Yesterday, Michael Tomasky published a wonderfully paranoid piece in the Daily Beast. He is certain that Republicans will try to “wreck the economy” for their own political gain. If only the GOP would allow President Obama to save America:

Then Obama tries to clean up mess number one, and they do everything they can to block every step he’s taken. It’s worked pretty well for them politically because the jobless rate has been high, and as long as that was the case, they could say no, choosing whatever weapon was handy and wagging their collective finger at the president.

Could it be that Republicans believe the president’s economic remedies are actually detrimental to the economy? This possibility does not cross Tomasky’s mind; instead, the GOP are impeding Obama solely for political gain.

What’s more worrisome is what the Republicans on Capitol Hill will do in policy terms to try to blunt the recovery. They’re doing little things as they can manage them. Last week, the House Budget Committee approved a bill that would inflate the cost of federal programs. But what about the big things? Let’s watch what happens on the payroll tax-decrease extension the White House wants. The current reduction expires February 29. It would not exactly shock me to see Republicans start throwing new poison pills into the final negotiations.

But don’t worry, Tomasky doesn’t think all Republicans are evil, just most of them.

There are decent and honorable individual Republicans. Probably many of them. I even know some. But as a collective entity—as a party and a movement that includes the media wing and the base that boos a gay soldier at a debate and cheers executions—they are toxic destroyers, their minds infected by the idea that any cooperation with the president for the sake of the country is the moral equivalent of Munich (yes, with all that analogy implies). They will do anything.

It is ad hominem rhetoric like this that prevents us from having sensible debates over how to fix the economy.

An article on the never-ending Greek debt crisis in this morning’s New York Times begins:

ATHENS — Despite new evidence of a deteriorating economy, Greece said on Monday that it would cut 15,000 state jobs this year as part of new austerity measures it intends to adopt to secure new debt agreements from international lenders.

“Despite”? Shouldn’t that be “Because of”? No, silly. The article explains:

Some economists argue that Greece’s problems show that austerity is the wrong medicine for the struggling economy. Two years of spending cuts have weighed on employment, with the Greek jobless rate at 19 percent.

The International Monetary Fund has forecast that Greece’s economy will contract by about 3 percent in 2012. A shrinking economy, by reducing tax revenue, could make it even more difficult for Greece to meet its debt reduction goals.

In other words, the only cure for an economy wrecked by massive overspending is more massive overspending. “Some economists” say this, so it must be true; evidently the only people who disagree are international lenders, who won’t let anything as unimportant as the safety of their money get in the way of their adherence to outdated dogma.

Details here. I look forward to Stephen Colbert, Jon Stewart, and the rest of the MSM who skewered GOP super PACs reporting on Obama’s flip-flop on this issue.

A must read. The opener:

Congressional earmarks sometimes used to fund projects near lawmakers’ properties

A U.S. senator from Alabama directed more than $100 million in federal earmarks to renovate downtown Tuscaloosa near his own commercial office building. A congressman from Georgia secured $6.3 million in taxpayer funds to replenish the beach about 900 feet from his island vacation cottage. A representative from Michigan earmarked $486,000 to add a bike lane to a bridge within walking distance of her home.

Thirty-three members of Congress have directed more than $300 million in earmarks and other spending provisions to dozens of public projects that are next to or within about two miles of the lawmakers’ own property, according to a Washington Post investigation.

Under the ethics rules Congress has written for itself, this is both legal and undisclosed.

The Post analyzed public records on the holdings of all 535 members and compared them with earmarks members had sought for pet projects, most of them since 2008. The process uncovered appropriations for work in close proximity to commercial and residential real estate owned by the lawmakers or their family members. The review also found 16 lawmakers who sent tax dollars to companies, colleges or community programs where their spouses, children or parents work as salaried employees or serve on boards.

(View the full results of the Post investigation.)

