It took me long enough, but I’ve finally managed to upgrade HA to the latest version of WordPress, giving me access to all the latest and greatest features… not the least of which being the ability to finally deal with all that damn comment spam.
For the most part, the site pretty much looks the same, but you’ll notice a few items that aren’t exactly in the same place any more, along with a much improved comment page that features live preview. Perhaps the best layout change is that the author’s name is now listed at the top of the comment, so you can skip over those written by trolls you have no interest in reading. (And if people really miss the old non-resizable pop-up window, I’m sure you’ll let me.)
I’ve still got some tweaking to do, and I haven’t even begun to explore the plethora of plugins available for WP 2.0, so expect a few feature upgrades over time. And I haven’t extensively tested this on various browsers, so if you’re experiencing any problems, please let me know.
Anyway, a little bit of fiddling with the anti-spam features should clean up the threads. Now if only I can get rid of all those damn readers.
Pay your gambling debt, Redneck!
To put the magnitude of last week’s Democratic victory in true perspective, consider how many votes we lost to GOP dirty tricks … then it’s apparent how profoundly the American electorate repudiated the Republicans. From Greg Palast:
“Theft #1: Registrations gone with the wind
“On January 1, 2006, … a new federal law crept out of the swamps that has devoured 1.9 million votes … of African-Americans and Hispanics. The vote-snatching statute … requires every state to reject new would-be voters whose identity can’t be verified against a state verification database. … The New York University Law School’s Brennan Center told me that, under the new law, Republican Secretaries of State began … blocking about one in three new voters. How? To begin with, Mr. Bush’s Social Security Administration has failed to verify 47% of registrants. After appeals and new attempts to register, US Elections Assistance Agency statistics indicate 1.9 million would-be voters will still find themselves barred from the ballot on Tuesday. … For example, California’s Republican Secretary of State … figured out how to block 40% of registrants, mostly Hispanics. … In hotly contested Ohio, Kenneth Blackwell … remains voter-rejection champ — partly by keeping the rejection criteria a complete secret.
“Theft #2: Turned Away – the ID game
“A legion of … Republicans … is assigned to challenge citizens in heavily Black and Hispanic … precincts to demand photo ID that perfectly matches registration data. Sounds benign, but it’s not. The federal HAVA law and complex new ID requirements in states like New Mexico will easily allow the GOP squads to … triple their (2004) record to nearly one million voters blocked.
“Theft #3: Votes Spoiled Rotten
“The nasty little secret of US elections is that three million ballots are cast in national elections but not counted — 3,600,380 not counted in 2004 according to US Election Commission stats. … Officials call it ‘spoilage.’ … According to statisticians working with the US Civil Rights Commission, the chance your vote will ‘spoil’ this way is 900% higher for Black folk and 500% higher for Hispanics than for white voters … well over half of all votes spoiled … are cast by voters of color … this spoilage game produces a million-vote edge for the GOP. …
“So Let’s Add it Up
“Two million legitimate voters will be turned away because of wrongly rejected or purged registrations. Add another one million … for ‘improper ID.’ Then add yet another million for Democratic votes ‘spoiled’ …. And let’s not forget to include the one million ‘provisional’ ballots which will never get counted. Based on the experience of 2004, we know that, overwhelmingly, minority voters are the ones shunted to these baloney ballots. And there’s one more group of votes that won’t be counted: absentee ballots challenged and discarded. Elections Assistance Agency data tell us a half million of these absentee votes will go down the drain. Driving this massive suppression of the vote are sophisticated challenge operations. And here I must note that the Democrats have no national challenge campaign. That’s morally laudable; electorally suicidal. Add it all up — all those Democratic-leaning votes rejected, barred and spoiled — and the Republican Party begins Election Day with a 4.5 million-vote thumb on the vote-tally scale.”
Quoted under Fair Use; for complete article and/or copyright info, see http://tinyurl.com/so6ht
Roger Rabbit Commentary: We need stronger laws and tougher penalties against vote suppression! Bad-faith challenges, deceptive robocalls, and other vote suppression tactics should be felonies punishable by long prison terms and large fines. “Dirty tricks” shouldn’t be just dirty pool, they should be illegal!
