Saturday, January 31, 2009
NEW YORK – Most Republican governors have broken with their GOP colleagues in Congress and are pushing for passage of President Barack Obama's economic aid plan that would send billions to states for education, public works and health care.
Their state treasuries drained by the financial crisis, governors would welcome the money from Capitol Hill, where GOP lawmakers are more skeptical of Obama's spending priorities.
The 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, planned to meet in Washington this weekend with Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and other senators to press for her state's share of the package.
Florida Gov. Charlie Crist worked the phones last week with members of his state's congressional delegation, including House Republicans. Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas, the Republican vice chairman of the National Governors Association, planned to be in Washington on Monday to urge the Senate to approve the plan.
"As the executive of a state experiencing budget challenges, Gov. Douglas has a different perspective on the situation than congressional Republicans," said Douglas' deputy chief of staff, Dennise Casey.
Now the views represented by Governers Palin, Crist, and Douglas make perfect sense when you realize that without federal assistance many states will have to both cut jobs in the public sector like teachers, police officers, and firefighters and also probably raise taxes in one form or another which is of course verboten when it comes to Republican orthodoxy. So like I said this doesn't seem like all that big of a surprise. But then you see some idiotic and totally hypocritical quotes from some other Republican Governers like these...
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a former member of the House, said he would accept the stimulus money but would have voted against the bill if he were still in Congress. Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, said he wasn't sure whether he would accept the approximately $3 billion his state would be in line for.
"Yes, we need some help and we appreciate the help," Barbour said in an interview. "But I don't know about the details and the strings attached to tell you if I'll take all of it or not."
The most outspoken critic has been South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, who has warned for months of a steep spike in inflation and a severely weakened dollar if Obama's plan passed. His state is on track to receive $2.1 billion of the stimulus money; Sanford has not yet said whether he would accept it.
"It's incumbent on me as one of the nation's governors to speak out against what I believe is ultimately incredibly harmful to the economy, to taxpayers and to the worth of the U.S. dollar," Sanford said in an interview. "This plan is a huge mistake and is going to prolong and deepen this recession."
Just as a reminder Governer Sanford is the same jackass who waited to the very last minute to ask for a federal loan to extend unemployment benefits at a time when his state was one of the hardest hit by the recession and had one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation. He effectively was paying Russian Roulette with his consituents' livelyhood all to score political points and burnish his conservative creds. That he blinked in the end was almost a foregone conclusion. But how many times will the voters of South Carolina put up with the kind of stress he put them through by waiting till the last minute?
I would have to say that if I ever found myself in agreement with a moronic jackass like Governer Sanford I would definitely have to review my opinion. There was one more GOP goverener expressing his reluctance to accept the stimulus money as well.
Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who is widely viewed as a potential presidential contender in 2012, said governors have little choice but to accept the relief being offered. "States have to balance their budgets," he said. "So if we're going to go down this path, we are entitled to ask for our share of the money."I want to go back to Bobby "The Exorcist" Jindal for a moment. Did you notice that this hypocrite said he would accept the money if the bill goes through but if he was still in Congress he would have voted against the bill? I just have to know, does that make any kind of sense to anyone but him?
But Pawlenty expressed reservations about the cost of the plan and its impact on the federal deficit, which has already grown to over $1 trillion.
"I'm quite concerned about the federal government spending money it doesn't have," Pawlenty said. "We're on an unsustainable path of deficit spending and borrowing."
Now it has been pointed out elsewhere and I want to repeat it here, this notion that the Republicans keep putting forth that we need to be thinking about the debt we are leaving our children and grandchildren is missing one major truth. What about what doing nothing does to our children and grandchildren today? What about the children and grandchildren who are being thrown out of their homes everyday? What about the children and grandchildren who are missing meals everyday because Mom and Dad have lost their jobs? What about the children and grandchildren who go without doctors and dentists visits because their parents no longer have their employer based healthcare? Those children and grandchildren deserve our consideration also.
So I have what I think is a pretty good solution. I propose that every governer who opposes the economic stimulus bill on prinicple should come out in the next week and publically pledge to refuse any funds set aside for their state in the package. The flip side of that would be if any Goverener wanted to accept the funds in the economic stimulus package should have to sign a petition to be presented to Congress asking them to pass the bill in order to be eligible for those funds. Now this isn't extortion or pay to play before I see some Blago analogies. This is about standing up for your principles if you really have any. If Governers Jindal, Barbour, Sandford and Pawlenty really want to prove they are fiscal conservatives then they should have no problem at all refusing the funds. I mean hell according to the GOP, tax cuts cure all of an economy's ills anyway. Let them fix their state's budgets as they see fit and show the rest of us how it is done.
The reason why this would be a viable solution is because if you eliminate money set aside for populous states like Mississippi, Lousianna, and Texas you will remove a huge chunk of change in the stimulus bill. Thats money that can now be reallocated to other states or other infrastructure projects or that money can just be stripped from the bill which would lower the financial burden on future generations which seems to all of a sudden be the most important consideration of the Republicans in Congress.
But lets be for real here, the only thing my solution would do would be to shine a light on the hypocrisy of the Republican Party yet again. There isn't a single one of those wingnuts who would dare publically disavow the federal assistance in the stiumulus bill because it would be political suicide. But right now they have cover to say all kinds of reckless bullshit because they know they don't really have to vote for the bill so they can give classic Orwellian doublespeak like Jindal saying they wouldn't vote for the bill but they would "have to" accept it. Nah, you don't have to accept it at all. Stick to your conservative roots Jindal and even though you have totally screwed Louisianna's budget with your ill advised tax cuts, just say no to goverenment handouts and solve your state's problems all on your own.
Well thats my solution for getting this economic stimulus bill passed. Either you will get enough money stripped out of the bill from the states refusing the money to presumably make it palatable to enough conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans to get it passed, OR you will get unanimous support for the bill from even the craziest of Republican Governers which will put just enough pressure on the Senate to get the bill passed. Smells like a win win situation to me....What say you???
