FRAP? No - CR*P!

Friday, on Rachel Maddow, one of her segments compared her pet dog's idiosyncrasy as a puppy to the U.S. Senate. She said that a puppy affliction known as "Frenetic Random Activity Period," or "FRAP," is also the Senate's problem.

To me at least, the FRAP, the frenetic random activity period, is the most cogent explanation I can come up with for what‘s happening right now in the United States Senate. Things are happening really fast and furious right now in Washington. And we know why that‘s true for one side of Washington.

One of her examples is,

The nukes treaty with Russia, right? This has been on the docket for eight months now...

Republicans decided that they wanted amendments, that nothing could happen on this until they had no time for their very important amendments. They wanted to add amendments to the treaty.

But, OK, Democratic Senator John Kerry, who appeared on this show two nights ago, said essentially that even though that was kind of weird, if that‘s what Republicans needed in order to finally bring this thing to a vote, then, sure, you want to debate amendments? We can debate amendments...I got the floor time right now. Here‘s your time for amendments.

Republicans, it turned out, did not have any amendments. Nothing ready to go. Nothing written out, nothing to offer, nothing planned.

Ultimately, today, a day later, John McCain finally figured out an amendment that he might want to try. Republicans insisted this could not be voted on. They could not vote on this treaty until they had time to offer their many and very important amendments. So when they got the chance, kerplunk, one, and it took them a day to come up with it.

I'm sorry, Ms. Maddow, but this is an example of a horribly broken Senate - that's the "most cogent explanation." It has nothing to do with some "syndrome." These knuckleheads are solely out for their own interests and don't give a hang about the people they supposedly represent. It's all about making the other side look bad and give their side an edge.

In other words, they're full of CR*P, not FR*P. ;-)

Security Theater 101 (or the Keystone Kops revisited)

So...Are you feeling safe yet at airports? Hah!

A Houston man got a .40 caliber handgun by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) airport inspectors the other day. On top of that,

A person briefed on the latest tests tells ABC News the failure rate approaches 70 percent at some major airports. Two weeks ago, TSA's new director said every test gun, bomb part or knife got past screeners at some airports.

And don't you just love that those "dangerous" bottles greater than three ounces are tossed into bins right next to the authorities? I mean, if the bottles did hold explosive liquids, wouldn't you think that they would be taken to a safe place away from the TSA authorities? Just in case those big, bad bottles explode, you know. Maybe the TSA personnel are just really, really, really brave. Not!

Why is it that Israel's Ben Gurion International Airport, one of the most secure airports in the world, doesn't require passengers to remove their shoes?

Full body scanners? According to Ralph Nader,

The technology has already been challenged by recognized academic specialists on both safety and efficacy grounds. After six months of testing at four major airports, Italy is likely to drop these scanners, finding them ineffective and slow. The European Commission has also raised "several serious fundamental rights and health concerns" and recommends less-intrusive alternatives.

I've said it before and I'll keep saying it. The security system at our airports are nothing but "security theater" brought about by inducing fear into the citizenry, thus making them more docile for Big Brother to take away as much of our rights as they can.

Or to put it another way: "Keep 'em scared, keep 'em cowed."

The dumbing down of committees...

I see on the MSNBC news ticker this morning that soon-to-be Speaker of the House John Boehner has offered Rep. Michelle Bachman (R-MN) a seat on the Congressional Intelligence Committee.

I sense an oxymoron in there somewhere...

The Washington/Wall Street Circle Game continues

After leaving the Obama Adiminstration position as head of Office Management and Budget (OMB), Peter Orszag has been hired by Citicorp. And so the incestuous relationship between Wall Street and Federal Government continues. As Glenn Greenwald puts it,

Just think about how this works. People like Rubin, Summers and Gensler shuffle back and forth from the public to the private sector and back again, repeatedly switching places with their GOP counterparts in this endless public/private sector looting. When in government, they ensure that the laws and regulations are written to redound directly to the benefit of a handful of Wall St. firms, literally abolishing all safeguards and allowing them to pillage and steal.

Then, when out of government, they return to those very firms and collect millions upon millions of dollars, profits made possible by the laws and regulations they implemented when in government. Then, when their party returns to power, they return back to government, where they continue to use their influence to ensure that the oligarchical circle that rewards them so massively is protected and advanced. This corruption is so tawdry and transparent -- and it has fueled and continues to fuel a fraud so enormous and destructive as to be unprecedented in both size and audacity -- that it is mystifying that it is not provoking more mass public rage.

Get that? No one is at all concerned about this. No "provoking...mass public outrage." Even when it's blatantly stated that he is powerfully connected. No one seems to care that the Circle Game expertly pointed out by Mr. Greenwald boldly continues. As the Huffington Post article states,

Orszag, who had worked as director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Obama, left the White House in July. He was one of the president's most prominent advisers and remains well-connected in U.S. political circles.

Now he will bring those connections to Citigroup -- although the bank said in a prepared statement that his role will not involve direct contact with federal government officials.

Oh, no... Of course his role will not involve direct contact with federal government officials (maybe indirect, hmmm?). They just hired him because he's an all-around nice guy and fun to be with! And I've got Florida swampland I want to sell you.

Last week, Carlos Gutierrez, Commerce Secretary under George Bush also got hired by Citicorp. So he will be making tons of money under the Citicorp umbrella until the next Republican President comes into power. Then watch as he goes back into government service to further enrich Wall Street. Looks like Citicorp is covering both Democratic and Republican bases. The more things change, the more they stay the same...