On the creepy* little competing blog yesterday, Stefan posted a rant against the new state beer commission, but even the conservative commenters aren’t buying it:
“Come on, Stefan, get with it. We also have a Wine Commission, an Alfalfa Commission, an Asparagus Commission, a Barley Commission, a Beef Commission, a Blueberry Commission, a Canola Commission, a Dry Pea and Lentil Commission, a Hop Commission, a Potato Commission, a Red Raspberry Commission, a Strawberry Commission, a Turf Grass Commission and a Wheat Commission. Why would you leave out microbrews? Posted by stu at November 15, 2006 06:06 PM”
Stu left out the Apple Commission, Dairy Commission, and a few others, but that’s a trivial point. He’s absolutely right there’s lots of these marketing commissions, especially for agricultural products. This may come as a shock to Stefan, but they’ve been around since before Stefan was born! They all have similar authorizing statutes and follow a familiar formula; they’re funded by a levy on the industry, not by the general public through taxes. Now, leave it to our very own troll, GS, to say something absolutely wingnutty about the Beer Commission:
“So Gregoire could take an all expenses paid (via wa state tax payers) trip to Germany! What else of course! How many trips so far this year????? How many thousands of Wa state tax payer dollars?????? Ding$ Ding$ Ding$ Ding$ And of what return to the citizens of this state??????????? Posted by GS at November 15, 2006 08:29 PM”
Roger Rabbit Memo to GS: The only ding-ding around here is YOU … you’re fucking nuts, not to mention a shameless liar. Fuck you!
* Yes, creepy! Stefan has jihadists posting on his sucky little blog, to wit:
“Congratulations Speaker Pelosi, now let the bombs fall where they may. My prediction: terror attack on domestic soil passenger aircraft within the next six months. Casualties in the 2-300 range. And, unfortunately, maybe that’s just what we need. It’s obvious people don’t remember what happened 5 years ago. Posted by FullContactPolitics at November 8, 2006 10:52 AM”
http://tinyurl.com/ydlfwu
Roger Rabbit Commentary: What kind of fucking asshole hopes for a terror attack that kills innocent Americans to gain a partisan advantage? And what kind of pathetic anti-American blog provides a forum for this kind of crap? Sucky Politics and its wingnut terrorist-huggers, that’s who! Next thing you know, Sucky Politics posters will be mailing white powder in envelopes to prominent politicians and celebrities — I wouldn’t put it past these sick traitors! Fuck them all.
Speaking of shameless liars, one of the reasons Roadkill McGavick did only 1 point better than Motherbeater Irons is because … he’s a shameless liar!
“McGavick says … (h)e does not support privatization or a phasing-out of Social Security … (b)ut … (h)e would give younger workers the option of placing their benefits in voluntary personal accounts … (to) help restore confidence in the system and ensure its solvency.”
http://tinyurl.com/ycdho5
Roger Rabbit Commentary: What McGavick really meant was Social Security would still be a federal agency; only its revenue stream would be privatized; and after privatizing its revenue, benefits wouldn’t be phased out, they would be abruptly terminated because there would be no money to pay for them. This is the same guy who said he wasn’t for “stay the course,” he was for “victory,” an idea he apparently thinks hasn’t occurred to the Bush administration yet. No wonder he’s roadkill.
Roger Rabbit has posted 100% of the comments on this thread. If you don’t like it, lick my furry cottontail! For a good time, call 1-800-LICK-ROG.
Man I hope this is the end of JCH’s spam.
I work the graveyard shift and it’s time to hop up the hill and shit on Steffy’s lawn, so I’ll see you unpatriotic, America-hating, fascist traitors in the morning — if the hangman doesn’t get you first! Fuck all of you troop hating wingnuts who refused to contribute to http://www.operation-helmet.org/ !
P.S., pay your gambling debt Redneck! Welshing jerkoff.
One more thing …
“WSU study shows minimum wage hike does little to harm economy
“By Associated Press
“SPOKANE, Wash. (AP) – The state’s … law calling for an automatic review of the minimum wage each year does little to harm business and benefits the vast majority of low-paid workers, a new study by Washington State University says. … The study … found the increase will have a mostly positive impact on the state economy. …
“The [computer] model showed that Washington’s economy absorbed the wage increase with little job loss, while remaining workers made more money …. A 2004 study by the labor-backed Economic Opportunity Institute in Seattle found no connection between Washington’s unemployment rate and its … minimum wage.”
http://www.komotv.com/news/local/4660286.html
It seems blockquote works like normal html rather than the one cited in the tag use label.
Hey! Almost five hours already, no trolls and no spam. I think I could like this. The live preview is cool too.
It looks like maybe the RSS feeds are going to work this time, although it’s a bit hard to say. It used to be they would cut off after about a dozen posts.
So far, well done!
NICE!
It looks good Goldy, thanks.
Nice job Goldie. I like the new layout. Easier for neocons to correct the moby trolls HorsesAssers in their incorrect ASSumptions.
