A more informed person than I am just helped me better understand: the assets we'll be buying in TARP 2 are toxic, where the ones we've already bought are merely "worthless." That is, the bank "assets" we purchased in round one had no value, but the next round will be in fact a negative on the government budget sheet. This will becoming an important point in upcoming discussions about various types of "stimulus" and "liquidity."

A friend of mine likes to joke that "all Republicans are socialists," meaning that when it comes to the government handing out free money to bankers, large off-shore HQ'd corporations, or Red Staters sucking the Federal tit, they just can't say "No." We've spent a lot of time mocking them for the hypocrisy in this, as it comes from those people who are at the same time, the most loudly against "welfare" and other entitlements and funding for the rest of us. I bring this obvious set of points up, because I think it's time to do some real pushback, and perhaps use this framing as a wedge, against the notion that "tax cuts are good," and "tax increases are bad." In fact, historically and economically speaking, the very opposite is true.

The chatter is that the new administration started out offering 1/3 or 25% of the stimulus package in tax cuts, and the Republicans came back with, and received, the ~40% that are found in the most current form of the stimulus bill. Talk about dumb "strategy." Hasn't anyone in the Administration ever bought a rug in the Middle East? Haggling rule #1: your first offer should be offensively too low.

Waiters use nodding trick to boost restaurant tabs (bBoing)

Beejebus, if this thing works over the phone, can we make it work over the internets???

Studies have concluded that 60–70% of the time, a Sullivan nod will result in the customer choosing the 'recommended' item.

Sorry, that's a metameta meme I've seen spreading around the intertubes. Does it come from a TV show or something? I wouldn't know. Ahem. Seriously: "Some periods in history don't allow the moral luxury of standing aside. This is one of them." Read the comments too, they are fascinating. Overton window shifting is so fun, forgive this very lazy linkage pretending to be a post. But if you get to my comment, you'll know the spirit I was in writing it and this post.

The Overton Window.

(And Blue Gal, who found this, is a total hottie. I love a girl who can link to a good chart.)

Here is our current predicament:

Bingo!

[Welcome, Rockridge Institute readers.]

Definition and discussion of the concept is below. The main points I want to convey with this image:

- There is, or there should be, a constant tug-of-war on the edges of the Overton Window on any issue.

- There is a place for everyone and anyone along the Left side of the rope, as long as we're all pulling in the same general direction.

- The current location of the Overton Window is so far to the right of any objective political spectrum, that what are now considered Extreme Left Positions are really not extreme at all.

On NPR the other day, I heard about the town of Fairmont, MN where the City Council passed a resolution advocating a department of peace.

And after hearing the vitriol, the fear, and the hate in the voices of the wingers who got the proposal unpassed toot sweet, I'm beginning to think it might be a good idea. (Yeah, Kucinich, who advocates it, is marginalized. But change begins at the margins.)

Here's the wingers were saying about it:

Here's why:

The Washington conventional wisdom machine always defines "fairness" as a carefully calibrated point exactly between the positions of the two parties, no matter how outrageous one of the positions might be. By making ludicrous demands on Congress -- that it accept interviews with White House advisers Karl Rove, Harriet Miers and others in secret, not under oath and without transcripts -- Bush will encourage supposedly moderate voices to call for "compromises" that are really administration victories.

So, Compromise whatever's smack dab in the middle of the Overton Window, which is now determined by authoritarian framing propagated by the VRWC.

It's our job to shove the Overton Window left, not to accept things as they are--where "left", in the current other-worldly political context, means the restoration of Constitutional government (and the complete repudiation of Republican rule).

Not a dime's worth.

Tony Smith writes on WaPo's editorial page:

 Read more…

From the mighty Avedon Carol (in comments), a dead-eyed dissection of Joe Klein's bashing of his fellow (ha, ha, ha) liberals:

Greg has an easy time spanking our favorite newbie to the blogosphere, Joke Line. Riffing off that, I'd like to say that I am a proud ideological extremist. Proud.

History is filled with people who were in their day, considered "extreme." Suffragettes. Environmentalists. Abolitionists. Gay Rights Activists. They were all told, in their day, that to talk about, let alone agitate for, their ideological goals was "bad form" and "uncivil." To which most said, in some form or another, "Fuck that." (Quaker version: Fucketh Thyself)
And they were right to do so. You don't bring about justice and change by not making people uncomfortable. You do it by just the opposite- people grant what you're asking for because they want you to stop talking about it all the time, and give them some peace.

it's time to reframe this discussion, and proudly endorse and support those who lead from the front, not pander to the mushy, pearl-clutching middle. Yes, I know that extremism has resulted in many historical horrors, but extremism in the service of equality, justice and tolerance are not on that list.

