Thursday, May 19, 2011
Miscellaneous 71
1) The Senate Republicans' lockstep vote (48 for 48) to continue oil subsidies for "big oil" is significantly BEYOND perplexing. a) It represents a humongous flip-flop (many of these Senators are on record as saying that the subsidies should be eliminated or reduced). b) It could in fact alienate some of the more principled tea partiers (I'm assuming that there are some). And c) It is absolutely going to destroy them in the general election....What, in the name of God, were they (the reasonable ones; Snow, Lugar, Corker, etc., especially) thinking? They certainly ALL can't be beholding to big oil, CAN THEY?............2) Dirk Nowitzki (star forward for the Dallas Mavericks) went 24-24 from the foul-line the other night. Not THAT is impressive! Of course, what makes it even more amazing is the fact that that this frigging guy is a 7-footer dude (big guys generally don't shoot free throws all that well). Damn, huh?............3) Compare that to me, a guy who can't do ANYTHING 24-24.............4) . Not, mind you, that this is as big a screw-up as Michele Bachmann saying that "the founding fathers worked tirelessly to get rid of slavery" or anything but, still, when MSNBC's Rachel Maddow "reported" (during her May 12th telecast) that Joseph McCarthy was a member of the House Un-American Activities Committee, you really do have to consider that idiotic, too. I mean, come on here, folks, anybody who even follows history a little bit knows that McCarthy was, HELLO, a Senator! Here's to hoping that she eventually corrected this (at the very least on her web-page).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
Will: Rachel Maddow "reported" (during her May 12th telecast) that Joseph McCarthy was a member of the House Un-American Activities Committee...
From the transcript... you may remember the House Un-American Activities Committee. Part of that was Senator Joe McCarthy red baiting the living heck out of the entertainment industry...
As you can clearly see she identifies McCarthy as a SENATOR. This isn't a "correction", you simply heard wrong.
(Wikipedia says) McCarthy was the Chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Government Operations Committee of the U.S. Senate [and] had no direct involvement with [the] House committee...
But both committees were a PART of the red scare silliness. RM isn’t factually inaccurate. She has a limited amount of time to cover her stories, and most people have heard of both Senator Joe and HUAC...
Which is why she used them to let people know what she was about to discuss (the Republican propaganda cartoons for kids Mike Huckabee wants you to buy to indoctrinate your children).
BTW, the transcript actually says "on American" although I'm sure that is a typo. Also, I'm sure the fact checkers I previously mentioned and whoever is responsible for posting transcripts... they're different people. I suppose you take this of proof that RM is indeed an idiot? (although I'm also sure that it isn’t RM who posts the transcripts).
Will: Damn, huh?
Nope. Color me un-amazed. Because going "24-24 from the foul line" doesn't mean anything to me.
That the Republicans all voted to keep giving subsidies to big oil isn't "beyond perplexing". This is another example of the Republicans looking out for their constituents. I can understand how this might confuse someone in the middle though.
In 2005 oil executives testified before Congress that they did not need oil subsidies if the price of oil was $55 per barrel.
What is it now? $100+ per barrel?
"Part of that" - no, Mr. McCarthy WASN'T "part of that". It was a separate committee and McCarthy had ZERO part in those proceedings. Rachel Maddow was wrong, again.......And she was also sleazily wrong in throwing Mr. Reagan under the bus. Yes, Mr. Reagan was a witness called by the committee, but he was NOT even remotely resembling a blind advocate of McCarthy and he did NOT "name names".
You're absolutely correct, Jerry. And, yes, my friend, that's something that makes this vote even more outrageous.......I mean, if they can't cast an easy vote like this, then how in the hell are we EVER going to cut the deficit?
Will: "Part of that" - no, Mr. McCarthy WASN'T "part of that". It was a separate committee and McCarthy had ZERO part in those proceedings.
You're right that McCarty wasn't a part of HUAC, but that ISN'T what RM was saying. She was saying that McCarty and HUAC were both a part of the red scare silliness. WHICH THEY BOTH WERE. This is a fact that can NOT possibly be denied... unless you're living in some alternate universe.
RM said Reagan testified as a "friendly witness". Encyclopedia Britannica online agrees. It says, "he testified as a friendly witness before the House Un-American Activities Committee".
Also, it is completely and totally impossible for RM to throw Reagan under the bus.
Wikipedia says, "To throw (someone) under the bus is an idiomatic phrase meaning to sacrifice another person (often a friend or ally), who is usually not deserving of such treatment, out of malice or for personal gain".