BTW, the Left Behind Series are NOVELs. Just like the Da Vinci Code. Moooooooooonbats! take novels and claim them as fact!
Ooooooooooooh Moooooooooooooooooooooooobats!, how do you reconcile this except for some stuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuupiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiid commentaaaaaaary?:
“They helped propel the Democrats to victory in last week’s election, and now the “Blue Dogs” want their reward: a decidedly conservative fiscal policy that begins with a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget.
The coalition of moderate and conservative House Democrats on Wednesday introduced nine members who were newly elected to Congress, bringing its numerical strength to 44. That’s more than enough, if all 44 join with the Republican minority in January, to block the initiatives of the more liberal House leadership headed by Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco). ….
Blue Dog Co-Chairman Jim Matheson of Utah said neither party could take the support of the coalition for granted. “Blue Dogs believe in partnership and not partisanship,” he said.
Mike Ross of Arkansas, another Blue Dog leader, said the Democratic Party owed its success in the midterm election to the conservative Democrats who won many seats formerly held by Republicans. “Republicans did not lose their seats to liberal Democrats,” Ross said. “Republicans lost their seats to Blue Dog Democrats, to conservative Democrats.””
http://www.latimes.com/news/na.....?track=rss
I told you Mooooooooooooooobat! idiots this last week. Now the libtrul LA Times has picked up on this. Yet you libtards miss the irony of conservative Moonbats! in Congress stopping your profilgrate spending programs to your 1000+ constituent groups! This will be a great time to be anti-moonbat!!!!!!
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand Clueless in your alter ego, is the LA Times MSM enough for you?
Hi Mr. Sucks! Your Point/Counterpoint gig is old and lame.
Since these “Blue Dog” Moonbats! number 44 now, if they go way out “donk” libtard, we the neocons will have 44 more reasons to revote neocon in November 2008! We’ll be watching Moonbat! libtards.
Mr little weewee. Still thinkin small, eh? Must be the little brain south of the body equator!
15 MWS
Well, since the social issues won’t even come up in this Congress, and because I also support a balanced budget (you mean it’s not just “conservtive” Democrats? Imagine…), I say go Blue Dogs.
You can try to manufacture controversy, but thus far there is none. The Democrats know that the priorities of holding Congress and taking the White House in 2008 trump any minor disagreements, so I don’t anticipate a lot of conflict, except with Republicans.
So DL: George Soros telling the Congressional Donk not to vote for Murtha is not the first controversy?
Looks good. Might I suggest sidebar widgets. Much easier to manage the different elements in the sidebars.
Speaking of good things:
U. S. Representative District #8
King*, Pierce*
County Candidate Party Vote Vote %
King
Last tabulated:
11/15/2006 6:14:18 PM
Darcy Burner —- Moonbat! 93225 49.8988%
Dave Reichert – Republican 93603 50.1012%
Pierce
Last tabulated:
11/15/2006 5:45:17 PM
Darcy Burner —- Moonbat! 18583 42.5532%
Dave Reichert – Republican 25087 57.4468%
U. S. Representative District #8
King*, Pierce* Totals – Last updated 11/15/2006 6:14:18 PM
Candidate Party Vote Vote %
Darcy Burner —- Moonbat! 111,808 48.5071%
Dave Reichert – Republican 118,690 51.4929%
Vote Totals ————– 230,498 100%
The number keeps on increasing.
Bush’s “new ideas” for “victory” (whatever that might mean today) in Iraq:
“Increase US troop levels by up to 20,000 to secure Baghdad and allow redeployments elsewhere in Iraq ”
Jesus. What is this really going to do? We sent 70K iraqi forces to Baghdad some six months ago to stop the violence, whicn increased. We sent 10K more American troops to Baghdad a couple of months ago to stop the violence, which increased (there and elsewhere). Let’s send 20K more tropps (which we’ll get…where? More “stop loss,” extended deployments, and third and fourth deployments for the same tired young men and women?) to Baghdad to stop the violence and what do you think will happen?
“Focus on regional cooperation with international conference and/or direct diplomatic involvement of countries such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia”
Same old shit. Still not talking to Syria or Iran, in other words.
“Revive reconciliation process between Sunni, Shia and others”
That’s gone real well. More of that should work, huh?
“Increased resources from Congress to fund training and equipment of Iraqi security forces”
You mean the “Iraq security forces” whose equipment is ending up in the insurgents’ hands and who idnapped 150 people two days ago? The Iraqi security forces who are torturing Baghdad residents in the Interior Ministry basement? The Iraqi security forces and the insurgents cannot be meaningfully distinguished now. By all means, let’s train and equip them. Where’s the change of direction?