In recent weeks, lawmakers have acknowledged the public’s growing concern that they appeared to be using their positions to enrich themselves. In response, the Senate last week passed legislation that would require lawmakers to disclose mortgages for their residences. The bill, known as the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (Stock) Act, would also require lawmakers and executive branch officials to disclose securities trades of more than $1,000 every 30 days. At the same time, the Senate defeated an amendment, 59-40, that would have permanently outlawed earmarks.

The whole piece here.

“Detroit is back! Oh, wait. You want us to fly there to film? I’m sorry, Mr. Eastwood won’t do that. How about we stay local and shoot his scenes in Los Angeles?” Via Fox News:

But as much as the extended ad tried to cast the Motor City in an uplifting light, Chrysler apparently didn’t actually shoot any new footage for the ad in Detroit.

New Orleans and Los Angeles, yes. Detroit, no.

The Weekly Standard reports that some stock footage of Detroit was included — but nothing was shot in Detroit specifically for this ad.

“Part of it was filmed in New Orleans … and some was filmed in various parts—such as Los Angeles,” a Chrysler spokeswoman told the Weekly Standard, specifically noting that the tunnel scenes were shot at the Coliseum in Los Angeles.

The whole thing here.

Get ready for Southie Pride (working title):

As one of the nation’s most historic neighborhoods, South Boston is known for hard-working residents who display an outrageous passion for life, family, and town. Now, TLC takes viewers into this the tight-knit community in the new TLC series SOUTHIE PRIDE (wt), going inside the homes of five South Boston women as they struggle to make a life for their families and protect the people they love the most.

495 Productions (Jersey Shore) is producing the series for TLC. The series is currently casting, and filmed in South Boston this past weekend as the town suffered through a devastating Super Bowl loss by the Patriots. Eight episodes have been ordered, and the series is scheduled to premiere this Fall.

“Spend some time with the women of South Boston and you quickly learn that pride runs deep, family comes first, and that their friendships and rivalries are forever,” said SallyAnn Salsano, President of 495 Productions.  “And, their accents are wicked awesome.”

The people and streets, and accents, of South Boston – or, Southie – have been the backdrop of hit movies and the focus of best-selling books, and now you’ll meet the city’s real-life characters as they celebrate their friendships, battle their rivals, and raise their children. SOUTHIE PRIDE offers an insider’s look at the faith, hard work, and family that make this blue-collar enclave Beantown’s beating heart.  Get ready to experience the loudest, proudest, most in-your-face subculture on the Eastern Seaboard.

Oh, please. This isn’t “gay bashing.” Enough with the language police, especially when they’re patrolling Twitter:

CNN political contributor Roland Martin is the subject of a GLAAD call to action with the organization demanding CNN pull Martin from its shows. (Watch the Beckham ad here)

GLAAD says Martin’s social media postings lately are akin to gay bashing — their words. At one point during the Super Bowl last night, Martin wrote:

GLAAD then took to Twitter, and Martin responded back:

More from Martin here.

I myself wondered on Twitter last night why Beckham was able to show his nipples while the Go Daddy spokes-model was not. Somebody call the National Organization of Women to report this outrageous double standard!

On February 29th, Iranian director Jafar Panahi’s movie, This Is Not A Film, will open in theaters in America. This film is a provoking glimpse into the Iranian regime’s censorship. Jafar Panahi supported the opposition party in Iran’s 2009 election, and in response the Iranian government sentenced him to serve a six-year prison sentence and banned him from filmmaking and conducting interviews with foreign press for 20 years. This Is Not A Film was surreptitiously shot on an iPhone by Panahi’s close friend Mojtaba Mirtahmasb and smuggled into France on a flash drive hidden in a cake for the Cannes Film Festival. Here is the trailer for the film:

Here’s some food for thought: Madonna’s first solo album debuted in 1983, roughly 29 years ago. In Back to the Future, Marty McFly went back in time from 1985 to 1955 — 30 years.

But, aside from this reminder of how old I am, Madonna’s performance was pretty tame.

