Links for the 6/22 TRMS

I hope the SC does find the mandate unconstitutional. It serves the Dems right for coming up with an overly complicated solution when there was a simple one readily available: single payer.

Had they just extended Medicare to everyone and increased the payroll tax, with a transitional tax credit for employers now providing an acceptable level of health insurance to their employees, much of the hard feeling would have been avoided. Everybody knows what Medicare is and how it works. Republicans could never have seized upon the complexity to demonize the ACA.

Next time, whenever that opportunity comes, let's do it right.

3 votes

#2 - Fri Jun 22, 2012 11:20 PM EDT

melopsittacus

@mpguy Yeah, I was extremely frustrated with how Lieberman and Nelson et al stabbed the Dems in the back during the health care debates, and I get the sentiment of "if only." Rationally, though, the ACA is a step in the right direction. Extending health care to 30 million. Setting up exchanges. Eliminating exclusions due to pre-existing conditions. Small steps considering the extent of the problem, but all positives worth fighting for.

Finally, I don't get how you can believe that the modern GOP would not have demonized another bill. According to the current Republican zeitgeist, if it's not Republican it is unamerican and evil.

1 vote

#2.1 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 8:42 AM EDT

melo ... Of course, Republicans would have tried to fight an extension of Medicare. They're Republicans. It's what they do and who they are. It just would have been so much more difficult for them.

You're starting with a program that's hugely popular, especially with the core of the Repub base--older white males. Notice how Republicans tiptoe around the idea of dismantling SS and Medicare. They have to be careful, since they risk offending folks who HATE government programs, but LOVE Medicare. These people don't like being reminded that Medicare is a government program. (Hence the cognitive dissonance demonstrated by the "get your hands off my Medicare" signs at "Tea Party" rallies.) A fight over extending Medicare would fry their circuits. It would cause strategic problems for the Republicans.

It also would just be harder to fight because it's a program that people know and understand. It was easy to demonize "Obamacare," because it was complicated and hard to explain, with most of the benefits postponed several years. The Dems created a big piñata and said to the Republicans, "Here it is, just start whacking away." It was too easy a target for a party that's really good at using FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) to achieve its goals.

It's much harder to create opposition to something people already know and like.

1 vote

#2.2 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:39 PM EDT

Tom51

mpguy, I agree with you. Extending the medicare system at an appropriate tax level works for me. The medicare service provider system is in place and it makes no sense to privatize the health-care system which will make it more complicated and expensive.

#2.3 - Sun Jun 24, 2012 12:33 PM EDT

whimpy44

Watched Bill Maher this evening, where Rachel Maddow was a guest...who on earth is that Nick Gillespie dude!! And what kind of ax to grind does he think he has with Rachel Maddow?!! In all the time that I've been watching and enjoying Bill Maher, I don't remember ever seeing anyone taking such a heated personal stance against another guest on the show. This is a first!! His personal attacks were infuriating!! In addition, he often looked sideways toward Rachel during the dialogues with an open sneer.

I actually CHEERED when Rachel turned and said, "you don't KNOW me..." and she continued, telling him to stop making statements about her personal positions on the material discussed during the show.

I sooooo like the Rachel Maddow Show, as well as the Bill Maher Show, for the informative discussions and dialogues. This dude failed to be informative in any way during this show. He was so far off base on his statements that the "fracking" products are only used within the region that they are extracted from - and are not intended for export to foreign countries.

I live in Astoria, Oregon. We have been fighting monster corporate America for several years over attempts to build liquified natural gas terminals for export on ships out of our ports. We've been lied to, ridiculed, lied to, stolen from, lied to...you get my meaning. It's corporate America at its best here. We don't want to be in the line of fire of this type of environmentally risky cargo...but we've been lined up against the wall and shot at - accused of being "anti-jobs".

That natural gas product extracted by "fracking" WILL be exported to Asian ports. We know...we live in a small community that is at the mercy of the BIG money interests that want that exporting business. Invasion is a good word for what we've been fighting for the last four years. There's no wide-spread knowledge of what's happening in regard to this natural resource that belongs to America. Enormous corporations are moving stealthily to position themselves to export natural gas on a large scale...

This dude, Nick Gillespie, was talking through his nasal passages for most of the Bill Maher show. I guess if you pretend loud enough, you'll be able to get people to think you KNOW something.

...written by a huge fan of both Rachel Maddow and Bill Maher...