This is more of the same. Please follow your heart (and Henry Kissinger’s advice), president Bush, and hand us the presidency in 2008.
20 MWS
Nope. The Democrats are having an open election. Some people support one cadidate and some another. Do you think that would happen some other way?
Three men are running for House Minority leader, including “stay the course” Joh Boehner and “reform” candidate Spence. Is that a controversy? It’s just media horse race bullshit.
22 MWS
Enjoy one of the few victories you can.
Daddy Love,
You know that the only way MWS can win an argument is to first create a straw man to argue against. You’ll notice he’s done that three times in this thread.
The truly funny part is how, in the process, he manages to establish the fact the Democrats have taken up the mantle of fiscal conservatism that’s been completely abandoned by the neocons.
Consider his comment on George Soros expressed opinion as to how House Democrats should vote for their leadership. Only the Republican mindset, wherein dissent isn’t tolerated, is capable of, somehow, transforming such a difference of opinion into a full-blown controversy.
By the way, the official results for GA-12 are in, and John Barrow has won. With that victory, the Democrats have pitched a full shut out against Republicans–not a single Democratic incumbent in the House, Senate or state governor has lost to a Republican in this election. As I recall, that kind of single-party shut out has never happened beforel
To: MWS at 15:
Are you still spouting this “Conservatives won the election, the Democrats cheated by running conservative candidates” nonsense?
Then why did the National Republican Party spend millions of dollars in advertising trying to convince the American voters that these same “conservative” candidates were “dangerous liberals”? Why did Bush say that the security of our country would be in dire peril if they won the election?
Gee, these wingnuts can’t even remain consistent from one week to the next. The reason the voters rejected them is because the Republican party has proven it can’t be trusted, in anything it says.
By the way, Ted Koppel pointed out on the John Stewart show last night:
“W. Bush joined the national guard to avoid going to Vietnam. This week W. Bush will go to Vietnam to avoid going to Washington D.C.”
Now if we can just get rid of that upper-right-corner picture of ex-Senator Rick Santorum in his pink tie…
By the way Goldie, the new site format looks good. I especially like the poster ID in the comment thread appearing at the top.
re 18: I’ll have you know that the surname “weewee” is a highly respected one in the Kickapoo Nation.
“Dineh bizaad bihoosh ah shikah anilyeed weewee”
That’s what I say to galoots like you, Mr. Sucks.
WOOOO HOOOOO!
KLAKE IS A LOSER!!
Ex-Senator Santorum and his pink tie must stay.
Lest We Forget.
THIS IS NICE. FEELS FAST. I LIKE THE PREVIEW. AJAX?
BUT I THINK IT’D BE BETTER IN A POPUP.
BEFORE I FORGET: MWS IS A LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSER!
Looks like we’ve still got a lot of work to do. The touch-voting screen machines are still losing votes in jurisdictions around the country.
In Arkansas, a tiny town with about 80 residents and half as many voters had three candidates for mayor. Two of the candidates received an equal number of votes, forcing a run-off. The other candidate recieved “zero” votes, despite voting for himself. His wife and a number of his friends and patrons (he owns the local bar) called to complain that they also voted for him. He has asked for a re-count, but without a paper record back-up the re-count will simply be another print-out of the same results. Since the job doesn’t come with a salary, He’s probably not going to pay for a court challenge or investigation.
But where it counts more, in Sarasota County, Florida, the Republican candidate who leads by less than 500 votes over his Democratic opponant doesn’t see the need for a re-count, despite an 18,000 vote “undercount” of over 15% of ballots in a precinct which overwhelmingly supports the Democratic candidate. The Republican secretary of state dismissed any claims of problems with the voting, sayin “machines don’t make mistakes”.
But on the day of the election, hundreds of voters complained that the paper print-out of their ballot didn’t show their votes for the Democratic candidate being recorded. Instead, it showed no votes at all in that race. Those voters who complained at the polling place were told that they must have made a mistake in voting (i.e., it was their own fault), and their electronic vote could not be replaced by a manual ballot, and there was no way to correct the problem afterwards.
Like the Arkansas race, a re-count won’t do much good because it will merely result in another print-out which matches the previously-reported (erronious) results. Instead, the Democratic candidate obtained a court order to sequester the electronic voting machines for testing purposes. If somebody tampered with the machines, they had better hope that they were able to return them to their original programming before they are tested. Those challenging the election dispared of this – they pointed out that the machines had been unguarded for a week after the election, and even while “sequestered” they are under the control of the Republican secretary of state, as well as the same other employees who would have had access to their programming in the first place.