Has Obama jumped the shark?

Last night, Keith Olbermann's Countdown on MSNBC had a special comment regarding the great tax "compromise" engineered by Obama and the Republicans. It was great. I really liked what he had to say near the beginning of the comment:

In exchange for selling out a principle campaign pledge, and the people to whom and for whom it was made, in exchange for betraying the truth that the idle and corporate rich of this country have gotten unprecedented and wholly indefensible tax cuts for a decade, in exchange for giving the idle and corporate rich of this country two more years to accumulate still more and more vast piles of personal wealth with which they can buy and sell everybody else—

In exchange for extending what he spent the weeks before the midterms calling tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires to people who have proven, without a scintilla of doubt, without even a fig leaf of phony effort to make it look like they would do otherwise, that they will keep the money for themselves—

In exchange for injecting new vigor into the infantile, moronic, disproved-for-a-decade three-card Monte game of an economic theory purveyed by these treacherous and ultimately traitorous Republicans, that tax cuts for the rich will somehow lead to job creation, even though if that had ever been true in the slightest, the economy would not be where it is today.

In exchange for giving tax cuts for the rich which the nation cannot afford, and extending their vintage through the next election and thus promising, at best, a reenactment of this whole sorry, amoral, degrading spectacle during the 2012 presidential campaign, when the sides will be climbing over each other to again extend these cuts—

In exchange for this searing and transcendent capitulation, the President got just thirteen months of extended benefits for those unemployed less than 100 weeks. And he got nothing, absolutely nothing for those unemployed for longer, the 99ers.

Very well said.

Rachel Maddow, at the end of her show right after Countdown, pulled out a favorite quote of hers supposedly from Gandhi,

“First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.”

Sadly, she then proceeded to illustrate how the Obama administration has it backwards,

So, first he won. Then they fought him. He got a lot of legislation passed in his first two years as president. But by fighting him in this way, the Republicans destroyed him in the midterms.

And in the first big test of whether those midterm losses had seriously wounded the president, or whether he was going to come back stronger after that defeat, the president face-planted, calling a hastily-arranged press conference to try to defend an inexplicable capitulation, even before his opponents have taken power, even with public opinion on his side.

So first he won. Then they fought him. And now, with the way he lost this fight, we have arrived at the part you would hope would be the worst of this process, but it isn‘t.

What is happening now is that this presidency is at risk of becoming a punch line. It‘s not that he has lost a fight or two or three or four. It‘s that the very idea that he knows how to win or even wants to win has become a joke.

In my opinion, this administration is over. Time to move on. Of course, with the two-party system, whoever grabs the torch will perpetuate this travesty against the people of the United States...except for the politically elite and the rich and powerful.

The great tax "compromise" blowback begins

I've run across a couple of posts re the tax cut "compromise" that I think are spot on. The first is Dave Sirota's writing that we in the United States (or at least those who govern it) have gone "batshit crazy." His first of four reasons is very telling:

We just had an election that focused intently on the problems that come with a growing national deficit and debt. Correspondingly, almost every major poll after the election shows the majority of the country therefore doesn't want to extend Bush tax cuts on income above $250,000 a year. Nonetheless, a Democratic president who won the biggest electoral landslide in contemporary history on a promise to rescind those tax cuts -- that same president is now pushing to extend those very tax cuts, thus seriously increasing the national deficit/debt.

I recommend your reading the entire article.

It's also great that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt) is incensed about this horrible deal. He's is totally on point when he says,

"I can tell you with absolute certainty that a couple of months from now our Republican friends will have driven up the national debt by giving tax breaks to the very rich, and then they're going to come back and say, 'Oh my word! We have a growing national debt and a big deficit! We're going to have to cut back on Pell Grants, on education, on health care, on environmental protection -- all of which will impact the middle class!'" said Sanders.

I sincerely hope that when the Republicans do start falling back on the debt/deficit excuse that people such as Mr. Sanders will look them right in the face and say, "Well, you extended the tax cuts for the rich putting us further in debt, so let's not hear any whining while we help the middle class get back on their feet."

The great tax "compromise" debacle is imminent...

I am really going to be steamed if the democrats (read: Obama) cave and give the upper income a continuing tax break. You just KNOW that they will be saying, "It's going to be 'only' for two years" or some such idiocy.

There should be NOTHING for those earning above $250,000. We don't need to add to the deficit by giving the "haves" more money. And the weenie response of, "We got so much in return for it!" is unacceptable! Any bets, "Some will be disappointed" will be spoken by our fearless leader as an attempt to mollify his base?

As usual, the "We will never compromise!" Republicans win again. Obama's duplicity is appalling. He had a chance to be a great President, but he acceded to money before the people.

A pox on the democrats! I've always said that the two parties are made of the same cloth. One more piece of evidence.

Update (one hour later)

The Huffington Post says a deal has been struck. To wit (emphasis mine):

...the contours of a final package emerged with more detail than ever before. While it's clear that the White House gave in on its main front -- the desire to let the tax levels for the upper-income levels revert to pre-Bush rates -- administration officials claimed that they were able to secure major victories in return....to continue for two years...

In reference to my comment about the Dems and Reps being the same, Jeremy Tri comments in the article,

Sure would of been nice to have elected a democrat to be president in 2008!

Boy, howdy, amen.