Texas Talking About Succession

Since the extreme side of the Republican Party showed its face in the not-so-grassroots Tea Parties, Texas has been in the News. It started last weekend with the sirens on Drudge, and moved into the mainstream media during the week. (Image: Flickr) I honestly can't quite understand what's going on here. It seems to me that this tea party movement is causing some serious hysteria; but are the same forces behind succession talk?

Personally, I don't think corporate lobbyists that are funding the Tea Parties want Texas to leave the United States. There's no money to be had from that. Running these "grassroot protests" could potentially lower their taxes though. Then again, maybe working up a bunch of people into hysteria over tax in general after it was just cut isn't working out so well. Not the most friendly audience are forming.

The Governor of Texas, Rick Perry, made these comments at one of the tax day Tea Parties:

That's quite interesting. Texas is managing its budget great. Oil demand will never fall. Despite these comments by Perry, Ron Paul insists that no one is talking about leaving the union seriously (he must have skipped that clip). He argues that succession is allowable and something we should support:

This type of insanity needs to stop. Or maybe not. Maybe a split of America would be better for everyone. The Bush family could continue to run Texas and any state that joins it and every voted to the north could continue to elect leaders like Obama. We'll see where this one goes...
Read more...

Incase You Forgot What TV News Was About....

On a recent episode of the The Late Show with David Letterman, Letterman provided a recap of what was in the news. The video (below) should serve as a reminder about the quality of cable news. (Image: Huffington Post) I think the video speaks for itself, but this is especially amusing given the week of news we've had. As I said in a recent post, we're all a bit tired of it too...

Video at the Huffington Post:

Doesn't that just capture television news perfectly? I think so.
Read more...

Palin Losing Internal GOP Battle? (Lies about it)

Yesterday evening, the Huffington Post reported that Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska had lost an important role at a major fundraising event. The event Palin will no longer attend is the joint dinner of Senate and House members, a critical source of fundraising for many campaigns. (Image: CNN) Palin was scheduled to be the keynote speaker, but has been replaced by Newt Gingrich. While a representative for the event claimed Palin had responsibilities in Alaska preventing her from attending, Palin's group denies these claims.

A representative for Palin claimed that she was never on board for the event. This denial is in spite of a previous press release confirming her involvement. According to a report by Fox News -- they tend to get Republican party stories right -- Palin decided not to attend the event after the decision was made to replace her with Newt Gingrich.

One source confirmed to Fox News that Palin was initially confirmed, but "she was a disaster" and not a leader. A Republican Congressional Committee spokesperson told Fox News that Gingrich "is a leader" and would be welcomed. Further, Fox revealed that this is the second time such an event had occurred. Palin was originally to speak at the eventful Conservative Political Action Conference, but cancelled that as well.

Both Fox News and the Huffington Post believe that Palin was unwillingly removed from this latest event, so I think It's safe to assume that is the fact in this case. Why would Palin lie about accepting the original invitation when the organizers of the event gave her an easy out by claiming she was busy in Alaska? Who knows. This is Sarah Palin after all.
Read more...

Republican Party: Party of "No" or Party of "Zero"

Since the sweeping Democratic victory, bipartisanship has been at an astonishing low. The Republican party is floundering without an identity and has increasingly become irrelevant. (Image: Wikipedia) The GOP has been extremely critical of the Obama budget plan. The budget, of course, runs up a deficit that was already brought to new depths by Bush. What critics fail to mention is the fact that the democratic budget cuts the annual deficit in half by the end of Obama's first term.

So, regardless of this often-overlooked point, what has the GOP done to improve the budget? Well, this should sound familiar: nothing. Instead of releasing an alternative budget, as is traditional for any opposition party in a democracy trying to prove it can run the country better, the Republican party released a budget that is no more than a manifesto of conservative ideals.

As it turns out, the GOP's budget has no numbers. Why would this be? Well, the GOP knows it would lose the ability to criticize the Obama budget if Americans saw the level of debt they would continue to run up. Here's an ad released by the Democratic National Committee on the Republican budget:

I think it's more appropriate to call the GOP the party of "Zero" instead of the party of "No" because that is the number of Republicans in support of financial recovery and this budget alike. That's the number of numbers in their budget. It's the number of leaders within the party. Most importantly, it seems to be the number of ideas they have on the future of America.
Read more...

Non-Scientific Consensus: Everyone Sick of Bailouts

I was reading the Huffington Post this afternoon while taking a break from writing some essays when I came across a story labelled "Comedy" on their front page. The story was about the latest episode of The Simpsons getting in on the mocking. (Image: Huffington Post) After seeing this, and watching CNN for 20 minutes, it became pretty clear to me that this is a growing consensus. During the span of 20 minutes, Wolf Blitzer hit on bailout related stories 5 times.

Here's an image, via the Huffington Post, of The Simpsons bailout-mocking during the traditional chalkboard scene of the shows' opening:

For those of you, like me until 2 weeks ago, who don't know what "TARP" stands for, it's the first financial bailout called the "Troubled Asset Relief Program." The bill, a holdover from the last administration, paid hundreds of billions to banks to try to prop them up and restart the flow of money lending.