Funny – all we here from Stephan’s blog, and the wingnuts who troll here (JCH, MTR, MWS), is allegations of Democratic voting fraud, with unfounded accusations being bandied about relating to normal margins-of-error and unexpected circumstances (ballot bag zippers breaking, etc.). But we don’t here them calling for a re-vote in the WA-08 race, do we? (Silence follows). They also seem remarkably unconcerned by concerns such as the ones expressed above, but only when it is the Democrat who is on the losing end of the mis-count.
I think that at a minimum, if we are going to rely upon any type of electronic machine, we should have (a) a screen where the voter reviews and confirms his votes are correct before finalizing (banks seem to have no problem with this proceedure), and (b) the print-out can be corrected by the voter, and placed in a special “adjustments” ballot box, with the paper ballots controlling in any re-count.
Could you change the name of your website? Given it’s 2.0..please revisit the name. It really could expedite your blog’s relevance and growth.
A bunch of the machines already have the “review screen”, which is how many people brought to the poll workers attention that their votes weren’t being recorded in that race down in Florida. How many voters are going to go back and forth and back and forth trying to get their votes properly registered.
The problem is that all electronic touch screen voting systems unnecessarily introduce these kinds of errors, even with a paper trail. I think the proper solution is paper-based optical scan ballots with all-vote-by-mail. You get guaranteed auditing (both by machines and humans) built right into the system, you eliminate long lines + many voter suppression techniques (like intimidation at the polls).
If you coupled that with something called “computer assisted voting” – where you use a web site to fill in your ballot, then print it out and put it in your “security envelope”, you’d virtually solve the only problem with paper optical scan ballots (spoilage due to stray marks, “X”s over errors, accidental over/under-votes). Throw in postage paid envelopes and earlier primaries and you’re done.
And to make people on “the other side” happy, you should couple this with better statewide voter databases and some additional security features on the envelope besides signature matching. Plus if everyone uses the same system, you’d probably make the counting more efficient & accurate, spend less money managing the election and do it with fewer errors (like not having enough bags for the votes).
Sure, there are small potential issues with vote-by-mail, but far less than our current patchwork of systems and far-far less than the problems with electronic voting. Let’s go vote-by-mail for the next 25 years or so until someone can figure out the electronic thing right.
17 MWS
“Since these “Blue Dog” Moonbats! number 44 now, if they go way out “donk” libtard, we the neocons will have 44 more reasons to revote neocon in November 2008! We’ll be watching Moonbat! libtards.”
Is that some kind of code, or some non-English language? I am having a little trouble understanding what you’re saying.
38 jcricket
I think we should have MMOV (massively multiplayer online voting). You join up with a team of Democrats online to annihilate the Republican voters.
Question to “neocons” (if anyone beside MWS out there will admit to that label):
If you approve of John McCain’s suggestion to send 20K more tropps to Iraq, and I am guessing you do if the alternative is withdrawing, then let’s apply your logic from the earlier minimum wage discussions to this.
Q: If 20K more tropps will make a difference (and I don’t think it will, really), why not send 200K more troops over to Iraq? That would certainly make some sort of difference, and would begin to approach the numbers that sober and experienced military minds recommended before the initiation of hotilities in March 2002 to really provide security and quell violence. If anything, in the current deteriorated, explosive conditions, we would require more than the 200K additional troops I mentioned, not fewer, to achieve the results we wanted in 2002. So why not suggest and/or support 200K or more additional troops going “over there?”
Let’s hear it.
From the “Ooohhh! That’s gotta hurt…” files…
AP: House Democrats Name Hoyer to No. 2 Post
If Nancy Pelosi had a “pair,” it’d be like watching her get kicked.
Go Blue Dogs!
IRAQ IS THESE WINGNUTS WET DREAM. THE CIVIL WAR BETWEEN SECTS OF ISLAM IS WHAT THESE WINGNUTS WANT HERE. THEIR LEADERS LIKE TED HAGGARD FANTASIZE ABOUT IT. THEY INFILTRATE THE MILITARY (GUYS LIKE BOYKIN) IN HOPES OF TAKING IT OVER AND ONCE YOU GET A BRAINDEAD LIKE DUBYA IN THE WHITE HOUSE WHO SPIES ON AMERICANS – ITS CIVIL WAR #2 FOR AMERICA.
THEY’RE TRAITORS BASICALLY.
Thanks to Atrios:
No incumbent Congressional Democrat lost this year. Not one. First time it has ever happened.
