saying is that if you believe Mike Pence and the other Republicans and their Frank Luntz approved rhetoric, you're a fool. Sorry, Dylan... it had to be said.

I Want To Be Your Betty White

I think it goes without saying that I should be on TV discussing politics and all things Derek Anderson. The reason it goes without saying is because, quite frankly, no one is actually saying it. This post should correct this injustice. Now, ideally, I would be booked on The Colbert Report or Real Time with Bill Maher but, if I have to, I will settle from the dregs of cable like a CSPAN2 call-in show or The Dylan Ratigan Show.

The reason I bring this up - besides the fact that I want to be on TV - is that I was watching the "mix-it-up" segment on The Dylan Ratigan Show on Tuesday and Ratigan posed this question to his guest Alicia Menendez of New Democrat Network (yeah, I never heard of it either):

DR: What's the difference between (President Obama) stumping to give away the so-called 'doughnut hole' (checks) and President Bush a few years ago coming up with Medicare Part D? In other words, giving money to old people who vote prior to an election... particularly when the country doesn't have the money... (it) seems to be a common trait whether you're a Republican or Democrat. Does it work?"

The answer by Ms. Menendez was a talking point word salad about "taking care of our seniors" that is entirely not worth quoting here. But you know what she DID NOT SAY? Anything about how the health care bill is fully paid for! (At least according to CBO scores). That was the difference, Dylan!

And the conservative blogger, Liz Mair (yeah, I never heard of her either), was not exactly reminiscent of William F. Buckley.. Dylan asked her about Nancy Pelosi being heckled at a progressive conference and she said:

LM: Well, I think that unfortunately for Nancy Pelosi, we are increasingly seeing that there are a lot of progressives who are very disenchanted with the Democratic Party and Democratic leadership and I think that's something that we're gonna see consequences of in the elections this year.

Is that not tremendous analysis!?!? No wonder she was invited on the show! That would be like Barry Melrose analyzing last nights Chicago Blackhawks Stanley Cup win with: "Well, I think that unfortunately for the Flyers, we have seen that Chicago won their fourth game in the series tonight. As a result, the Blackhawks were awarded the Stanley Cup and the Flyers were not."

So, what can you do to help me? I'm glad I asked that for you. Well, I noticed that Betty White recently got to host Saturday Night Live after her fans started a Facebook page demanding it. I want to see all loyal Furriners readers start such a page for yours truly (get Elijah Moon on The Colbert Report). Don't worry, mom... I'll help you... just see if you can get your Bridge Club to pledge their support. You can assure them I will try as hard as I can not to say anything nasty about Sarah Palin.