Subscribe to Breaking News
Loading ...Rachel Watch: A Pentagon Sham, the Bailout Scam, and Lonely Spam
Age of Diplobamacy
Rachel decided to go ahead and take us straight to the Pit of Despair by reporting on Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s meeting with the Presidents of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Rajiv Chandrasekaran of The Washington Post joined Rachel to make you wish we were hurtling straight into a black hole instead because the odds of getting out are higher.
One more thing:
The one pig in Afghanistan’s zoo is in solitary confinement – or rather even-more-solitary confinement – due to swine flu fears.
The pig is said to be passing the time by whittling, prank calling the ostriches, and reading Animal Farm.
Maine-taining Equality
Maine has legalized gay marriage. This makes it the fifth state in which one can legally marry someone of the same sex, and the only state in which one can marry someone of the same sex and say “Ayuh,” instead of “I do.”
Some Dissembly Required
Remember how earlier we were talking about government corruption undermining the faith of the public?
David Barstow of the New York Times reported on the Pentagon’s military analyst program, which set up retired officers to appear on talk shows as secret PR reps.
Former Bush administration officials promptly launched themselves into a frenzy of defensiveness and – sit down before you read this next bit – lying. Take a moment if you need to fan yourself or splash cold water on your face.
They also cited in their defense a Pentagon Inspector General’s report that was – please, have a friend ready with some smelling salts – stuffed so full of baloney that you could toss it into the Afghan pig’s cage to keep him company.
Frank Rich, author of The Greatest Story Ever Sold, joined Rachel to wonder exactly how many times we have to expose instances of the Bush administration making up fake reasons to have a real war with real deaths before someone actually experiences a real consequence.
In a related story, Donald Rumsfeld’s most recent physical indicates that he is still separated from his hindquarters due to prolonged guffawing.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Ms. Information
This March, Lieutenant Daniel Choi, an Iraq War veteran and West Point graduate, said he was gay on The Rachel Maddow Show. He is now being dismissed from the Army National Guard for “moral or professional dereliction.”
He did not kiss a guy on the air, he did not get gay married on the air, and he did not do the broadcast from Show Tune Night at Sidetrack. He just said he was gay out loud and in public.
Choi will be in the studio with Rachel Thursday night.
Yes We Cantor
Rolling Stone reported that a McCain insider claims that Eric Cantor was never really on the Vice Presidential shortlist, and that the shortlist story originated with a source whose initials are E. C.
Meanwhile, Cantor was saying that the National Council for a New America was about actually listening to people and trying to figure out what they want instead of screaming the same old slogans that have alienated 79% of the country.
But then Rush yanked his leash.
Air America Radio correspondent and Maddow pal Ana Marie Cox dropped in to give an interesting Washington insider’s perspective on why lying is OK as long as you go big. She and Rachel also tried to figure out why Republicans are so scared of a guy who demonstrably cannot deliver elections.
Seriously: Did Limbaugh take pictures at a Republican slumber party or what?
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
GOP in Exile
Rachel reported that 12% of Republicans think their states would be better off as independent nations, and 26% are not sure.
Looks like some Republicans like to play the Judd Gregg game: They hate anti-Americanism but love secession.
Little Shock of Horrors
Rachel welcomed Naomi Klein, who pointed out in The Shock Doctrine that horrible disasters open the door to massive, opportunistic social re-engineering, such as the shift of public housing land into the hands of private developers after Hurricane Katrina.
Klein thinks that a big financial disaster could open us up to a similar kind of exploitation. Uh-oh.
If you like smart women, great conversation, and having the bejesus scared out of you, this is your segment.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
So why after Rachael has promoted the propaganda for Obama now she wants to equate Hillary with him? MSNBC is the propaganda network paid for by GE the war machine!
The thing is I liked racahel when she was guests on different shows ,then she got under OL’s wing and i couldn’t stand her. BUT now she seems to slowly becoming more of the person I respected in the beginning,EXCEPT for trashing Hillary . Let’s just focus like they did in the primary and the Ge on Obama ,after all everyone has to do what he says ,remember that tight ship. And he’s not so much for gays is he?
Not being an economics wonk, I’m not sure who is more correct in this elegant argument, but it is just such a joy to watch and listen to bright people being bright that I will just sit back and wallow in the delight of it all. Thanks to you all. Ali, please don’t stop inciting us all to think.
C: The vast majority of economists would not identify themselves as Keynesians or “Friedman-ites”. Any reputable economist, even those who would affiliate themselves with the Chicago School, would agree that the Keynesian approach to macroeconomics works.
The points of contention are generally not whether or not a model or an approach works but whether or not it is the best approach to pursue. (And that is where politics enters the picture).
So yes, actually, different schools of economic thought are working “hand in hand” in that they generally do agree in the legitimacy of each-others work, though disputes arise on the subject of implementation.
Truly, though, I’m not even sure what you’re arguing for in your post. You’re clearly not an economist, don’t seem to have a central point and seem to be referring to a “vast amount of evidence” for a view that you aren’t really even articulating. What point are you trying to convey?
kari,
You mention this supposed “research” that “your discipline” has put together over the past few hundred years. I didn’t realise that the Keynesians and Friedman-ites were working hand in hand. Like most disciplines there are divisions between schools who think that they have a correct answer and spend time trying to prove it empirically. Unfortunately, what we’ve witnessed over the past 30 years is a repudiation of the Chicago School and their neo-liberal tactics. You cannot divorce economics from the political realities that we have seen. People do not want their resources to be sold whole-sale to private interests. You ignore the vast amounts of evidence that show that this has happened and instead spout intellectual pseudo-babble about how you are right because you are an economist. Get your head out of the sand.
Keith: If I were a biologist, creationists would annoy me more than they already do because they’re conflating my field’s hard work with their previously-accepted dogma and spewing out something that is, at its heart, fundamentally flawed.
To add fuel to the fire, they’re also claiming that their “theory” that they threw together in a weekend without any research or real-world data analysis is as legitimate, if not more so, than what my discipline has spent the last couple hundred years putting together.
Just the same, as an economist, I cannot stand non-economists like Klein conflating their own political views with economic theory to spew out something that is, in truth, fundamentally wrong.
But, she can write persuasively enough that non-economists can be led to believe that she is correct, even if her writing ultimately has little academic merit. And further, to argue that her ideas are as legitimate as those of people who have spent their lives studying the field just irritates me to no end since she has no formal background the subject.
Am I biased against her? Certainly. But I’m biased against anyone who claims to be an intellectual, is a persuasive writer, but does not have any academic rigor to speak of.
If only Klein’s “bizarre views of reality” were just a fantasy. But after reading “Shock Doctrine” in horror I cross-referenced multiple historical resources with her narrative and ALL the facts I check were DEAD ON. It’s hard to accept this revolting thesis but the current crisis suddenly gains very compelling contextual purchase when examined through Klein’s scathing monocle.
I don’t know if “smart” is the word I’d use to describe Klein.
She’s fairly articulate, but she likes to rant about subjects that she has no real background or experience with and tends to accept as fact ideas that are not supported by evidence. She is little more than a well-spoken conspiracy theorist who uses every opportunity she gets to try to educate others on her bizarre views of reality.