And just a little cherry on top I would like to provide you with video of the Villagers looking back on their arguments for and against Bill Clinton's economic vision in 1992/1993. Enjoy
Notice that even after having been proven thoroughly and unequivically wrong about his economic prognostications in the 90s the Prince of Darkness is still screaming "tax cuts" just like every other reality challenged wingnut. Hopefully people are waking up to the fraud that has been perpetrated for years on them by the Republican Party.
(h/t C n L)
Why do you have such a close relationship with Hamas, which is an arm of Iran and is run by Khaled Meshal, who lives in Damascus?
First of all, Hamas is not an arm of Iran. Hamas entered the elections as a political party. If the whole world had given them the chance of becoming a political player, maybe they would not be in a situation like this after the elections that they won. The world has not respected the political will of the Palestinian people. On the one hand, we defend democracy and we try our best to keep democracy in the Middle East, but on the other hand we do not respect the outcome of . . . the ballot box. Palestine today is an open-air prison. Hamas, as much as they tried, could not change the situation. Just imagine, you imprison the speaker of a country as well as some ministers of its government and members of its parliament. And then you expect them to sit obediently?
Now please remember that Turkey is basically an ally of the United States. Yet their prime minister directly refutes what damn near all of our Congressmen and women said in the aftermath of the Israeli military actions.
It sounds like you and Prime Minister Olmert were on the eve of an actual breakthrough between Israel and Syria.
I'm sharing my excitement with you.
The Israelis have been frustrated that they couldn't talk directly to the Syrians.
We were trying to be their hope. Olmert's last sentence [as he left] was, "As soon as I get back I will consult with my colleagues and get back to you." As I waited for his response, . . . on December 27, bombs started falling on Gaza. There had not been any casualties in Israel since the cease-fire of June 2008. The Israelis claim that missiles were being sent [from Gaza]. I asked Prime Minister Olmert, how many people died as a result of those missiles? Since December 27 there have been almost 1,300 dead, 6,000 injured, no infrastructure left, no buildings left, everything is damaged, Gaza is a total wreck. It's all closed, under total siege. The United Nations Security Council makes a decision, and Israel announces it does not recognize the decision. I'm not saying that Hamas is a good organization and makes no mistakes. They have made mistakes. But I am evaluating the end result.
So on the very precipice of a breakthrough on negotiations Israel decided to drop bombs all over the Gaza Strip. This isn't some random blogger telling you this and it isn't some anti war hippie. Its the Prime Minister of Turkey giving every indications that Israel's actions were not neccessary and in point of fact they were pretty much working in bad faith. When are we going to hear the truth from our elected leaders? Honestly if we don't start being more evenhanded in this situation there is no way there will ever be a lasting peace in the middle east.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Your GOP, the party with no balls!
Update: Blackwell shocks the world and endorses Steele and after another round of voting Mike Steele is your new RNC Chairman....
What Arizona needs to do.
1. Keep Kurt Warner clean: This might be the key to the whole game. Kurt Warner may not have the biggest arm in the league anymore but he can still pick a defense apart with surgical precision when he has the time and he will stand and deliver a ball in the face of a big rush. The problem is you don't want to put him in that situation many times. While he is tough, he is also still 37 years old and repeated hits by Harrison and Woodley would be hazardous to his health. he also isn't very fleet of foot anymore (if he ever was) and throwing on the run is not his forte. But with the weapons he has on offense, with time he could attack down the field and keep the Steelers on their heels
2. Run the ball. The Cardinals need to run the ball no matter what the yardage, at least 28 to 30 times a game. The reason is simple. Any play where Edge or Hightower are running the ball is a play that Warner isn't getting hit. Besides that the myth is that it is harder to run against a 3-4 and thats absolutely not true. What you have to be willing to do is to take some losses on some run plays knowing that if you continue to run the ball sooner or later you will pop a big one. Also when you are running the ball you allow your offensive line to work on the D Line and Linebackers of the Steelers and try to wear them down throughouot the game.
3. Breaston has a big day: Larry Fitzgerald is going to get his and I expect Anquan Boldin to do his thing underneath but when the blitzes come early and often from the Steelers the third wide reciever is usually matched up with a linebacker or safety. The Cardinals have to exploit this mismatch early in the game to put some doubt in the Steelers' minds about blitzing so often. If he can get 5 catches and a few big first downs I think he could change the Defensive gameplan of the Steelers.
1. Blitz on early downs and play coverage on 3rd down: I know this runs contra to some people's idea of conventional wisdom but in my opinion your gameplan should reflect what the opposition likes to do. Knowing that the Steelers like to run on early downs gives great reason to blitz. If the blitz works on first or second down then the likely hood is that you will end up with 3rd and long. Now in my personal opinion the Raven's problem last week was that they decided to blitz more on third down instead of play zone. Some of that of course had to do with their best pass rusher being hurt and also inherently the 3-4 generally forces you to blitz if you want to get pressure. But because the Cardinals run a 4-3 and they have a very good cover 2 scheme as evidenced in the playoff game versus the Panthers. Ben Rothlisberger makes his big plays when he breaks the pocket and hits a guy who because he is singled up simply has to play sandlot and get open. If the Cardinals rush 4 and drop 7, even if Big Ben breaks the pocket he is going to be faced with an umbrella coverage staring him in the face and if he chooses to throw the ball on the run there is a good chance of a pick.
2. When you blitz bring it up the gut: What this doies is allows the Defensive Ends which are used to keeping a Quarterback in the pocket to keep containment. And it also gets pressure in Big Ben's face which makes it harder to see the passing lanes. By forcing Rothlisberger to escape the rush by going up forward you also increase the likelyhood that he gets stroked by your Middle Linebacker if he tries to tuck it and run.
3. Be alert for screens: One of the things the Steelers are very good at is running screen plays. If they catch you in a blitz and throw a screen it has the potential to go for a long time. Its also a safe play to run if Big Ben gets off to a slow or erratic start. For the Cardinals to win they have to take away the ability for the Steelers to gain big yardage off of that play because succesful screen plays tend to give a team momentum. The most important thing will be discipline by the secondary. The flat player has to come up and force it in, the curl player has to keep his outside arm free, the safety has to feel the alley and the middle zone player has to make the tackle if it cuts back.