Needless to say, it hasn't worked so far. So, more and more often, we hear jokes about the irresponsibility of bailouts and feel that government is protecting the rich as everyone else suffers. Bailouts might be needed to protect our money and investments from completely disappearing as banks collapse, but I think more has to be done now to help everyone.

(And no, to my right-wing readers, tax breaks are not the solution. Especially for the relatively unaffected rich.)
Read more...

Accessible Politics

For a while I've been thinking how hard it is to truly make politics accessible. I mean, unless you take the road of satire that is. (Image: Rickwrites) The fact of the matter is that some people just aren't interested in politics, but those people aren't who I'm taking about. My concern is for people who want to be involved in politics, but just can't understand the complex roles or petty squabbling. So how can I overcome this problem here at Thinking:Revised?

I think the best route I can take to make politics more accessible is to stay away from political jargon unless I explain it beforehand. For example, I'm sure a fair number of my readers know what an "earmark" is, but many don't. What is an earmark? It's jargon for the act of attaching a request for state project (schools, bridges, parks, entertainment, etc.) funding to an unrelated bill.

Then there's the issue of petty squabbling. The squabbling in politics is usually petty, but the underlying issues are big. Why is it petty then? Well, the problem with politics is that most issues are not fresh. Since they have already been debated on merit for generations, or even just a few decades, political commentators don't have anything new to say.

So, what can I do? To be honest, though I think it is blatantly obvious, I'm not exactly offering an unbiased viewpoint here. For me, I have taken the approach of satire for the most part. I think this can be effective when writing a biased style because if the satire is good everyone gets it. Petty squabbling should be made light of. The big issues are what deserve to be discussed seriously. Today I'll post the first of two post on the need-to-knows of politics. The first will focus on Canada, the second on the United States.
Read more...

Clean Coal: Not a Reality

It's shocking the success coal power companies have been enjoying by marketing "Clean Coal" as a genuinely safe and clean technology for the future. This insanity has created the need for a quality push-back, and it has started. (Image: YouTube screenshot) For anyone not familiar with the coal propaganda campaign, it's been marketed under the trade-name the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electicity. The Coalition has been advocating that coal is indeed a clean power source and represents America's best chance at sustainable power and continuing independence. Check out an example and the strike-back after the jump...

This advertisement is part of their America's Power campaign. Now, I will admit that clean coal is possible, but the coal industry, who is behind the Coalition, has resisted government regulation to make emission standards stricter. As of now, "clean coal" is merely a dream of environmentalists and the pawn of fossil fuel burning polluters. They have even gone so far as to link their cause to Barack Obama in some advertisements.

This ads, along with those by big oil companies under the name Energy Tomorrow, have created a backlash from environmental groups. The two ads below are part of this push-back. The first is from Repower America, advocating modern solutions with alternative energy -- in this case, solar power. The second advertisement is from This is Reality, a campaign mocking the idea of clean coal in the capitalism of the American energy market.

Repower America:

This is Reality:

I think both ads are pretty good. I quite like the first because the solution becomes so obvious seeming. What do you guys think?
Read more...

Fifteen Reasons Obama is Like Bush (Not)

When reading over DailyKos today, I came across a little article by contributor Jed Lewison. In this piece she satires the story published in the Washington Post that claimed Obama is just like Bush. (Image: CNN) Though clearly written for comedic purposes, Lewison's post on DailyKos is quite blatantly straight-shooting. The editorial in the Washington Post is laughable at best -- does anyone really think Barack Obama is like George W.? Check out the post after the jump...

Here are Lewison's fifteen reasons Obama is like Bush (I added bold):

Obama is like Bush because: Obama's first move is always to reach out to everybody willing to participate in the process, no matter what party they belong to.

Obama is like Bush because: Obama gives the political opposition every opportunity imaginable to avoid self-destruction.

Obama is like Bush because: Obama made concessions to the GOP in the stimulus on taxes (42% of the bill was tax cuts) even though almost no Republicans supported the bill.

Obama is like Bush because: Obama opposed the Iraq War from the beginning and is ending the war now that he is president.

Obama is like Bush because: Obama opposed Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy from the beginning and is rolling them back now that he is president.

Obama is like Bush because: Obama supports stem cell research.

Obama is like Bush because: Obama supports national health care reform including universal health care.

Obama is like Bush because: Obama supports regulating the mortgage market that ran amok during the Bush years.

Obama is like Bush because: Obama supports massive public investments in our national infrastucture and energy economy.

Obama is like Bush because: Obama supports reproductive freedom.

Obama is like Bush because: Obama supports transparency in government.

Obama is like Bush because: Obama wants to restore the very constitution that has been torn to shreds over the past eight years.

Obama is like Bush because: Obama's dad wasn't President.

Obama is like Bush because: Obama can speak in complete sentences, indeed paragraphs.

Obama is like Bush because: Obama isn't an oil guy, and his boss isn't Dick Cheney, another oil guy.

What do you all think? I think this is one of the best things published on Kos for weeks. It might even be the highlight of this week in the blogosphere. Some quality media satire here.
Read more...