RM and Ronald Reagan are not (nor were they ever), friends or allies.
My verdict: Rachel Maddow was absolutely correct in what she said about McCarthy, HUAC and Reagan. Is THE TRUTH "sleazy" Will?
Will: "Part of that" - no, Mr. McCarthy WASN'T "part of that". It was a separate committee and McCarthy had ZERO part in those proceedings.
You're right that McCarty wasn't a part of HUAC, but that ISN'T what RM was saying. She was saying that McCarty and HUAC were both a part of the red scare silliness. WHICH THEY BOTH WERE. This is a fact that can NOT possibly be denied... unless you're living in some alternate universe.
RM said Reagan testified as a "friendly witness". Encyclopedia Britannica online agrees. It says, "he testified as a friendly witness before the House Un-American Activities Committee".
Also, it is completely and totally impossible for RM to throw Reagan under the bus.
Wikipedia says, "To throw (someone) under the bus is an idiomatic phrase meaning to sacrifice another person (often a friend or ally), who is usually not deserving of such treatment, out of malice or for personal gain".
RM and Ronald Reagan are not (nor were they ever), friends or allies.
My verdict: Rachel Maddow was absolutely correct in what she said about McCarthy, HUAC and Reagan. Is THE TRUTH "sleazy" Will?
From the Baltimore Sun's David Zurawick (about as down the middle as you get) - But that is just a warmup to appreciating how wrong she is as she says: "You may remember the House Un-American Activities Committee. PART OF THAT (my emphasis) was Senator Joseph McCarthy red-baiting the heck out of the entertainment industry, dragging in actors and writers and anyone he thought might have a whiff of communism on them ... Well, in 1947, Ronald Reagan testified before that committee -- as a friendly witness." THE IMPLICATION BEING THAT MR. REAGAN WAS IN FACT AN ACOLYTE OF MCCARTHY. Slippery, slippery, stuff from Maddow.
More from Mr. Zurawick - Reagan testified before HUAC in Hollywood. McCarthy, a senator, had nothing to do with that House committee. That's what the "H" stands for: House. I think that is, what, about sixth grade civics? But Maddow in her video, as those who view it will see, goes on and on about McCarthy and the Hollywood committee she thinks he was part of. I will say no more, but it is astonishing to me that a program presented under the banner of NBC News could have this many incorrect statements of basic fact about such important matters of American history.......Back to me - Rachel Maddow and Michele Bachmann, you should BOTH stay after school. LOL
Isn't this Zurawick guy the person you say Keith Olbermann said something disparraging of? I guess now I know why. He's a partisan hater who uses his own interpertation of other people's words to misrepresent what they actually meant.
So, Joe McCarthy had absolutely nothing to do with it, huh? I guess the poor guy must have been framed? To think, if someone says the word "McCarthyism", most people immediately think of some a-hole who ruined people's lives via anti-communist witch hunts... when the guy was actually totally neutral on the subject.
...Or that must be the case in the alternate universe you hail from. I think you should either go back to your own universe or learn the correct history of this one.
BTW, in THIS universe Encyclopedia Britannica isn't a source of misinformation... the exact opposite is in fact the case.
I quoted Maddow DIRECTLY. That is MY universe. She said that he, McCarthy, was part of the House Un-American Activities Committee. HE WAS NOT. And she also tried to tie Reagan and McCarthy at the hip - a blatant distortion of history (talk about alternative universes). Reagan was NOT a blind advocate of McCarthy (slamming Nixon would have been far more appropriate). Reagan said that McCarthy "used a shot gun when a rifle was needed' and that he "injured the innocent along with the guilty". And, again, Reagan NAMED NO NAMES. Why didn't Maddow give the entire story?
Zurawick is NOT a partisan hater. That is a lie. The man criticizes Fox/right-wingers in the media constantly. He was even once excoriated by O'Reilly as a LEFT WINGER. Get the entire story before you slander someone.
Will: I quoted Maddow DIRECTLY.
Yes, then you mischaracterized what she said, just like your friend Zuarwick. RM did NOT say McCarthy was a member of the House Un-American Activities Committee. She said he was a Senator who was a part of that (THAT being the Red Scare).
So what if Zuarwick criticizes Fox/right-wingers in the media constantly? So do you (sometimes. Most of the time you're criticizing RM and KO). I think you're both centrist partisans.
Also, so what if RM implied JM and RR were "joined at the hip" (which she didn't)... McCarthy was an OK guy who "nothing to do with that" (according to you and Zuarwick). You're probably both steamed regarding the raw deal McCarthy got (considering how history views him).
