2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, and well… EVERY SINGLE YEAR BEFORE THAT.

And also, the “must have” toy this year is a robot hamster? Sweet.

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out what’s happening: someone pays for one paper, takes the entire stock, and sells them on the street. In the case of the New York Times, whose price is $2.00 daily, someone paying for a single paper, taking all of them, and selling these, can equal a $38 loss per machine. While  $38 daily doesn’t seem all that impressive, let’s think of it this way:

• The New York Times has 13,300 newspaper vending machines nationwide.
• At an estimate of 20 papers per machine, this equals roughly 266,000 papers.
• At $2 per day, NYT has $532,000 in potential revenue per day invested in these self-serve boxes
• If the scenario I describe above applied to all boxes (which, of course, it wouldn’t be prudent to make that assumption), NYT would bring in $26,600 in revenue per day.
• $532,000 in potential revenue – $26,600 in actual revenue = $505,400 in lost revenue per day.

Earlier this year, CNN reported that revenue from these self-serve boxes has been on the decline for the past 5 years. In that report, they note that income generated from free-standing newsstands (train stations, sidewalks, etc) and convenience stores have not seen the same drastic decline. What we can gather from this is that while people are reeling from the down economy, they will still pay for their news.

I am not suggesting by any means that this is a scientific study (it’s not). I’m only suggesting that the drop in revenue from these machines can possibly be attributed to the fact that the print industry is trusting society with an “honor system” method of obtaining their product. With all the talk surrounding “the death of the print industry,” the print industry has overlooked a way to put a stop on this rampant loss of revenue: abolish coin-operated boxes, bring back old fashioned newsies (or, you know… just 1 newsstand per 5 boxes), and realize that the honor system is not a solid business model anymore.

What shocks me is the new batch of lies brought forth in the past few days by your standard Republicans in an effort to stir the public into an uproar surrounding the healthcare debate. To paraphrase Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) in his book “Lies, and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them”, there are different types of liars (in the book, he outlines the Ann Coulter brand of lying [use footnotes that don't actually support your argument], the Bill O’Reilly brand of lying [make up statistics, then backpedal and claim you've never cited any such statistic], and the Sean Hannity brand of lying [just... plain... lie... seriously, just make things up; assume your audience is just that dumb]. What we’re seeing here is a progression from one brand of lies to another. Let me explain:

The early phases of the healthcare debates were consumed by easily-debunked pieces of misinformation (“death panels”, “free insurance for illegal immigrants”, tax increases for everyone, etc.). And, for a while, the easily persuaded (and horribly undereducated) believed said lies. And, in fact, those same people still believe those lies. But, as it turns out, there were enough educated people in America who were quick to take the oh, two minutes, to reference the language of the bill in question, and refute those claims.

The new brand of lies is a bit more sinister:
Rather than preying on the weak-minded (yes, you, sir, man wearing the Colonial-era cap holding the Obama-as-Hitler sign, carrying your gun to the rally, I’m speaking to you… no, I don’t care that you brought a box of Lipton with you… and really, shouldn’t you be at work, you know, “helping the economy?”) , Tan-czar (you conservatives love using the word, I’m just trying to fit in) John Boehner (R-OH) reached deeper into his bag of tricks for his next round of lies: this new brand falls closer to Franken’s description of O’Reilly’s method of lying: let’s make up some statistics!

According to Republicans….
DID YOU KNOW THAT THIS BILL WOULD DESTROY SMALL BUSINESSES BY TAXING THEM UNTIL THEY WERE OUT OF BUSINESS!!!!!
(oh, wait, small businesses are given a tax credit to pay for insurance for their employees… so… Republicans: 0, Truth: 1)

DID YOU KNOW THAT THIS BILL WILL CUT YOUR MEDICARE BENEFITS AND DENY YOU COVERAGE!!!!!!!
(oh, it has the endorsement of the AARP? The non-partisan organization designed to protect the interests of those 65 and over? And they had this to say about it: We’ve read the Affordable Health Care for America Act and we can say with confidence that it meets those goals with improved benefits for people in Medicare and needed health insurance market reforms to help ensure every American can purchase affordable health coverage,” AARP CEO Barry Rand. Hmm… with that in mind…. Republicans: 0, Truth: 2)