Every dollar spent to defeat those incumbents was wasted GOP money.
30+ Republican incumbents were defeated this year.
Enjoy.
I like the upgrade. Much better with out all the spam.
Mike Webb Sucks says: … the Left Behind Series are NOVELs.
Roger Rabbit Comment: Along with everything else wingnuts write.
MWS at various stupid posts: Tell us again what a great job the wingnuts did of balancing the budget! Fucking retard …
32 mr weewee says: re 18: I’ll have you know that the surname “weewee” is a highly respected one in the Kickapoo Nation.
RR comment: Leave it to a wingnut like MWS to make a slur of a perfectly respectable Native American moniker! MWS must be a spiritual buddy of Indian Fighter Slade and his racist sidekick, Jim Johnson, who unfortunately now decorates a chair on our state supreme court.
DL @ 44; for the record, I pointed out that fact @ 27 this very morning.
MWS has a hereditary problem. He has the same parents as the inbred neonut WackMyPuddy.
SOME WINGNUTS ARE ASKIN’ ABOUT THE “PLAN”. THE DEMS HAVE PLANNED THE FIRST 100 HOURS. THEN DUBYA’LL TRY HIS BEST TO TAKE CREDIT FOR SOME OF IT, PULL OUT HIS VETO PEN FOR MOST OF IT.
IF THAT’S THE WAY HE PLAYS THEN THERE GOES “BI-PARTISANSHIP”, HEAR COMES THE HEARINGS.
THE HEARINGS ARE COMING NO MATTER WHAT. THE PEOPLE WANT ACCOUNTABILITY AND CHECKS AND BALANCES.
DUBYA’S BEEN THINKING HE’S KING. HE’S DELUSIONAL, SAD, A DRY DRUNK.
New SEC rules require companies to identify their paid “professional compensation consultants”. You know, the guys who are hired to say how much the CEO should be paid.
But these same guys are trying to get the lame-duck Republican congress to give them immunity from any shareholder lawsuits.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....ion16.html
Which makes me wonder – what, exactly, are they worried about? The article points out that no executive pay consultants have been sued to date that anyone is aware of. Perhaps they are concerned that the linkage between these firms and inter-locking Boards of Directors and CEOs will, when revealed in SEC statements, show an inherent conflict of interest?
This is my understanding of how it works. The entire Board of Directors appoints a smaller “Compensation Committee” to decide how much the executives and directors of the company are paid. The “Compensation committee” hires the “independent compensation consultants” to advise them. usually, one of the members of the compensation committee is the contact point with the consultants. By hiring the “independent consultants”, they insulate themselves from shareholder lawsuits, by pointing out that they performed with due dilligence by seeking an independent opinion, and their ultimate decision was consistent with its report.
So the compensation consultants issue a report which usually says” “(a) gee, executive pay is so high, your executives need a raise or they will be lured elswhere, and (b) while you are at it, your board members need a raise also!”
So, the compensation committee reports to the whole board that all their executive officers need big raises and more perks in order to stay “competative”.
The next step is that many members of the compensation committee all happen to be CEOs of their own companies, also. They complain to the board that they have knowledge that other companies are paying their executives more than they are being paid, and it is time for a review of their executive pay and benefits package. The CEO of the first company happens to be on the Board of Directors of the second company, and also on the Compensation Committee. He hires the same “independent compensation consultant”, who issues the same report, except it revises its figures upward to account for the raises approved by the first company.
The process reproduces itself infinatum, with wages, benefits, and perks spiralling ever-upward.
Now what would happen if the “independent compensation consultants” ever reported that the company executives were already overpaid, and their executive pay and benefit packages should be reduced? The “independent consultants” would probably find that is the last report they were ever hired to issue.
I also think its funny how the word “competative” has an entirely opposite meaning in when used in the executive compensation setting, than it is used when evaluating every other worker’s pay. In the former context, the pay keeps “increasing” to be competative. But in the latter context, workers are told that they must accept lower wages and reduced benefits to remain “competative”.
(Reprinted here with permission of the author)
Hmm, that’s interesting. Tried to submit a comment twice, but it didn’tappear, even though there was no error notice. I must be doing something to upset the spam filter. I tried it once with a hyperlink, then the second time with only a URL included.
I’ll try again in a little bit.
49
Mad props to you, amigo.
The update is very nice so far – thank you for your hard work, and persevering through the upgrade frustration, Goldy.