What the Steelers need to do to win
1. Willie Parker has to have a big day: In contrast to the Cardinals it will matter to the Steelers whether they make good yardage running the ball or not. Because of the nature of their offense the running game has to work to keep them out of third and long situations. Also if Willie Parker has a big day it will invite the Cardinals to bring a safety into the box opening things up on the outside for Santonio Holmes and Hines Ward. If the Cardinals are able to drop 7 and still stop the run the Steelers will be in for a long day.
2. Heath Miller Heath Miller Heath Miller: Anybody watching the Arizona/Eagles game should have noticed that their tight end who most of us had never heard of torched the Cardinals defense all over the field. If the Cardinals have an obvious weak link I would say its Aaron Francisco who comes in on third downs. If the Steelers see him matched up with Miller they should wear that matchup out. He should be the only person who isn't literally double covered on most passing plays. Again if he makes enough catches it will cause the Cardinals to adjust and open things up to Ward and Holmes
3. Be methodical. Where most teams go wrong against the Cardinals is they challenge them down field too much. What this does is it give the Arizona D Line the opportunity to get pressure on the Quarterback as these plays usually take a little longer. And it also challenges one of the best ball hawking safety tandem in the league especially when they are in a Cover 2 look. So impatience can lead to turnovers. But when teams take the time and mix in the run and short to intermediate pass game against the Cardinals then you see those Safeties cheating down trying to get involved and thats when you can try to sneak one in behind them. Also because they have a smaller defense, the longer you are on the field, the more you wear them down. And lastly by keeping the chains moving you take time off the clock and keep the Arizona offense on the sideline much like the Steelers did in the third quarter of their game against the Ravens.
1. Step off the bus blitzing: There is an old saying that to kill the snake you cut off its head. The Steelers' singular purpose should be to pound Kurt Warner into submission. He is the glue that holds everything together for that offense. Fitzgerald will probably get his because he is just too gifted even for double coverage at times and because the Steelers blitz so much I believe Boldin will get the ball a lot too. That can not be the focus. If they try to focus on covering the receivers Kurt Warner will have a field day. But if they touch Warner up all game they will either force him into making a mistake or at some point we will have a Matt Leinart sighting.
2. Punish the Running Backs even when they don't have the ball. Whether it be in coverage or when Edge or Hightower are picking up blitzes the Linebackers need to be physical with them. If they can do this then they won't have to worry as much about the Cardinals being able to run the ball in the fourth quarter. Also if you can get one of them out of the game I don't think the other can carry the load for the duration.
3. Force Kurt Warner to his left: Lets be real here, Warner is a bit of a statue back there and he won't suddenly get young legs by Sunday. If the Steelers can bring pressure from his right and force him to go left you basically have put him in the position of having to throw the ball away or take a hit because he can't run and throwing on the run going to his left has never been his forte. Its pretty simple but could be very effective.
X Factor to win
Arizona Cardinals: If the Cardinals come out no huddle at some point during the game they could seriously throw the Steelers off their game. Because the Steelers have those big bulky Defensive Linemen if they go quick no huddle those guys are likely to wear down fast. Also most 3-4 Defenses rely heavily on substitutions in order to create favorable matchups. If the Cardinals catch them in the wrong personnel they could go no huddle and take advantage of that and march the team down the field or force the Steelers to call a timeout.
Pittsburgh Steelers: If Santonio can make a big play returning a punt its likely to give his team huge momentum. I don't know if the Cardinals will be crazy enough to punt to him but they haven't had good punt coverage all year.
1. I don't believe that the Cardinals will be able to keep Warner upright.
2. I do believe the Cardinals will run the ball.
3. I don't believe that Breaston will have a big game because of the pressure on Warner
4. I do believe the Cardinals will have the right game plan but I don't believe they will limit Parker's yards
5. I do believe that the Cardinals will blitz up the middle
6. I don't believe the Cardinals will be hurt by a screen.
7. I do believe Willie Parker will have a big day
8. I don't believe that Heath Miller will have a big day
9. I do believe the Steelers will be methodical
10. I do believe the Steelers will have the right game plan
11. I do believe the Steelers will rough up Edge and Hightower.
12. I do believe they will force Kurt Warner left.
Pittsburgh Steelers in a thriller 34-21
The Senate debate showed the outlines of what promises to be a much larger political fight over universal coverage. While Democrats championed expansion of the child health program, many Republicans, including Senator John McCain of Arizona, said they worried that it was part of a long-term effort to replace private health insurance with government programs.
But Mr. McCain said, “Some of us who look at this bill may view it as another effort to eliminate, over time, private insurance in America, and I am concerned about that.”
And Senator Roger Wicker, Republican of Mississippi, asked, “Is the real intent of this legislation to replace the private health care system with a government-run health care system?”
When you are trying to block kids from being able to see a doctor I guess any old excuse will do.
You stay classy GOP!
Thursday, January 29, 2009
But where did the Republicans get that number? By drawing some fuzzy conclusions from a 2007 paper by Dr. Christina Romer, chair of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers
In fact, a year before being tapped to serve as the Chairman of President Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, Romer co-authored a report echoing the view that tax cuts can have a very large economic stimulus effect. As the authors noted at the time, 'tax cuts have very large and persistent positive output effects.' ... Using different assumptions and different sample periods, they estimated that a change in taxes equal to 1 percent of GDP resulted in a 2.2 percent to 3 percent change in GDP, with tax cuts increasing GDP.
We find Dr. Romer's previous conclusions on the economic impact of change in tax policy as an appropriate multiplier for examining the impact of stimulus proposals.
Except that the Romer analysis used by the GOP (linked to in the third paragraph of this page) never examined the effects of tax cuts on a deflationary economy -- it looked at the effects of tax increases on the economy as a whole and found a negative effect of 2.2% - 3% on GDP.
The Republican analysis simply flipped those numbers to positive and applied them to the GOP-backed tax cuts, then multiplied the result by a broad job creation estimate used in a recent paper from Romer and Jared Bernstein, an economic adviser to the vice president.
Like my Momma always told me, if it sounds too good to be true it probably is. Especially if its a Wing Nut's voice you are hearing.