4 votes

#3 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:13 AM EDT

Yeah, he thought he could bully Rachel and I saying that labeling products as GMO was bad because people can research and track stuff at Kroegers? Natural gas is here now, but solar and wind aren't. WTF?

2 votes

#3.1 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:17 AM EDT

Natural gas is here now, but solar and wind aren't. WTF?

It's true. Natgas is plentiful, cheap, and relatively clean. Solar and Wind are clean in practice but very expensive. Perhaps you noticed all the Obama subsidized green companies going bankrupt?

#3.2 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 8:58 AM EDT

maphi

@Shooter

Yes - solar and wind are clean in practice and very expensive. Oil production way back in early 1900's was very expensive. The potential for oil - like for cars - was recognized as something that should be supported. That is when the government subsidies for oil companies started.

Yes natural gas is plentiful, cheap and relatively clean when it is being burned. However, the problem with fracking to get the oil out of shale is the potential to cause real permanent damage to the ground water. I have been skeptical of fracking. The video "The Sky is Pink" discusses internal gas drilling documents addressing the known problems of the concrete casings failures. I would like to hear the gas companies response to the video.

Business people (like Mitt Romney) constantly stress that some companies succeed and some fail. Government subsidies do not guarantee success. Solyndra failed, we all agree about that. "All Obama subsidized green companies going bankrupt" sounds like a generalization. Can you back that up?

4 votes

#3.3 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 10:06 AM EDT

shooter ... Bush and Romney have also subsidized several firms in the energy industry that went bankrupt. The loan guarantees to Solyndra started under Bush. As for Romney, and his little government-backed ventures as governor of Massachusetts, perhaps you should look up "Evergreen Solar" and "Konarka Technologies." Might provide some interesting reading if you're into the subject of hypocrisy.

4 votes

#3.4 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:46 PM EDT

whimpy44 ... Nick Gillespie is a second-rate (that's being generous--he'd have to work up to being second rate) hack who occasionally appears on cable political analysis shows. He is seldom asked to appear, because he tries to use his pseudo-intellectual, faux-libertarian bullpuckey to bully his way into discussions of subjects about which he knows little, and hosts have gotten wise to it. In his rare apperances, he generally spews a toxic mix of anger, disrespect, and nonsense.

After listening to a few of his tirades against people with superior understanding and forensic skills, I've come to hit the "mute" button whenever he starts to speak. If you do the same, you won't have missed anything worth hearing.

You're wondering who he is because he's largely unknown, and deservedly so.

4 votes

#3.5 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 1:06 PM EDT

Well, I have solar panels on my roof and my meter is going backward.

So, I step outside and see the sun. I can't see the wind, but I see tree limbs and leaves moving. Yes, they are here now. That Nick Gillespe guy said natural gas is here now. Well, so are solar and wind. And you don't have to first contaminate water, drill way down then put contaminated water into the earth or blow the tops off mountains to get it.

My solar array produces a little for my neighbors right now until the earth tilts away from the sun later in the year.

I notice that there are lots of private business folks installing solar and huge wind turbines in areas of consistent wind. So, they seem to think it is a good investment. Why so anti wind/solar? Because oil/gas view it as competition, must keep competition out. Gee the old capitalist business ideas of competition are now moot, because you can just corner the market and force everyone to buy whatever you sell them. Supply side.

Yes, that's great… ain't that American? No competition, buy what we sell, pay what we say, keep innovation down and don't even think about the baggage that goes with fossil fuel, full speed ahead.

Large wind turbines are being replaced with larger wind turbines.

I was not talking about government subsidies. But we do subsidize things, oil. But we need to disconnect from fossil fuels and begin the process of clean, renewable energy. Natural gas is clean-er, but not clean or renewable. It's also explosive. I am for cleaner, renewables. You and others fight that. I know we subsidize missile and defense, we research things for national security. Star Wars was a failure.

We had ENRON busting our chops as soon as the energy grid was deregulated. THAT was why I put solar panels on my house-AND the clean energy which relieves me of paying whatever the electric company decides to charge me when winter comes, like they did as soon as they could.

3 votes

#3.6 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 1:27 PM EDT

Maphi, I hope you didn't misquote me on purpose. A single "the" missing in the right place makes me sound like I'm saying 'every single one of the Obama subsidized green companies' have gone bankrupt.