So in the election for House Majority Leader, the Congressional Democrats passed over a conservative, anti-choice, pro-gun, questionable-on-ethics reform Democrat who opposes our continued presence in Iraq in favor of a pro-choice, pro-ethics-reform, mainstream Democrat who opposes our continued presence in Iraq, and the conservatives are happy. Go figure.
Another Republican crowing about which Democrat will become the Majority Leader:
Yes, the spectrum of political opinion within the Democratic Party is much wider that the Republicans would ever allow. They’d be out there rallying against those “RINOs” and lamenting the day they were ever allowed within the Republican Party.
Perhaps that’s one reason why, even with all the vote suppression, rigged voting machines and other various illegal and unethical methods of stealing elections they still lost
Those “blue dog” Democrats are not only welcome in our party, they are an essential part of it. We aren’t afraid to debate the issues and work at solutions that deal with the goals and objections of both the left and right wings.
It would have been nice if the Republicans would have been willing to supply honest, capable representation for those folks on the right, but since you weren’t willing to, we’ll do it.
Eventually we may even get back to an honest two-party system. Unfortunately for you, those two parties are likely to be the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Democrats, with the Republican party being reduced to a historical footnote, right next to the Whigs.
Personally, I think Mr. Hoyer will continue to do a fine job in the leadership of what is now the majority party.
“Ooohhh! That’s gotta hurt…”
Looks good. Thanks for the update.
The Real Mark @ 42
“From the “Ooohhh! That’s gotta hurt…” files…”
Ummmm…this is pretty “high level suffering,” then.
I mean, its just one of those things that happens as a result of taking the majority of seats in the house.
You know, roughly the same “suffering” as getting Gatorade™ dumped on you as the price of winning the football game….
Yes, nice change.
Now change the name of the website and we’ll be just fine!!!!!
60
What’s wrong with the name? Tim Eyman is still a horse’s ass.
Murtha is a one issue candidate (Iraq), at least as far as being elected to a leadership post is concerned.
The fact that the Democrats wouldn’t elect their lead critic of the war, and its execution strategy, to a leadership post in the House seems like a loss for the anti-war crowd. He even received an endorsement from the unanimously elected Speaker.
The war was the big issue of the election, so could Murtha’s loss mean that the Democrats get that the people don’t want immediate pullout? (That’s how I read the election). I think McCain’s call to deploy more troops also bears watching.
The Hastings/Harman battle for the Intelligence committee chair will also be interesting. Making an impeached federal judge a committee chair seems to go against the message that the Democrats are for ethics and against corruption.
Oh my … ConservativeFirst actually gets it a little bit right.
I agree that
But after that, CF goes back to non-reality. The Majority Leader vote was about floor leadership, not policy advocacy. The members — correctly, I’d say — voted in favor of the guy who’s been the Democratic whip, who’s demonstrated floor leadership skills. Given that there was no other candidate, that’s the right way to go.
In addition, uninspiring as many of Steny Hoyer’s policy positions may be, he’s far more of a mainstream Democrat than the very conservative Murtha. The power of Murtha’s stand on the Iraq war arises from the fact that he’s always been such a hawk and a rightwinger. He has no progressive cred whatsoever. Which would make it difficult for him to lead the House Democrats when they want to join the American people’s evident hunger for progressive solutions to the disastrous policies the GOP have foisted upon our nation.
In my opinion, Pelosi’s support for Murtha was a public means of keeping Hoyer — who she must have known would win this vote — on his toes. A public “battle” would actually strengthen the House leadership group, both because it demonstrates that there’s openness in the process and because it displays the Hoyer too has a political base from which to operate. My bet is that, behind the scenes, Hoyer and Pelosi knew what was going down, and jointly welcomed the “fight”.
N @ 63
I think you’ve been watching too much pro wrestling. Pelosi simply backed the wrong horse and lost. If anything good comes out of it, the Dem fringes won’t try to pull the same stunts as the fringe Right tried before.
And another flash from the past from one of the disgraced wingnuts that used to frequent this blog:
WELL LIBERALREDNECK FOR SUCH A SMALL OBSCURE ELECTION GOLGY WAS SURE PUSHING IT.
YOU GUY WILL NOT TAKE BACK THE SENANATE OR THE HOUSE IN 06 SO EAT SHIT AND BARK AT THE MOON.
AND IF I HAD A SHIT EATING DOG THE WOULD HAVE TO SEND YOUR SHOES HOME.LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSERS
Commentby YO— 3/29/06@ 4:29 pm
Here’s one for the it’s gotta hurt file:
George W. Bush and the rest of the GOP have been throughly Pelosi Whipped!