Update: If you are looking for an ad for the Rethug Senator from your home state you can probably find it at this youtube channel.
While these actions will certainly please his base -- gone are the cries of an "imperial presidency" -- they will also seriously handicap our intelligence agencies from preventing future terrorist attacks. In issuing these executive orders, Mr. Obama is returning America to the failed law enforcement approach to fighting terrorism that prevailed before Sept. 11, 2001. He's also drying up the most valuable sources of intelligence on al Qaeda, which, according to CIA Director Michael Hayden, has come largely out of the tough interrogation of high-level operatives during the early years of the war.
Right, because we NEVER stopped terrorist attacks before 9/11. Maybe someone should remind this jackass of the PDB that was entitled "bin Laden determined to strike in the United States" that was NOT the product of any torture interrogations. But what he's not done...
What such a review would have made clear is that the civilian law-enforcement system cannot prevent terrorist attacks. What is needed are the tools to gain vital intelligence, which is why, under President George W. Bush, the CIA could hold and interrogate high-value al Qaeda leaders. On the advice of his intelligence advisers, the president could have authorized coercive interrogation methods like those used by Israel and Great Britain in their antiterrorism campaigns. (He could even authorize waterboarding, which he did three times in the years after 9/11.)
Attorney General Eric Holder pay attention. I think we have a public admission of guilt here. And we didn't even have to use torture to get it!
The CIA must now conduct interrogations according to the rules of the Army Field Manual, which prohibits coercive techniques, threats and promises, and the good-cop bad-cop routines used in police stations throughout America. Mr. Obama has also ordered that al Qaeda leaders are to be protected from "outrages on personal dignity" and "humiliating and degrading treatment" in accord with the Geneva Conventions. His new order amounts to requiring -- on penalty of prosecution -- that CIA interrogators be polite. Coercive measures are unwisely banned with no exceptions, regardless of the danger confronting the country.
Eliminating the Bush system will mean that we will get no more information from captured al Qaeda terrorists. Every prisoner will have the right to a lawyer (which they will surely demand), the right to remain silent, and the right to a speedy trial.
At this point I am reminded from a quote I posted a couple of days ago coming from retired Major General Paul Eaton “torture is the tool of the lazy, the stupid, and the pseudo-tough." John Yoo is a typical NeoCon who is scared of his own shadow yet is a cheerleader for torture. What I would love to see is him get waterboarded much like journalist Christopher Hitchens did and then see him give another legal opinion that it is not torture.
Now could someone find for me the section of the Geneva Conventions that deals with a right to an attorney or a right to remain silent? Those are rights afforded to United States citizens not enemy combatants or even for that matter for captured soldiers of another country. Or maybe they just forgot about all that during WWI and WWII. It should say something that the guy who said torturing enemy combatants didn't violate the Geneva Conventions doesn't have a good understanding of the Geneva conventions in the first place.
It is naïve to say, as Mr. Obama did in his inaugural speech, that we can "reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." That high-flying rhetoric means that we must give al Qaeda -- a hardened enemy committed to our destruction -- the same rights as garden-variety criminals at the cost of losing critical intelligence about real, future threats.
Is it naive to believe that our ideals should really mean something in this country or cynical to assert that they shouldn't? Again thats the kind of guy some of you out there want to get away scott free "for the good of the country". And what happens the next time a Republican wins the presidency? What will stop John Yoo from being appointed to a position that doesn't require confirmation? While you think on that let me provide you with his coupe de grace.
But in his decisions taken so precipitously just two days after the inauguration, Mr. Obama may have opened the door to further terrorist acts on U.S. soil by shattering some of the nation's most critical defenses.
So there you have it ladies and gentlemen. In order to justify his own and the rest of the Bush Administration's advocation of torture John Yoo practically invites terrorist attacks on our soul. What a great American he is. How proud many of you Bush apologists must be. If we as a country don't have the heart to investigate and prosecute this asshole and his asshole bretheren for ripping up our Constitution and our international treaties then we don't deserve to be called a democracy.
From Fox and Friends this morning:
See Rush Limbaugh believes that what President Obama is trying to do is put a wedge between himself and the GOP. But its not playing out that way. In fact what I believe President Obama is doing is getting the Republicans to put their devotion to Rush Limbaugh out in the open for the world to see by luring them into believing he wants them to oppose Rush. There is no way that any rational person would believe that the Republicans would ever shun Rush because he APPEARS* to hold too much sway with their base. So what do you think is going to happen when President Obama makes a statement to the Republicans about not listening to Limbaugh if they want to get things done? OF COURSE they are gonna run to the media with it which will then raise Rush's profile temporarily. But President Obama plays long ball not short ball and like most people who have been paying attention he knew the next move would be the talking heads would start asking the Congressional Republicans if they were taking their cues from Limbaugh.
Now THAT ladies and gentlemen is the epitome of putting them between a rock and a hard place. The GOP doesn't have anyone with enough courage to take on Rush Limbaugh and risk offending his "ditto heads" soo predictably instead you see all of them instead giving him unadulterated tongue baths. The few who foolishly made statements to the effect that they were their own men and didn't follow Limbaugh, quickly changed their tune and turned aroud and kissed his ring after being smacked down by the dittoheads. Instead of putting a wedge between Rush and the GOP, President Obama has actually ensured that the whole country would see who is pulling the Republicans' puppet strings. Does anyone think its a coincidence that every Rethug voted against the bill yesterday in the House after Limbaugh called for them to do so? Some how if there are any I think now their numbers are dwindling.
Now remember a few months back when John McCain cried foul over a spanish speaking ad that then Senator Obama put up that McCain to Limbaugh? Expect to see more of those kinds of adds in 2010 and 2012 from the Democrats opposing incumbent Republicans in the House. If the Democrats do it right the Rethugs will have to lug Rush Limbaugh's fat ass around on their back every where they go when they campaign for reelection. They better start eating their Wheaties!
* I guess the Republicans can't count, but on November 4th over 130 million Americans cast ballots in the election. Rush Limbaugh gets about 13 million listeners every week most of them repeat listeners. Teh math is not in the GOP's favor.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
P.S. Will somebody tell Tweety to step his damn game up!