Regarding the Reagan quote you provided... it proves to me that Rachel Maddow was RIGHT to link Reagan to HUAC (though she most certainly did NOT link him to McCarthy or imply RR was an acolyte of his).
Right-wingers in the government scaring the voters with phony threats are how we got into the Iraq war. Currently it's Peter King who is using phony threats to malign the Muslim community.
People should be allowed to peacefully practice the politics or religion of their choosing without having to worry about the Right targeting them with shotguns OR rifles.
I say "BRAVO" to RM for using every opportunity she can to malign Reagan... I hope she keeps it up. The guy was a terrible Screen Actors Guild president and terrible politician.
McCarthy was SHIT. How dare you imply that I have sympathy for him.......Oh, so YOU, and only YOU, know what Ms. Maddow meant by THAT. How, you frigging asked her or something? And what was the whole frigging point of the piece BUT to piss on Reagan and/or imply that Mr. Reagan was a red-baiter on a par with McCarthy? You are so off on this one, pal. Even the Democratic Underground professes that "Maddow screwed up".
From wisconsinhistory.org......1946 House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) made a permanent House committee charged to investigate Communist subversion. HUAC is often confused with McCarthy; but because HUAC was a House committee, Senator McCarthy was not involved its investigations.........Clearly Mr. McCarthy was not involved with THAT.
You can find Ms. Maddow's clip/guffaw at weblogs.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/zontv/2011/05/rachel_maddow_more_ignorant_sn.html......In it, you can clearly hear her saying, "You may remember the HOUSE UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES COMMITTEE. PART OF THAT (!!!!!!!) was Senator Joseph McCarthy......As even the Democratic Underground has stated, Maddow screwed up!
Will, you (and Zuarwick) are clearly confused. RM said "you may remember the House Un-American Activities Committee. Part of THAT was Senator Joe McCarthy red baiting the living heck out of the entertainment industry...".
The "that" she is talking about is the Red Scare/Communist Witch hunts that BOTH McCarthy and HUAC were engaged in. You keep insisting that the "that" was HUAC, which would mean that RM was saying McCarthy was a part of HUAC. That is NOT what she was saying. You can keep insisting that it was, but that does not change the fact that YOU'RE WRONG!!!!!!!
Democratic Underground DID NOT professes that "Maddow screwed up". ONE PERSON -- a person who calls himself "Archae" (possibly a Republican Operative) posted on DU that "Maddow screwed up". None of the people who responded agreed.
I'm going to agree with "JDPriestly" who said, "I loved Rachel's show tonight...".
Finally, Reagan DESERVES to be pissed on, so you're not going to get me to condemn RM for that. THAT is why I said "BRAVO" in my previous comment.
I don't think that you understand how logic and linguistics work. She, Maddow, introduced A (the House Un-American Activities Committee), NOT B (!!). She then proceeded to say that Senator McCarthy was a part of THAT (THAT being what she actually said in the previous sentence). At the very least, Ms. Maddow misspoke. And how do you know that that's what Ms. Maddow ACTUALLY meant? Has she tried to clarify this and gave that as an explanation? Or is this simply you spinning for the individual? Please don't tell me that the two of you talk.........So, would you say, "piss on FDR", for his cowardly refusal to back an anti-lynching bill (he was afraid that it would cost him votes in the South)? Or do you only say "piss on people who are Republicans"?
Haven't you ever heard of "Starve the beast"? It is Reagan who implemented it, and that is the reason why our economy is in the mess it is in now. You can fight for whatever ideology you believe in, but purposefully driving the government into bankruptcy to force the cutting of social programs? I call that evil. I don't know what was in Reagan's heart so I'm not going to label him evil, but as far as what he did as president? YES, he deserves to be pissed on for that!
There is also the issue of the October Surprise... his campaign negotiated with the Iranians to delay the release of the hostages... so the guy is basically a traitor...or a useful idiot at the very least.
I know what Rachel Maddow meant because I know she is not an utter moron. It's a conclusion I've reached after watching her program since it began (and listening to her on Air America before that). Call it "misspeaking" if you want, or perhaps I really don't "understand how logic and linguistics work".
The House Un-American Activities Committee was engaged in red baiting, as was Senator McCarthy. They were both a part of that. It's pretty clear to me what she meant. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree and drop it. Obviously you hate RM and are eager to pounce on any little thing to bash her. So be it. It isn’t as if I care. I plan on continuing to watch and enjoy her fine program.