Meanwhile, Mountain Plaza Inc., BrightSource, Beacon Power, Ener1, Evergreen Solar, Fiskar, Solyndra, Sunpower, and Spectrawatt.

#3.7 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 4:02 PM EDT

Sandy C, you are the exception. I also notice you didn't address the cost issue. I can only presume that it's prohibitive, and note that it's all upfront, yes? I can appreciate the 'feel good' of independence, but few have the money, or the roof, or the sunshine, you do.

#3.8 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 4:10 PM EDT

http://www.aggman.com/harnessing-the-wind/

We have plenty of sun and wind and money to invest in such things. The trouble is they do not want competition.

Why did they lease the EV, then recall them? There are people putting road blocks, when if they would look at more at it as investment for energy which is cleaner, renewable long term. People want it, People pay for it, people place value on doing this.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/municipal-governments-harness-solarworld-solar-145400863.html

I lived in a town that resold electicity. We should look at this as a worthwhile endeavor, even for troubled local government. Sell electrity to residents, while we lower energy costs for the town.

Who obstructs and pooh poohs? Solyndra was trying to make the newer technology work better, more bang for the buck.

The cost is up front, but after a few years, it pays off. It could also be viewed in the same manner as R&D for our interests as in self reliance for energy needs. And "conserve" more of our Natural Gas and oil resources, which we need for other things. We can tap into the other resources that here now and forseeable future, available for our use.

Yes, feel good is not a bad thing, once you think in other terms than anti Obama or anti liberal or anti war.

Everyone should be concerned about future for children, even if they don't have them. Childhood Asthma, Brochitis... COPD killed my Dad. The freeways could have even more electric cars and hybrids, reducing pollution.

Instead of fighting against Climate Change science, we should try to think in terms of cleaning up air and water. Scientists are probably right, but if you think it's just natural cycle to melt ice caps, so be it.

It is worth trying to get the health benefit, the cost benefit YES- long term, so what? Even investors buy long term bonds or whatever. I think it is a worthwhile use of my money and so do plenty of others. Only the other people want to obstruct competition and keep us addicted to fossil fuel.

2 votes

#3.9 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 4:39 PM EDT

mightbealiberal

I agree we need to consider wind and solar in our energy mix where appropriate, but there is no current widely available means to store the energy produced by wind and solar for times when the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining (present technology uses enormous battery banks...). And if you think wind is "green" take a look at the mountaintops scarred and forests bulldozed to install industrial wind facilities,

http://www.windaction.org/pictures/32539

http://www.windaction.org/pictures/32538

http://www.windaction.org/pictures/300

and consider the effects of industrial wind on birds including eagles.

http://www.vawind.org/Assets/Docs/20111028/ABC-Media-Release-102811.pdf

http://www.vawind.org/Assets/Docs/20120616/Roanoke_Times_Op-Ed_061612.pdf

2 votes

#3.10 - Mon Jun 25, 2012 12:56 AM EDT

http://ultracapacitor.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/ucap-forecast.pdf

Yes, where appropriate. I agree there would be many other places than forest cut down, etc. Natural passes and fields where nothing but grasses. It isn't pretty to some folks, but we could power lots of plug in cars & hybrids, run heaters, lights and A/Cs, etc.

I understand most of the electricity would flow and would not be stored, except off grid. I wonder if capacitors placed in the grid is already done to temporarily store or hold electrons, like coils or something.

Off grid would need batteries, if they need more energy when cloudy or still. Technology is at work still, there is not much investment in this, which I believe should be at work.

Of course we cannot stop using oil or gas altogether, but I know I don't want fracking to get the natural gas.

I have to wonder how much, if any effect would putting screens up to keep the birds from being killed. I once worked at a hunting (service call) ranch where people paid to shoot birds that had screen enclosures to keep them in. Maybe place solid screens (not netting) strategically to reduce the bird death. The article I linked has one large turbine they bought and the proprietor said no birds have been killed.

Your points are valid. I think there are some possible solutions and there should be restrictions about decimating forests and mountaintops.

#3.11 - Mon Jun 25, 2012 1:30 PM EDT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFIpoL3jrfo&feature=player_embedded

People dancing in the streets?

Indeed.

