Archive for September 29th, 2009

Wanker Of The Day, Part II

Shorter Apple: iSinglePayer iPhone app is too “politically charged”, but Conservative Talking Points app is totally cool.

(h/t Daring Fireball, by way of Engadget)

September 29th, 2009 at 08:45pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Healthcare,Politics,Technology,Wankers

Wanker Of The Day, Part I

Shorter Breitbart: Oh well, it was worth a shot.

September 29th, 2009 at 06:44pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Republicans,Wankers

Bank Of America’s In Trouble Now!

Oh noes!  B of A is getting sued!  For 1,784 billion trillion dollars!

Dalton Chiscolm is unhappy about Bank of America’s customer service — really, really unhappy.

Chiscolm in August sued the largest U.S. bank and its board, demanding that “1,784 billion, trillion dollars” be deposited into his account the next day. He also demanded an additional $200,164,000, court papers show.

Attempts to reach Chiscolm were unsuccessful. A Bank of America spokesman declined to comment.

“Incomprehensible,” U.S. District Judge Denny Chin said in a brief order released Thursday in Manhattan federal court.

“He seems to be complaining that he placed a series of calls to the bank in New York and received inconsistent information from a ‘Spanish womn,'” the judge wrote. “He apparently alleges that checks have been rejected because of incomplete routing numbers.”

(…)

Chiscolm’s request is equivalent to 1 followed by 22 digits.

The sum also dwarfs the world’s 2008 gross domestic product of $60 trillion, as estimated by the World Bank.

“These are the kind of numbers you deal with only on a cosmic scale,” said Sylvain Cappell, New York University’s Silver Professor at the Courant Institute for Mathematical Sciences. “If he thinks Bank of America has branches on every planet in the cosmos, then it might start to make some sense.”

They’re in big trouble now!  Although it is a bit concerning that if Chiscolm gets his money, he’ll be able to buy the solar system, and possibly the entire Milky Way galaxy.

September 29th, 2009 at 11:26am Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Weirdness

Leverage

Chris Bowers is hopeful that Reid’s vulnerable electoral position will make him susceptible to progressive pressure:

The bill the Senate Budget committee sends to the floor will be a merged version of the Senate HELP and Senate Finance committee bills. The merging will take place largely under the direction of Senate majority leader Harry Reid. As such, commenter danthrax notes an important point of leverage the progressive grassroots has in this process:

if reid is the only way forward…we may have a hope. Reid is up for a tough re-election fight

That is exactly right. If Harry Reid is the key choke point in this fight, then we have to use Reid’s uphill re-election prospects as our point of leverage:

  1. Polling against one announced Republican candidate, Danny Tarkanian, and one Republican candidate who has formed an exploratory committee, Sue Lowden, shows Senator Reid to be in a lot of trouble. In three polls, Reid trails by an average of 7.7% to Tarkanian, and by 5.8% across four polls to Lowden.
  2. Further, should Reid lose, Senators Richard Durbin (#2 in the leadership, key Obama ally) and Charles Schumer (#3 in the leadership, chair of DSCC during 2006-2008 landslides) are by far the most likely candidates to succeed Reid as Majority Leader. Either would be an improvement on Reid.
  3. Why should we activists bother to give Reid the support he needs to pull victory from the jaws of defeat if he is likely to be replaced by a more progressive, more aggressive, and electorally safe Democrat like Durbin or Schumer? Reid needs to give us a good reason to try and save his Senate position. If he decides to take the public option out of the health care bill before it reaches the Senate floor, what possible reason could be left to try and help him?

I, for one, am fine with a caucus that has 2-3 fewer Democrats, but a much better majority leader. I am also fine with working hard to elect Democrats who may not be progressive champions, but who do a good job of enacting progressive change in legislation. If enough progressive activists feel the same way and can make their positions clear, then we have a real stick and a real carrot in this fight.

On the one hand, I like the idea that we might be able to get Harry to listen to us for once, although I’m not sure that even his precarious position will be enough.  I also really like the idea that we don’t need to reflexively support Democrats who sell us out just because they’re Democrats.

But I guess for me the question is, even if we grant Bowers’ premise, is the public option worth another six years of Harry’s spineless, ineffectual “leadership” in the Senate?  Temporary leverage or not, I think we’re a whole lot better off without Harry.  And if we lose the “filibuster-proof” 60-seat majority, well, it’s not like Harry was using it anyway.

2 comments September 29th, 2009 at 07:25am Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Democrats,Healthcare,Politics,Wankers


Contact Eli





Feeds

Linkedelia!

Most Recent Posts

Archives

Categories

Calendar

September 2009
M T W T F S S
« Aug   Oct »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930  


Thinking Blogger

Pittsburgh Webloggers

Site Meter


View My Stats *