Israeli tanks and bulldozers soon took up hilltop positions around Abu Freeh's home, and Khaled Abed Rabbo's five-story house in the valley below was one of those in the line of fire.
More than 70 members of his family crowded into one apartment for days. On Jan. 7 , Abed Rabbo said, the shelling intensified, and they heard an Israeli solider calling for people to come out of their homes.
Abed Rabbo said he gathered his wife, their three daughters and his mother, Souad. Souad Abed Rabbo said that she tied a white robe around a mop handle and two of her granddaughters waved white headscarves as they walked outside.
When they opened the door, they saw an Israeli tank parked in their garden about 10 yards away.
"We were waiting for them to give us an order," Khaled said last week as he stood in the ruins of his home. "Then one came out of the tank and started to shoot."
Souad Abed Rabbo said she was shot as she pushed her son back inside and her granddaughters fell on the stairs. When the shooting was over, she said, 2-year-old Amal and 7-year-old Souad were dead.
The allegation is one of at least five such white flag incidents that human rights investigators are looking into across the Gaza Strip . It's part of a growing pattern of alleged abuses that have raised concerns that some Israeli soldiers may have committed war crimes during their 22-day military campaign in Gaza .
"The evidence we've gathered in two of the cases so far is exceedingly strong," said Fred Abrahams , a senior researcher with Human Rights Watch working in the Gaza Strip . "All the research so far suggests they shot civilians that were leaving their homes with white flags."
Now when reading this article I kept thinking about how a lot of people are fine with just dismissing the loss of life in the Gaza Strip as "collateral damage". In trying to come up with why that is I started thinking about a scene at the end of the movie "A Time To Kill". It's hard sometimes to empathize with the "others". So for those who aren't moved by a story like this one I ask that you push play on the video and go to about 2:31 and think about what Matthew Macanoughey is telling the jury. Then look back up and read this account again, and imagine that these kids were relatives of yours. I would bet that it will change your opinion.
IRVING -- Tight end Martellus Bennett might be the first Dallas Cowboys player to feel the wrath of the team’s new get-tough plan.
The Cowboys are looking into ways to discipline and/or fine Martellus
Bennett for a profanity-laced YouTube video he put out earlier this week on his own channel Marty B TV, according to two sources.
In the video, Bennett did a freestyle rap with Dessie Brown to the song "Get Money" where he used profanity and invoked the names of owner Jerry Jones, tight end Jason Witten and quarterback Tony Romo. Bennett used derogatory terms toward blacks and gays.
He wore an autographed Cowboys helmet during the rap.
The team has addressed the situation with Bennett and the video, which
had 23,970 views, has since been removed.
The Cowboys, however, are considering getting some money from Bennett under the conduct detrimental to the team clause, a source said.
I hope they fine the shit out of his dumb ass. How about working on your craft instead of trying to be a youtube Jay Me?!
"I mean, it's easy if you're Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh or even sometimes Newt Gingrich to stand back and throw bricks. You don't have to try to do what's best for your people and your party.You know you're just on these talk shows and you're living well and plus you stir up a bit of controversy and gin the base and that sort of thing. But when it comes to true leadership, not that these people couldn't be or wouldn't be good leaders, they're not in that position of John Boehner or Mitch McConnell,"
Congressman Phil Gingrey today after getting phone calls from dittoheads
As long as I am in the Congress, I will continue to fight for and defend our sacred values. I have actively opposed every bailout, every rebate check, every so called “stimulus.” And on so many of these things, I see eye-to-eye with Rush Limbaugh. Regardless of what yesterday’s headline may have read, I never told Rush to back off. I regret and apologize for the fact that my comments have offended and upset my fellow conservatives—that was not my intent. I am also sorry to see that my comments in defense of our Republican Leadership read much harsher than they actually were intended, but I recognize it is my responsibility to clarify my own comments.
Now more than ever, we need to articulate a clear conservative message that distinguishes our values and our approach from those of liberal Democrats who are seeking to move our nation in the wrong direction. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Newt Gingrich, and other conservative giants are the voices of the conservative movement’s conscience. Everyday, millions and millions of Americans—myself included—turn on their radios and televisions to listen to what they have to say, and we are inspired by their words and by their determination. At the end of the day, every member of the conservative movement, from our political commentators and thinkers to our elected officials, share an important and common purpose in advancing the cause of liberty, reigning in a bloated federal government, and defending our traditional family values.
I think it's clear who runs the Republican Party and it for damn sure aint Congressman Gingrey
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Maybe the Republicans don’t think there is an emergency. After all, it was Phil Gramm, John McCain’s economic guru, who told us last summer that the pain was all in our heads, that this was a “mental recession.”
The truth, of course, is that the country is hemorrhaging jobs and Americans are heading to the poorhouse by the millions. The stock markets and the value of the family home have collapsed, and there is virtual across-the-board agreement that the country is caught up in the worst economic disaster since at least World War II.
The Republican answer to this turmoil?
They need to go into rehab.
And the church folks say AMEN!
From Joe Klein at Time Magazine:
Yesterday, in her first appearance as United Nations Ambassador SusanRice said that the Iranians would have to stop the enrichment of uranium before we began talks with them.
From The AP:
Not since before the 1979 Iranian revolution are U.S. officials believed to have conducted wide-ranging direct diplomacy with Iranian officials. But U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice warned that Iran must meet U.N. Security Council demands to suspend uranium enrichment before any talks on its nuclear program.
Cue the video.
Summary: On The O'Reilly Factor, Juan Williams again baselessly attacked first lady Michelle Obama, claiming that "her instinct is to start with this 'blame America' ... stuff." Williams asserted that Michelle Obama's "instinct" is to "blame America" or be "the victim," and said she has "this Stokely Carmichael-in-a-designer-dress thing going." Williams also said that she could be a "liabilit[y]" or an "albatross" for President Barack Obama. Williams previously claimed Michelle Obama sometimes uses "this kind of militant anger."
O'REILLY: OK, but, usually, Mary Katharine, usually, first ladies take on a cause. Laura Bush was illiteracy, and I'm not sure what Mrs. Obama's cause is going to be, do you know?