#4 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 12:13 AM EDT

Reynard93

Thanks Rachel for pointing out how much Mitt Romney lies! The GOP is in a dire position now because America has moved from a segregated society to an integrated society. This multiplied by the internet/communications factor and forget about it! It is now impossible to totally sensor information by geographical differences. The GOP have become the "Killer Klowns From Outer Space"! NEWSFLASH: The GOP have also become the "new minority"!!! This is true by virtue of the fact that America voted for an African American man to be the President of the United States!

#5 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 2:59 AM EDT

sweggen

Romney Lies? There has never been a more dishonest, divise, pandering, purely political president than the 'One' we have now. It's him and his entire administration. I pray he is a one term - and holder ends up in an Orange jumpsuit!

#5.1 - Sun Jun 24, 2012 2:13 PM EDT

sweggen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFIpoL3jrfo&feature=player_embedded

#5.2 - Sun Jun 24, 2012 2:14 PM EDT

William Glaser

speaking of casino chips as money...

Union busters in N. Las Vegas, Nevada, try a new tactic to cover their own a$$es after making bad business decisions, by twisting emergency funding laws.

(the real gangsters and thugs.)

http://news.yahoo.com/financially-strapped-nevada-city-declared-disaster-164138976.html

1 vote

#6 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 4:21 AM EDT

This is novel but not particularly surprising. Like you and me, cities have to live within their means, or else. Surely you are in favor of people paying their bills?

#6.1 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 9:03 AM EDT

ellaellacarmona

What breaking news????

#7 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 5:48 AM EDT

Deb-3596991

There is a main problem with church’s and that is the very issue of power, control, and greed. And they have fallen away from really helping people, since they are so consumed by how sneakily they are going to impose their control and power over people. There was even a time in the Catholic Church, where they had a Pope that wanted to really help people. The rest of those narrow-minded men than thought “Oh no, we cannot have this” and very soon after that the Pope met his death and another more greedy and corrupt Pope was put in power. As you look throughout our history, you do see that common pattern of certain religious groups doing that same thing and in the end is not a church of love, understanding and compassion, but one of hatred, misery, despair, and death. And especially now, you are seeing the very hatred, misery, despair, and death, these so-called church’s are helping to inflict upon the people, instead of speaking up to truly come to do the right things to help all of God’s children. These very church’s who speak so easily that they care about people are in fact looking to put LGBT people, women, people of color, Hispanic’s, men, children, and the list goes on into bondage, instead of the very given freewill that God has given all of us.

#8 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 9:56 AM EDT

DefenderOfUnderdog

(Posting here since I'm not sure where else to post). Love Rachel, but she seemed way more concerned with scoring one-ups-manship points with the crowd last night on Bill Maher's show than simply debating the facts and allowing the crowd to then respond accordingly. Instead of shying away from the question of "What Republicans do you agree with?", she could have responded as Maher did and simply say, "I'd gladly agree with some if they had any positions to agree with." She could point to examples ... "I used to agree with John McCain on Cap and Trade ... but he changed his position, not me." "I used to agree with Romney on being Pro-Choice and his healthcare plan in Mass ... but he changed, I did not." "The Individual Mandate in the healthcare bill being debated and decided on by the Supreme Court was an original Republican idea, and I agree with it ... but they changed their position, I did not." Etc. Additionally, when Rachel was being accused of being ultra-partisan for only partisan sake, she could have pointed to the many conservative Dem positions she disagrees with ... or many of the Obama positions, for that matter. Instead, Rachel, unfortunately, seemed to trap herself in some sort of game of getting the crowd to side with her. But if she would have simply answered the questions (in her own way, without allowing the other panelist to dictate how she responds), then the crowd would have backed her anyway. It was a bit disappointing to watch, because I know Rachel is much more intelligent than this ... but she seemed trapped in her own game.

#9 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 1:39 PM EDT

Not really, Gillespie kept putting words in her mouth. HE was not stating his opinion, he was stating her opinion and she was pointing that out.

I think it is important to spotlight the fact that so many people are doing that now. It seems someone taught them that tactic, just like Limpy was mimic'ed to the T by that 14 year old, or as Maher said- vice-versa?

3 votes

#9.1 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 2:13 PM EDT

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-57338546-10391695/documents-atf-used-fast-and-furious-to-make-the-case-for-gun-regulations/

Why do I keep finding out significant facts about Fast & Furious that Rachel doesn't mention, even though those facts ought to affect her interpretation of the issue?

In December, CBS News reported that people in the ATF sent emails indicating a wish, and possibly a plan, to use the gun sales they had encouraged to pass new gun reporting regulations.