Clint Eastwood and his Chrysler ad, however, lit up my Twitter feed with complaints of “Chrysler took a bailout,” “Detroit’s not really back,” “it’s an Italian company,” “they build their cars in Canada”, etc. All that doesn’t matter to me as I thought his ad was pretty darn effective. If I were in the market to buy car, that ad would have me visit a Chrysler dealer over any of the stupid Chevy ads. And I loved his closing line:

This country can’t be knocked out with one punch. We get right back up again and when we do the world is going to hear the roar of our engines. Yeah, it’s halftime in America. And our second half is about to begin.”

Like I said, politics aside: It makes me want to buy a Chrysler.

The biggest offender at halftime was some rapper named. M.I.A. It’s a fitting name as I had know idea there was a controversy until I woke up this morning. NBC has since apologized for M.I.A. flipping off the audience.

Last fun fact. In 1983 — again the year of Madonna’s debut album — the Super Bowl halftime show consisted of a drill-team from a Los Angeles High School. John Riggins of the ‘Fins was the MVP in a losing effort to the ‘Skins. Oh, and the A-Team made its debut following the game.

Man am I old.

Via HuffPo:

New York magazine writer-at-large Frank Rich appeared on Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC show Monday night and discussed what he believed was GOP candidate Mitt Romney’s inability to fully connect with voters.

Rich said that the standard response for Romney’s lack of connection was, “he’s stiff, he’s rich, he needs better performance skills.” Rich thought that this was not necessarily the case. “I think part of it is also one thing he feels really passionate about is his religion. He’s had a long history in the Mormon Church as a leader, and because he feels, and it would be sad if it’s true, that people are bigoted about it, he just doesn’t want to talk about it.”

Rich added, “It’s almost as if he’s closeted about his religion and I think that makes him seem fake.”

Maddow weighed in and said that her advice to gay people has always been “to come out of the closet if they can if only because closeted people are boring.” Rich said Maddow’s metaphor was accurate since “just like sexual orientation, religious orientation is a part of your being.” Rich added, “he’s frightened to talk about this thing that he really cares about that he’s devoted a lot of his life, a lot of his fortune to as well.”

Video here.

Complete with strippers. Miami New Times:

​Joe Scarborough’s political news show came to South Beach this morning, and was crashed by two of Miami’s most badass strippers and a presumed beef magnate.

We’re loyal fans of King of Diamonds’ top dancer Tip Drill, who topped our prestigious list of the ten best strippers under forty. We’re less familiar with Skrawberry, but now she’s on our radar. Both strippers, along with a fellow named BurgerBillionz who was swigging a bottle of Moet, were at Jerry’s Deli at around 6 a.m. when Morning Joe was filmed there.

As tweeted by MSNBC’s Lauren Skowronski, Mr. Billionz and Tip Drill posed for a photo with Politico’s Mike Allen.

The rest here.

Exit question: What was MSNBC doing in South Beach in the first place? This really isn’t where you’d go to meet the typical Republican primary voter, but it’s where you’d go if you’re more interested in having fun than actually covering what’s going on.

Newt promises, if he’s the nominee, that the debate moderators won’t be reporters:

Newt Gingrich lashed out at the media today during a rally in Pensacola, Florida, suggesting that all reporters are in the tank for President Obama:

“As your nominee, I will not accept debates in the fall in which the reporters are the moderators,” he said, “because you don’t need to have a second Obama person in the debate.”

But Janet Brown, a spokesperson with the Commission on Presidential Debates, suggested that reporters are actually best suited to moderate the debates.

“The Commission’s practice since we came into being in 1987 has been to choose moderators based on three criteria,” Brown explained. “Since these are live, hard news television events, you want moderators who have experience with live, hard news television events and are familiar with the demands of that environment. Number two, who are quite familiar with the positions of the candidates and the campaigns. And number three, who have the skills to facilitate a coversation between leading candidates for the presidency of the United States, which is a high pressure task.”

“It is, generally speaking, hard to find people that do all those things who are not journalists, and particularly TV journalists,” she added.