HAM: Well, she's talked about taking on the juggling of family and work, which probably entails some sort of family leave discussions, national discussions on that. She has a policy director who's fairly to the left on those issues, although she is going to start with military families, which I think is the best political move --
O'REILLY: That's good.
HAM: -- when you're talking about supporting families. But, you know, she's got to walk a fine line. Everybody's saying, you know, she's not a talking -- you know, she's not just a nice first lady who's just going to be quiet. On the other hand, she's got to not drop sound bites like she did during the campaign --
HAM: -- that were not helpful to her husband, because, frankly, if you want to be an unpleasant --
O'REILLY: All right. Well, I'd like to note --
HAM: -- heavy-handed first lady, you're going to --
O'REILLY: Yeah. Sure, anything that she says will be used against her.
HAM: -- well, you'll end up like Hillary Clinton. So -- yeah.
O'REILLY: Absolutely. Anything she says.
WILLIAMS: Yeah. And let me just -- let me just tell you this: If you think about liabilities for President Obama that are close to him -- Joe Biden's up there -- but Michelle Obama's right there. Michelle Obama, you know --
O'REILLY: But it's not her fault in the sense that --
WILLIAMS: -- she's got this Stokely Carmichael-in-a-designer-dress thing going. If she starts talking, as Mary Katharine suggested, her instinct is to start with this "blame America," you know, "I'm the victim." If that stuff starts to come out --
O'REILLY: Yeah, it'll be death.
WILLIAMS: -- people will go bananas --
WILLIAMS: -- and she'll go from being the new Jackie O to being something of an albatross.
What a fucking buffoon.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Projecting this “spend out” is a task requiring the weighing of numerous variables as well as the exercise of a considerable amount of subjective judgment. In the end, spending forecasts are subject to most of the uncertainties contained in weather forecasts, economic forecasts, and even Super Bowl predictions. But what is clear from the leaked analysis (and will probably be evident in the official version soon to be available) is that the watch word of this stimulus effort—“shovel ready,” meaning ready to be spent now—does not correspond to any key on the keyboards connected to CBO computers.
Hmmm imagine that.
It is particularly hard to defend the CBO forecast on the flow of “shovel ready” highway funds. The projection for the flow of highway funds from this package is much slower than the projection made by CBO for the flow of funds under the same program only four month ago in the stimulus package Congress attempted to pass last fall. CBO predicted 77 percent of that money would flow out of the Treasury in the first 24 months. Now they are projecting that only 45 percent of highway money will flow over a 24-month period.
Whichever figure is correct—if either prove to be—the disparity between the two estimates seems to demonstrate that CBO highway estimates will have been seriously out of line at least 50 percent of the time.
Ok, but what about worst case scenario and the partial analysis is right.
But what if CBO is right in its current forecast? What if many of the appropriated funds in this package do flow more slowly than federal and local officials anticipate? The first point that needs to be considered is that the $355 billion contained in the Appropriation Committee portion of the package represents only 43 percent of the total package and virtually all of the slower spending programs.
Nearly all of the remaining $470 billion, which will be made up of tax cuts, Medicaid payments to states, and unemployment benefits, is expected to flow from the Treasury over the course of the next 12 months. The $108 billion contained in the appropriation segment of the package that CBO projects to be unspent at the end of 2011 totals only 13 percent of the total package.
And as for the CBO itself? He doesn't mince words.
As for CBO, I find their efforts with respect to this package disconcerting. The Constitution delegated the making of budget policy to Congress. When the Congressional Budget Act was passed 35 years ago, CBO was established not for the purpose of transferring that responsibility from Congress to a team of experts but for informing the congressional deliberations with philosophically neutral, well-informed, and fact-based analysis—analysis based on a continuous and thorough vetting of all relevant information and points of view.
While CBO is certainly “where the action is in federal budgeting,” as it boasts on its website, I am not convinced that they have met the standard for analysis that should be expected of them. The incoming director needs to carefully review these projections and insure that CBO protects its reputation for quality and objectivity
Now K Tizzle doesn't fancy herself a media critic and she is loathe to take her coworkers to task, but at least she took the time out to post on the issue and give the Swamplanders the truth. Thats a lot more than can be said for a lot of other "journalists".
First of all, the family-planning program that Pelosi supports expanding in the stimulus bill was created in 1972 under the leadership of Republican president Richard Nixon.
What's being proposed is an expansion in the number of states that can use Medicaid money, with a federal match, to help low-income women prevent unwanted pregnancies. Of the 26 states that already have Medicaid waivers for family planning, eight are led by Republican governors (AL, FL, MS, SC, CA, LA, MN and RI -- a ninth, MO, had a GOP governor until this past November). If this policy is truly a taxpayer gift to "the abortion industry," as John Boehner and House Republicans claim, where are the GOP governors promising to end the program in their states?
Additionally, the process of obtaining a waiver for Medicaid family-planning coverage is extremely cumbersome. A letter written by Wisconsin health regulators in 2007 noted that some states have had to wait for as long as two years before their request was approved. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that eliminating the waiver requirement would save states $400 million over 10 years.
I swear man, the Republicans are going to keep fact checkers busy for the next 4 to 8 years. Lord knows the Villagers aren't going to investigate. Isn't it ironic how many times the Villagers have flogged the nonexistent CBO report that was spoonfed to them by the Republicans, yet they don't even refer to a real CBO report that justifies this spending?
“torture is the tool of the lazy, the stupid, and the pseudo-tough."
Now was this quote attributed to some DFH librul blogger or some wacky far left civil libertarian? No, this quote was attributed to retired Major General Paul Eaton. And who is retired Major General Paul Eaton? From his wikipedia page:
As a lieutenant and captain, Eaton served in the 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson, Colorado, and was later transferred to Germany as part of 4th Brigade, 4th Infantry Division ("Brigade 76"), where he served as an assistant brigade S3 (operations) officer and later was an infantry company commander. As major and lieutenant colonel Eaton was assigned to key battalion and brigade staff positions in the old 9th Infantry Division, then on the I Corps staff. He also commanded an infantry battalion of the 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, New York, and later served as the G3 (operations) officer of the division.