No, that's not the massive conspiracy the right-wingers are frothing at the mouth about. But if Rachel had mentioned this bit of news, her viewers could have seen how the conservatives extrapolated it to get their conspiracy theory. And regardless of the supposed conspiracy, this news is an obscenity it itself.

And the decision of TRMS and similar sources to ignore this news only feeds the conviction of the loony right that progressives are not to be trusted.

Can you blame them?

I can't. I don't trust Rachel any longer. TRMS has now convinced me that I should never accept what Rachel says at face value, because she's been proven wrong -- and in a plainly biased way -- one too many times.

#10 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 5:42 PM EDT

sheree-2470860

Frank, I am sorry that you can't trust Rachel anymore.But, based on your comments, I do not believe you ever trusted her. The words "never" and "wrong" one too many times are Republican talking points and are untrue regarding Ms. Maddow. Rachel is always ready to let her viewers know when a mistake has been made. You speak of something she didn't discuss; not something she incorrectly said. If u can't trust her at face value, then let me know who you would trust? I have watched Rachel five days a week for over four years and would trust my fate in her hands at any time. She has never been a gay American to me, only a proud American which tries to show the glass half full argument and commentary even in grave times. She becomes a "Gay" American when I brag about her knowledge and say she has overcome this barrier and become a representative of so many diverse people. Even white Christian women such as me. Regarding the Bill Maher show last night, I was sorry that Mr. Gillespie would not let Rachel speak on subjects she is indeed qualified to do so. Unfortunately a woman as accomplished as Ms. Maddow was being told how she thinks. How many women have been put in this box before? How many women are sick of being told how we feel? Mr. Gillespie wanted traction to let his conservative donors, friends know that he "put her in her place". She handled the situation perfectly, but it is still disgusting that women still have to do this in the 21st century America. Rachel, you handled it the way I wish I could. You keep me relevant night after night, and I thank you.

2 votes

#11 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 7:23 PM EDT

Well, you're right, I've had a lot of issues with Rachel Maddow's way of addressing things for a long time. But it hasn't been simple for me, which is why I've kept on watching her. I like her attitude and I like a lot of what she does. I really admire her willingness to correct factual errors. The areas where I have a big problem with her -- or I should say, with TRMS -- are these: military issues (TRMS is way too pro-military); Palestinian human rights (completely ignored on TRMS); and a general tendency to engage in spin that's usually pro-Democrat, regardless of how awful the Democrats are being. One of the few exceptions to this tendency, I think, is that she's willing to say she wishes the Democrats would stand up for their constituencies more than they do. I don't think I've ever seen her go after a liberal Democrat the way she went after, for instance, Rand Paul. I also think the show tends to be too repetitive.

Rachel being gay makes no difference to my opinion of the show, so I don't know why you mentioned it. I support her expressed opinions on the topic, though.

Speaking of opinions, did you notice on Bill Maher that Rachel actually said her job is to "cover" politics, not to express her own views? Hearing that, could you avoid laughing? I LOL'd: every show consists essentially of Rachel expressing her opinions while pretending to be "covering" politics. She's a pundit: nothing wrong with expressing your opinions, but it's silly to pretend that's not what you're doing.

And sorry, but I think Nick Gillespie actually made sense on the F&F debate. Rachel seemed weirdly hypersensitive to his, and one point even Bill Maher's, questions to her. I've seen Rachel handle @!$%#s who treated her condescendingly on other shows before (including in the clip that aired before Friday's Bill Maher show), and she's always done it brilliantly and tactfully and with admirable strength. But last night she really seemed to let herself get pushed into a corner, and Gillespie wasn't nearly as awful as many of the jerks she handles with one hand tied behind her back.

I think the reason is pretty simple: yes, the Republicans in Congress are motivated by their hatred of Obama. But as Gillespie tried to get across, there's a real issue here, even if the Republicans are acting like their usual idiotic selves. I think Rachel just doesn't want to admit -- to herself? to the public? -- that all this is more than simply far-right wackiness, despite the hysterical involvement of far-right wackos.

I may well be totally wrong about all this, or just totally ignorant, but from what I've seen, it's looking like the F&F fight is set to become a major scandal for the Obama administration. And if it does, far-right violence-advocating bloggers will have had nothing to do with it.

#11.1 - Sat Jun 23, 2012 11:52 PM EDT