NPR is teh suck, really. They too have followed Pony Blow and migrated to using "extremists" to describe whoever the Fuck Bush sent to troops to fight in Iraq. There are some big problems with this:

Re: Don Young's remark--that wet fart from the Republic Party's sorry, chickenhawk ass--that Democrats who oppose the war should be "arrested and hanged", what Chris said. The money quote's in bold, but the buildup is pretty good too:

The main problem here is not just the media, however. In this circumstance, the main problem comes from Democrats who refuse to take the opportunity to pounce on these regularly insane statements from Republicans. There isn't a single Democrat in Congress who is bothering to speak up in outrage over Don Young's comments. With the exception of the Center for American Progress, I don't know any progressive advocacy organizations that are speaking up either. Basically, the entire Democratic establishment is just giving young a free pass on this. There are far more establishment Democrats who continue to attack bloggers over the Edwards flap than there are who are doing anything to attack Young. This is extremely frustrating, because in the end there is simply no way that the blogosphere can push this story into the media all by ourselves. The right-wing blogosphere can't push anything into national news without assistance from other conservative organizations, media and elected officials. The difference is that the right-wing blogosphere frequently gets that support from their establishment, while we get absolutely none from our establishment.

The refusal of Democrats to jump on this story also speaks volumes on how utterly self-defeating the Democratic mentality has become in Washington. Basically, establishment Democrats have developed a chronic case of Sistah Souljah-it is, where they are far more eager and willing to denounce members of their own party than they are to denounce Republicans. Quite a few Democrats took, and continue to take, great pains to make it known that they disapproved of Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan being hired by the Edwards campaign. However, none of the same people are making it known that they found Young comments offensive, and that they would like to see the Washington Times journalist who propagated the false quote be fired. This is because, ever since Clinton denounced Sistah Souljah, many Demcorats have convinced themselves that distancing themselves from their own party is the surest path to political and media fame as a Democrat. It is in this way that virtually every single media scandal about someone saying something outrageous, offensive or vulgar focuses on Democrats and progressives. This is one of the reasons why we are the ones always apologizing, where Republicans and conservatives are the ones always on the attack.

For a party whose main image problem is that we don't seem "tough," it is pathetic and self-fulfilling that the only people are "leaders" are willing to be tough on are ourselves. For crying out loud, take advantage of these moments when they come to you. Have some respect for yourselves. Don't let Republicans demand you apologize for year-old comments made by random junior staffers while their elected officials call for your murder on the floor of the House. Why would anyone respect a party that acts like that?

Bingo. I called Young's office this morning:

I took the Pew Center's poll, and that was the result. Some interesting true facts:

Liberals represent 17 percent of the American public, and 19 percent of registered voters.

This group has nearly doubled in proportion since 1999, Liberals now comprise the largest share of Democrats and is the single largest of the nine Typology groups.

Liberals are second only to Enterprisers in following news about government and public affairs most of the time (60%). Liberals’ use of the internet to get news is the highest among all groups (37%).

Interesting.

Pony Blow likes 'em Meaty, Beaty, Big And Bouncy:

It was a rather serious White House press briefing, consumed with questions about Iraq and Iran. Press Secretary Tony Snow went so far as to say that those who are saying that the alleged evidence of Iranian weapons killing Americans is overhyped are themselves guilty of "overhyping" the Iranian crisis, for political gain.

Someone innocently [irony, I hope] asked if President Bush, as a former baseball owner, was willing to offer his reaction to the recent death "of the greatest pitcher who ever lived?"

"And that would be?" Snow wondered.

"Eddie Feigner," came the answer, and Snow was ready to pounce on that. Feigner was the barnstorming giant of softball for decades, appearing as the King and his Court. He could throw the ball so hard he would routinely call all his fielders to the dugout and simply strike out the side almost every time. He had his way with big league players, too.

Well, splendid. I haven't a softball thrown like that since the days when "Jeff Gannon" brought his own glove to the West Wing.

But let's check what E&P reported against the record:

A note I dropped to TPM--and more in sorrow than in anger, I should say:

Look at this headline:

 Read more…