DID YOU KNOW THAT THIS BILL WILL COST 4.7 MILLION JOBS IF IT PASSES!!!!!!!
(oh, wait, non-partisan website Politifact.com has deemed this a “complete and total distortion”? Oh… hmm… well… wait, no, that’s if the bill was actually more like the Republicans’ “Health Care Reform Bill” [which, in all honesty, looks more the length of a John Grisham novel than it does a piece of major healthcare legislation]. Hmm… for some reason, when the 4.7 million jobs lost statement was made, they “accidentally” switched it from where small businesses get tax credits and wealthy individuals pay an additional 1% in taxes to the other way around… whooops! Care for a retraction on that one, Repubs? No? Oh, oh well. Republicans: 0, Truth: 3)

And this list could go on and on. At least Republicans are trying to incorporate numbers into their massive lies. Well, nice try, guys. The bill passed. On to the Senate!

By Chad Molloy
It’s really no surprise that  Joe Lieberman has his reservations about health care reform. This is the same man that denounced the Democratic party, campaigned for McCain (and down-ticket Republicans) in the 2008 election cycle, and has  used his Democratic Party-given chairmanship on the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs to conduct a “does Obama have too many ‘czars’” inquiry. So yes, we get it, Joe Lieberman is the most inexplicably conservative Senator to actually caucus with the Democrats.

But the fact that our former ’00 Democratic candidate for Vice President has turned on the party that built him is not the story here. Rather, it’s the fact that he’s turned on himself.

Lieberman has been one of the staunchest opponents of using the filibuster to get one’s personal views across through the blocking of pending legislation. Lieberman has THREE times voted against a filibuster and for cloture, and then voted against a bill. Lieberman was part of the “Gang of 14″ that vowed to NOT use a filibuster to hold up any of Bush’s judicial nominees (except in the instance of an “extraordinary circumstance,” despite the fact that “extraordinary circumstance” was never defined…). So, we can gather from Lieberman’s voting record during his tenure in the Senate that he believes in an up or down vote in nearly all circumstances.

Well, with any rule, there’s an exception. This exception? On Tuesday, Lieberman announced:

“I can’t see a way in which I could vote for cloture on any bill that contained a creation of a government-operated-run insurance company … It’s just asking for trouble—in the end, the taxpayers are going to pay.”

(Let’s bear in mind that the CBO has determined that the creation of a public option would actually CUT the deficit)

It really shouldn’t come as too much of a surprise that Lieberman is shilling for the health insurance industry. Aetna is perennially one of his top contributors. The surprise is that Lieberman blatantly lied about this. After Lieberman begged to keep his precious chairmanship, he promised majority leader Harry Reid that as he would continue to caucus with the Democrats, he would vote on party lines when it came to procedural votes (you know, like voting against a filibuster…).

Like Lucy pulling the football out from Charlie Brown, Harry Reid fell for Lieberman’s ploy. I guess I just have to wonder how much longer Reid and the rest of the party are going to swing and miss before they wise up, kick Joe out of the caucus, and send him on his way to the Republican caucus where he belongs. I think he’d fit in over there. He’s a fearmonger, they’re fearmongers. He likes making appearances on Glenn Beck’s radio show. He doesn’t have a grasp of reality. He’s a corporate whore. Yep, I think he’d fit in just fine.

Joe Lieberman: Putting the “Con” back in Connecticut

By Chad Molloy

With the  healthcare debate shifting to the Senate floor, I thought it would be fitting to elaborate on the history of the American as apple pie idea that is the Senate filibuster (you know, if the apples used to make that pie were grown on a tree with magical obstructionist powers never meant to be a part of Senatorial procedure, but I digress):

According to the civics lesson School House Rock provided us, a bill in the Senate just needs a simple majority to pass. I’ve often wondered how the concept of a filibuster - requiring a super-majority to force cloture - came to be. Well, after an evening of too much coffee and free time, I was able to find that it was never intended to be at all.

In the early years of the U.S. Congress, the Senate could end its debate on a given bill with a motion “to move the previous question” and then proceed to vote. The Senate eventually abolished this rule, unintentionally creating a loophole in its rules that would allow for its members to filibuster, or “talk out a bill” to their hearts’ content.

Though, as we know, Senators no longer even need to actually “talk.”  In lieu of a scene straight out of “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”, they instead simply state their intent to filibuster (which I think we can all agree is a lot less entertaining). With physical effort no longer a necessity, the filibuster has become the norm for any bill controversial in nature.