As a colonel in the mid 1990s he commanded an Army brigade in Germany and following promotion to brigadier general was the assistant division commander of the 1st Armored Division. In 2000, he returned to the US to serve as deputy commanding general of the Army Infantry Center and School at Fort Benning, Georgia, and later he lead the creation of the Army’s new Stryker brigades at Fort Lewis, Washington. As a major general he returned to Fort Benning to be commanding general of the Army Infantry Center and School. He was then assigned to Iraq as Commanding General of the Coalition Military Assistance Training Team (CMATT), where he was in charge of training the Iraqi military from 2003 to 2004.
Upon return to the US he was Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Training, United States Army Training and Doctrine Command, Fort Monroe, Virginia.
Eaton's awards and decorations include the Distinguished Service Medal, Defense Superior Service Medal, Legion of Merit (with 3 Oak Leaf Clusters), Meritorious Service Medal (with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters), Army Commendation Medal (with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters), Army Achievement Medal, Expert Infantryman Badge, Parachutist Badge, Ranger Tab, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff Identification Badge.
So who should you follow, the words of a decorated retired Major General in the U.S. Army who helped to create the Stryker Brigades at Ft Lewis and helped to train the Iraq military, or the words of the Rush Limbaughs, Bill O'Reillys and Joe Scarboroughs?
We don’t really know how Barack Obama will govern. What we have so far, mainly, is an Inaugural Address, and it suggests that he may have learned more from Reagan than he has sometimes let on. Obama’s speech was unabashedly pro-American and implicitly conservative.
Yet again was this neocon jack ass trying to imply that to be pro-American means that you must be conservative. That the conservative movement consistently fights against everything our country was founded on is of course besides the point. That the "liberal" ACLU whose whole mission is to uphold the constitution is the bane of every self respecting conservative's existence doesn't factor in. No, conservatives are pro-American because they believe they are the only ones on earth that get to define was being American really is. But lets focus on his assertation that President Obama's inaugural address was "implicitly conservative".
The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act — not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. All this we will do.
Hmmmm so now conservatives are all about "bold swift actions"? I thought the conservative doctrine was to take a hands off approach, especially when it comes to the markets and the economy.
The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.I am sure somewhere Ronald Reagan is rolling over in his grave. Or isn't government still "the problem"?
Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control — and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart — not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.
So conservatism is now about government oversight and prosperity for all? Damn maybe I need to switch teams. This conservative stuff is sounding pretty good right now.
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace
Say it ain't so! Conservatives believe in religious acceptance and inclusiveness now? They aren't the movement of Christianity ONLY anymore? Wow, how did I miss that memo? It makes you think that they wouldn't have rejected a Muslim running for President after all. And I am wondering if Lou Dobbs could still be considered a conservative seeing as how I thought he wanted no parts of other languages and cultures helping to shape what it means to be American.
To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to the suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.
Well hot damn, conservatives now care about poor people everywhere. Shit where can I sign up?!?!?!
The truth is we will hear this bullshit over and over again for the next 4 to 8 years. It is Kristol's one last attempt to define what being a liberal means. Its also why so many people are reticent about defining themselves as liberal now lest they be lumped into the categories that Kristol and all the other conservative bloviators create for us.
The conservative's liberal check list
Hate America? Check
Hate the military? Check
Want America to lose? Check
Want higher taxes? Check
Abortion on demand? Check
Government hand outs to all? Check
Dirty Fucking Hippies? Triple Check
Unfortunately for the Bill Kristol's of the world, being a liberal isn't just about having a label. It about having a philosphy that celebrates the values and principles our country was founded on as well as the willingness to act in our country's best interest. If Kristol wants to sell universal healthcare, acceptance of other voices, adhering to the rule of law, looking out for your fellow man, and believing that the government can and should have a role in bettering the lives of everyday Americans as conservative values then hey, have at it. But at some point there will have to be works to back up this kind of rhetoric and conservatives have historically shown that they FAIL in that capacity. Unless and until they wake up to the fact that their way of doing this has been repudiated in this last election there will not be a resurgence of the GOP and they will continue to linger in a perpetual state of irrelevance.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Reports of a recent study by the Congressional Budget Office, showing that the vast majority of the money in the stimulus package won't be spent until after 2010, have Democrats on the defensive and the GOP calling for a pullback in wasteful spending.
Funny thing is, there is no such report.
"We did not issue any report, any analysis or any study," a CBO aide told the Huffington Post.
Rather, the nonpartisan CBO ran a small portion of an earlier version of the stimulus plan through a computer program that uses a standard formula to determine a score -- how quickly money will be spent. The score only dealt with the part of the stimulus headed for the Appropriations Committee and left out the parts bound for the Ways and Means or Energy and Commerce Committee.
Because it dealt with just a part of the stimulus, it estimated the spending rate for only about $300 billion of the $825 billion plan. Significant changes have been made to the part of the bill the CBO looked at.
The CBO numbers were given to a small number of congressional Democrats and Republicans, but were not posted online because they're not an official CBO product. (Media outlets, while reporting widely about the "report," have declined to post it online. Here's the whole thing.) Democratic aides say they are certain that the GOP leaked it to the Associated Press in order to undercut the spending portion of the stimulus.
A Republican aide for the House Appropriations Committee denied involvement, saying that her staff did not see the CBO numbers until after the AP reported them. The Washington Post followed the AP and reported that aides to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) provided the report.
So once again the Republican party is more interested in playing politics than doing what is right for the American people. How anybody could believe in these clowns at this point is beyond me. At some point you have to look past their rhetoric and evaluate their deeds and for the last 8 years there is no doubt that the GOP has been all about looking out for the GOP. And this illustrates yet another failure of the MSM. Instead of learning about their subterfuge from the Washington Post or the AP instead they became complicit in pushing the faux controversy. And then of course their MSM bretheren of all types picked up the story and ran with it. It should tell you something that it took the Huffington Post to investigate the report that does not exist in order for the truth to come our rather than CNN or the New York Times. Such is the state of journalism today.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Romeo Crennel Browns
Randy Savage Browns
Rod Marinelli Lions
Eric Mangini Jets
Update I: On a happier note we find that Martin Mayhew has been promoted to GM by the Lions. Congratulations to Mayhew who becomes I believe only the
Update II: In what I would say is a some what shocking move the Denver Broncos have fired Mike Shanahan.