Mitt’s response is an instant classic, however:

I don’t think Newt’s going to have to worry about the format of the general election debates.

Some additional reading on the Patrick Witt Story. . .

Witt released a statement accusing the NY Times of getting the facts wrong:

On January 27, 2012, The New York Times published a story regarding Patrick Witt, senior quarterback for Yale University, referencing Patrick’s decision to forego his pursuit of the Rhodes Scholarship in order to compete against Harvard in his final college football game.

This was a difficult decision for Patrick, as his candidacy for the Rhodes Scholarship represented a high honor and an opportunity to explore his personal academic interests in international affairs at Oxford. Patrick respects the academic traditions of both Yale and the Rhodes Trust, and he remains grateful for the opportunities each has afforded him.

The New York Times story incorrectly connects Patrick’s decision to forego the Rhodes Scholarship with an informal complaint process that had concluded on campus weeks prior to his withdrawal – a process that yielded no disciplinary measures, formal reports, or referrals to higher authorities.

To be clear, Patrick’s Rhodes candidacy was never “suspended”, as the article suggests, and his official record at Yale contains no disciplinary issues.

Patrick formally withdrew his candidacy for the Rhodes Scholarship on Sunday, November 13, in an email to both the Regional Secretary and the American Secretary of the Rhodes Trust. He withdrew after being informed in an email from the Regional Secretary on November 8 that the Rhodes Committee would not reschedule Patrick’s final interview, which would overlap Yale’s football game versus Harvard on November 19. Though disappointed, Patrick understood the fairness of this decision and accepted it as conclusive.

As this decision process unfolded, Patrick became aware that an anonymous source had contacted the Rhodes Trust with false information purporting to reference an informal – and confidential – complaint within the University. In light of this, and given the short period of time between this occurrence and the potential final interview, the Rhodes Trust asked for an additional letter of reference for Patrick from Yale. By that time, however, Patrick had already informed Athletic Department officials that he intended to withdraw his candidacy due to the inability to reschedule his final interview, and that he would issue a statement to this effect following the Princeton game on November 12.

Patrick’s inclination to forego the Rhodes Scholarship in the event of an irreparable scheduling conflict is a longstanding matter of public record. For example, The New Haven Register article entitled “Patrick Witt Places ‘The Game’ Over Rhodes Interview” was published before Patrick was notified of the initiation of any informal complaint process. That article quotes Patrick as follows: “The commitment I made to this team I believe would come first and I would want to honor that. It wouldn’t feel right letting them down for not being there for the Harvard/Yale game.”

Regarding the informal complaint referenced in the New York Times article, Yale offers students both informal and formal avenues to address certain issues. An “informal” complaint is heard by a committee of university community members, but no fact-finding process occurs and there is no burden of proof required for filing a complaint. In Patrick’s case, no formal complaint was filed, no written statement was taken from anyone involved, and his request to the Chairman of the committee for a formal inquiry was denied because, he was told, there was nothing to defend against since no formal complaint was ever filed. Further, while the committee can refer an informal complaint into a formal process if more substantial disciplinary action may be warranted, it did not do so in Patrick’s case. At that time, all parties, including the University and Patrick, considered the matter ended.

Regarding the information contained in the informal complaint, neither Patrick nor the other parties are permitted by confidentiality rules to discuss details of the matter, though it is important to note that the committee took no further action after hearing the informal complaint. Patrick is aware that the informal complaint was filed by a person he had known for many months prior and with whom he had engaged in an on-again, off-again relationship beginning in the Spring of 2011 and ending about two months before the informal complaint was filed.

Finally, as to Patrick’s academic standing at Yale, he has completed all necessary coursework and will graduate upon submission of his senior essay this spring, as is standard for all students in his major.

And from Today’s Yale Daily News, there is a call for Witt to tell the Rhodes committee to release its side of the story, as well as a call for the accuser to go public with her allegation. I doubt either will happen.

Finally, here’s Poynter:

Yale Daily News, New York Times both make wrong call on Patrick Witt sexual assault complaint coverage