Get used to it boys, it’s gonna happen three different ways: frequently, often, and repeatedly.
Since you didn’t refute my main point that Murtha is a rallying standard for the anti-war left, and his loss is a loss for their agenda, I’m not sure what non-reality I’m in.
Many of the Democratic takeover of Republican seats were conservative Democrats. I’m not sure how you can equate that to a hunger for progressive solutions.
N in Seattle @ 63
The other front on which ConservativeFirst is in an alternate universe is the notion that Murtha was for an “immediate pullout”:
Murtha was never for an immediate pullout.
ConservativeFirst @ 67
His point, in essence, is that you don’t seem to understand the proper role of Majority Leader. If you understood what makes a good Majority Leader, you would know that the “anti-war left” and every other faction of the House Democrats are strengthened by electing the person who has the best floor leadership skills.
Daryl. Con first has never been very good at understanding the spoken or written word. He/she/it usually just puts their neonut spin on whatever they read. A better nick would be FactsLast
Many of the Democratic takeover of Republican seats were conservative Democrats.
B.S. The Dems have taken at least 35 seats in the House and Senate. Let’s call a little less than a third “many.” Name 10 Democrats newly elected to Congress last week who could be described as conservative.
I didn’t say Murtha advocated an immediate pullout.
Here’s what I did say:
I’m not sure how you can equate what I said (Democrats appear to know the people don’t want immediate pull out) to Murtha wants immediate pullout.
Again, floor leadership isn’t my point. That’s fine if that’s how the House works. It’s symbology. I think The Real Mark summed it up well.
Please feel free to point out where I have made any factually incorrect statements, and I will correct or defend them. Quite frankly I think the Democrats are smart for selecting Hoyer over Murtha. It takes the focus away from the pre-election rhetoric about Iraq, and allows the Democrats to focus on their “first 100 hours”.
A conservative Democrat isn’t necessarily a conservative, just more conservative than a liberal Democrat like McDermott or Pelosi. Are you saying that you think the Democrats elected mostly liberals in the seats the took from Republicans?
CF again:
Bullshit.
That the MSM have picked up on the pathetic GOP bleat about “conservative” Democratic winners doesn’t make it so. Just off the top of my head, you’re completely wrong about Hodes (NH-02), Shea-Porter (NH-01), Courtney (CT-02), Murphy (CT-05), Hall (NY-19), Gillibrand (NY-20), Arcuri (NY-24), Altmire (PA-04), Sestak (PA-07), Space (OH-18), Yarmuth (KY-3), Kagen (WI-08), Loebsack (IA-02), Giffords (AZ-08), and McNerney (CA-11). Not all of them are firebrands, but every one of them is strong on reversing the attack on fairness in health insurance, economic opportunity, educational opportunity. And on stopping the disastrous and destructive foreign military adventurism of Bush and his GOP enablers. There may be more progressives among them, but I think the point is made.
But what would you know? If Rush and Sean don’t say it, it doesn’t exist in your insular little world.
ConservativeFirst @ 72,
“I didn’t say Murtha advocated an immediate pullout.”
(*rolls eyes*) I didn’t say you SAID “Murtha advocated an immediate pullout.” I said that it was your “notion” (i.e. you were implying it).
Your statement
clearly implies that you believe Murtha is associated with the idea of an immediate pullout. But, it is primarily Wingnuts like yourself who get that shit from wingnut radio (or worse, listening to Bush administration propaganda) who believe there is a connection between Murtha and an immediate pullout.
What the fuck? The reason why floor leadership is a part of this discussion is because you started out by claiming that the outcome of a floor leadership vote could be considered a victory or loss for a subgroup advocating a particular policy position. In your words:
My point (following up on N in Seattle’s point) is that this statement betrays an ignorance of the role of, and qualifications for, Majority Leader. You imply that a person’s stance on a particular policy issue is what the members are selecting in a Majority Leader as a way of showing support for or against some policy. It ain’t. Therefore, the implication in your question that, by not electing Murtha to the post, some faction of the Democrats (anti-war or otherwise) have “lost” is a non-sequitur.
So, to answer your original question: no, the two are unrelated.
I hope that clears it up for you.
A conservative Democrat isn’t necessarily a conservative, just more conservative than a liberal Democrat like McDermott or Pelosi. Are you saying that you think the Democrats elected mostly liberals in the seats the took from Republicans?
Identify 10 you consider conservative Democrats.
Nice changes, Goldy. Congratulations!
I like the changes. I used to have to scroll sideways to read your entries. I’m happy I won’t have to do that anymore.
ringtone intop
ringtones intop