After 14 seasons and two Super Bowl wins, Mike Shanahan is out in Denver.Update III: In the spirit of the long time tradition of recycling head coaches in the NFL, ESPN reported today that the Cleveland Browns will announce that they have hired Eric Mangini to lead their team:
The Broncos fired Shanahan on Tuesday, parting ways with the coach after three consecutive seasons of failing to make the playoffs. Shanahan had three years and upwards of $20 million remaining on his contract, according to NFL Network's Adam Schefter.
The move was announced in a statement by team owner Pat Bowlen.
"After giving this careful consideration, I have concluded that a change in our football operations is in the best interests of the Denver Broncos," Bowlen said. "This is certainly a difficult decision, but one that I feel must be made and which will ultimately be in the best interests of all concerned.
The Cleveland Browns have agreed to hire former New York Jets head coach Eric Mangini as their head coach.Update IV: The Broncos have now announced the hiring of Josh McDaniels as Head Coach. From ESPN
Mangini, fired last week by the Jets, agreed to a four-year deal, a source close to the situation told ESPN.com's Michael Smith on Wednesday.
A person with knowledge of the negotiations told The Associated Press that Mangini will be introduced Thursday at a news conference at the team's headquarters in Berea.
Mangini began his NFL career as a ballboy with the Browns in 1994 under then-coach Bill Belichick. Now he's taking over the job of one of his best friends in football, fired Browns coach Romeo Crennel.
Mangini went 23-25 and made the playoffs once in three seasons with the Jets, who stumbled down the stretch to lose four of their last five games and miss the playoffs after an 8-3 start.
His tenure in New York was tumultuous. When he arrived, Mangini inherited a 4-12 Jets team and led them to 10 wins in his first season, prompting New York's tabloids to dub him "Mangenius." By the end of his run in the NFL's largest market, he was being called moody, dour and controlling.
ENGLEWOOD, Colo. -- Josh McDaniels, the man behind the New England Patriots' scoring machine, inherits an offense in Denver that needs only an oil change.
What I was trying to do was pick the best guy," Bowlen said. "It didn't matter really that much whether it was an offensive or defensive guy, he's going to be the head coach. I think Josh has the ability to go out and find a very good defensive coordinator."Update V: Gotta say I didn't see this one coming. The Lions have picked Tennessee Titans Defensive coordinator to be their new head coach.
McDaniels helped the defensive staff in New England for three seasons before serving as quarterbacks coach in 2004. Bill Belichick promoted him to offensive coordinator in 2006, and his career took off.
"I'd like to personally thank Bill Belichick for providing me my foundation in this league and for mentoring me for eight years," McDaniels said at his introductory news conference Monday night.
Under his guidance, Tom Brady threw for a record 50 touchdowns in '07 and came within a whisker of the NFL's first 19-0 season. McDaniels' reputation grew stronger in '08 when Brady was lost with a knee injury in the opener and Matt Cassel, who hadn't started a game since high school, led the Patriots to an 11-5 record.
"Josh McDaniels is one of the finest people and brightest, most talented coaches I have ever worked with," Belichick said in a statement. "Since joining us eight years ago, Josh performed a variety of roles and excelled in every one of them."
McDaniels agreed to a four-year deal believed to be worth about $8 million to replace Shanahan, who was fired 48 hours after the Broncos became the first team in league history to blow a three-game divisional lead with three weeks left.
The Detroit Lions have reached an agreement in principle with Jim Schwartz to become their next head coach.
Schwartz, the Tennessee Titans' defensive coordinator for the past eight seasons, has agreed in principle to a four-year contract, sources told ESPN.
The Lions will hold an introductory news conference for Schwartz on Friday.
"After an extensive search that included several highly qualified coaches, we are thrilled that Jim Schwartz will become our team's head coach," Lions president Tom Lewand said in a statement Thursday. "Martin [Mayhew, Lions general manager] and I believe that Jim's qualifications and vision will lead this organization on the field toward our goal of becoming a championship football team."
Update VI: Damn that was fast. The Bucs announced today that they have replaced Jon Gruden and Bruce Allen with Raheem Morris and Mark Dominek respectively. I have to say that I like Morris a lot but I am not necessarily sold on him being the head guy. He has never been a head coach on any level and he was only a coordinator for one year in college. In point of fact he only has 2 years of being a full time position coach on his resume in the NFL. But I wish him all the best.
TAMPA, Fla. -- A day after abruptly firing Super Bowl winner Jon Gruden, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers have introduced Raheem Morris as their new coach.
Morris inherits a team that won three division titles under his predecessor but has hasn't won a playoff game since capturing the franchise's only NFL title in January 2003. The Gruden era ended with four consecutive losses that denied the Bucs a postseason spot following a 9-3 start.
Mark Dominik is the new general manager. He has been with the team since 1995 and replaces Bruce Allen, who was fired Friday.
Update VII: The Rams have hired Steve Spagnulo, the Giants D Coordinator to be their next head coach.
Steve Spagnuolo, who spent two seasons as the New York Giants' defensive coordinator, has been hired by the St. Louis Rams to be their next coach.
Spagnuolo, 49, agreed to a four-year deal worth about $12 million, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
Spagnuolo replaces Jim Haslett and takes over a team that finished 2-14. Haslett went 2-10 as interim coach after his promotion from defensive coordinator when Scott Linehan was fired following an 0-4 start.
Spagnuolo was the architect of the Giants' sack-happy defense that thwarted New England's run to a perfect season in last year's Super Bowl upset.
Updates VIII and VIV: The Jets have hired defensive guru Rex Ryan, formerly the defensive coordinator of the Baltimore Ravens as their new Head Coach. The Chiefs have fired Head Coach Herm Edwards.
* commenter Amitav points out that Rick Smith the GM of the Texans for the last 3 years was actually the second black GM in NFL history.