Also, why should she clarify what she said? You seem to have this odd notion that people are obligated to answer any and all criticisms lobbed in their direction. For all I know she hasn't heard the spinning Zurawick is doing to make her appear stupid. Or perhaps she just doesn't care what the partisan haters have to say? I think you have to have a thick skin to be in her business.
"The Senate Republicans' lockstep vote (48 for 48) to continue oil subsidies for "big oil" is significantly BEYOND perplexing"
Actually, the vote was for a tax break.
A tax break is simply the government choosing to TAKE less from someone, less of what people already own.
A subsidy is a gift from the government. Big difference. It is simply untrue that this vote was about subsidies.
So what, dmarks, would you call it when the oil companies pay a pittance for leases to drill for our oil? I'd most definitely call that a subsidy. I say we need to nationalize our oil reserves and stop giving it away. We need to get these leaches off our backs.
So, don't want to answer the anti-lynching question, huh? I can't say that blame you (this, in that it ranks right up there with his internment of the Japanese, his court-packing scheme, etc.). "Thou shalt not say ill against another progressive." Pretty Reaganesque, actually.......She needs to clarify because she made a linguistically incorrect (if in fact it wasn't a factual error - maybe she DID think that the Senator worked in concert with the house and was mistaken - nobody, not even a progressive is perfect, wd) statement (Zurawick and I weren't the only ones confused, btw). We'll have to wait and see what she does.
I hear you, dmarks. I just don't think that we should be giving special tax breaks a) when we have a humongous deficit and b) to a major industry making record profits.
"So what, dmarks, would you call it when the oil companies pay a pittance for leases to drill for our oil? I'd most definitely call that a subsidy."
The ability to make a low rent payment is not a gift, Again.
"I say we need to nationalize our oil reserves and stop giving it away."
No thanks to the ruling elites taking it over.
"We need to get these leaches off our backs."
Hear hear: and the leeches here are the government. The amount of taxation on gasoline is ridiculous. The government makes more profit on a gallon of gas than Big Oil does.
Also, from polifact:
"At first, we thought Markey was saying that no oil company pays anything for the right to drill in the Gulf. But we knew that was not true. In a previous item we noted that the Minerals Management Service -- the office in the Interior Department charged with regulating natural-resources extraction on federal lands as well as collecting the resulting royalties -- took in just under $10 billion in royalties and other revenues in 2009, placing it in the top 10 government offices for generating federal revenue."
Sorry, W-Dervish. $10 billion is not a pittance. Weight this against the amount of money the government spent to buy the land (look at the total paid for, say, the Louisiana Purchase) and you will see that when you weigh against the initial investment, the total received on the leases in 2009 is more than 500 times as much as the entire payment for the Louisiana Purchase. The government's making out like bandits here.
Imagine if you paid $100,000 for a rental property, and decided to rent it out, and had renters paying $50 million a year to live on it. That's what this is like.
dmarks, WTF? The oil companies aren't living on the land they are leasing, they're drilling for oil on it! This land is owned by the American people, therefore the oil underneath it is owned by the American people...
and we're pratically giving it away! So the hell what if the oil companies are paying 10 billion? The oil they're extracting is worth substantially MORE!
Since the land and oil underneath it belongs to the American people, HOW would nationalizing it be handing it off to the "ruling elites"? American doesn't have "rulers", we have representatives.
Our country is a representative democracy dmarks. We don't have "ruling elites". This is grade school stuff I'd have guessed you'd be aware of.
I don't know if 10 billion is a good deal or not (I know that it more than offsets the ethanol subsidies). But to support what dmarks said on taxes. In CT, after the next budget goes through, we'll be paying 66 cents a gallon in taxes (including federal). At $4 a gallon, that comes out to 16.5%. The profit margin for oil companies is what, 10%. Just for perspective.
Will, the money our government collects in gas taxes isn't "profit". That money goes to constructing and maintaing the roads people who buy the gas drive on.
Is you wanted to compare apples to apples (or as close as you can get in your ridiculous comparrison of "profits") I think you need to look at...
Oil company gross revenue less expenses.
versus
How much the government collects in fuel taxes less expenses.
If we accept your number of 10 percent as the profit margin for big oil, then what is the "profit margin" for the fuel tax collectors?
It is ZERO. They spend ALL of that money building and maintaining roads. Actually, without looking it up, I suspect they spend more, which means their "profit margin" is actually negative. How's that for "perspective"?
BTW, Will -- Reagan did name names. It's a confirmed fact, not "innuendo".
Post a Comment