It used to be where if a Senator wanted to embarrassingly filibuster a bill (a la Strom Thurmond’s 24+ hour filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1957), they had to prepare for legislative war by dehydrating themselves in tanning beds and saunas prior to their speech and keeping pails in the cloak room “for emergencies” during.

Have we really fallen so far into the sedentary, Super Size Me society where we cannot expect actual “talking” to accompany this “talking out” of this bill? I would hope that in the event the Republicans are able to filibuster the bill, Majority Leader Reid would promote an active Senatorial lifestyle by taking the procedural filibuster off the table, forcing the opposition put their money where their mouth is. Senators, I recommend you reserve your tanning beds now; maybe Rep. Boehner can recommend some of his DC favorites.

If you recall, in December of 2007 and January of 2008, the CTA was proposing a  shut down of a large portion of their services and excessive fare increases unless they received $500 million in taxpayer money. Well, through legislation passed by our state house and senate and signed into law by then-Governor Rod Blagojevich, we caved… The already-high sales tax, especially in Cook county, went further towards the sky. We were under impression that by making those concessions, the CTA would back off, leaving the prices where they were.

Well, here we are, less than two years later, and the CTA is proposing their usual “increase the rates while decreasing the service” scam. What other industry would get away with raising the price on a service (significantly, mind you) while lowering the quality of said service? The new cost of a train ride will rise 20%, to $3.00 per ride.

An easy, however unpopular, solution to the “deficits” the CTA is constantly using as the excuse for the constant fare hikes, would simply be to reduce pay and employees throughout their poorly-run system.

The average bus driver makes in upwards of $50,000 per year. Keep in mind, that this is a job that does not require a college degree. Keep in mind that this job is, essentially, just driving all the way up a street, and all the way back on that same street. This is what 16 year olds do for fun, but with a bigger vehicle.

I’ve personally reported 2 bus drivers for unprofessional (and dangerous) behavior. Both were chatting away on their cell phones, and one of them ran a red light in the process (oh, by the way, if one of those fancy red light cameras catches a bus, it’s not the CTA that pays the fine, it’s not the bus driver that pays the fine, it’s the taxpayer: true story). Since that time, I’ve seen both drivers back on the road, and one of them was even on a cell phone (again) the 2nd time around. Clearly, the CTA doesn’t take these reports seriously, ignoring their customers.

So, CTA, how about instead of charging the public even more for the mediocre service you provide, you clean house, put the bus drivers down to a $25,000-30,000 (tops, which is fair for the required level of education the average driver has) per year salary, and reduce the number of “on the clock” employees that can be seen just riding around on the train or standing around a platform?

But of course, this will never happen. The CTA will continue to overcharge for their terrible service and overpaid workforce, drivers will continue to endanger the lives of their passengers (as well as other cars on the road, pedestrians, and cyclists), and we’ll continue to take it… like we always do.

In Dash’s recent article, he outlined the current wear the numerous failing banks are having on the FDIC. The FDIC, or Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, is the institution installed following the Great Depression to ensure the funds deposited in banks will be available for withdrawal by individuals (with limitations, of course). For the most part, for years, the organization has served as a way to ease the mind of depositors, a way to let them know their money is safe. So, now, in the event of a bank failure, we need not worry about our prized deposits disappearing, and with that peace of mind, banks are able to avoid “deposit runs,” something that can doom just about any bank (Sen. Charles Schumer, D-NY, made some inflammatory statements last year resulting in $1.3 billion in withdrawals over a span of less than two weeks that may have lead to the downfall of one small bank)

As Dash points out, up until 2007, the FDIC had over $50 billion in funds to distribute in the event of a bank collapse. Over the past two years, that fund has been completely depleted. If the FDIC cannot be replenished, and eventually falls, the failure of a single bank could mean the loss of the personal investments of that bank’s clientele (few would consider a checking/savings account a “risky investment”). Currently, only commercial accounts are subject to loss in this such event, but without the federal insurance provided by the FDIC, individuals would become helpless. If this were ever to become the case, it is near certain that depositors would avoid putting their money in the bank in the first place, inflicting more stress on a banking industry that has been under fire in the past year and a half.

In my opinion, what’s clear is that we are nowhere near where we need to be in terms of lending reform. To date (since the beginning of 2009, months after the well-publicized and felt financial crisis), 98 banks have failed, with the FDIC borrowing from their fund to replenish assets these banks were claiming in the form of loans.

There becomes a point where the accounts payable ledger of an organization becomes meaningless, and until some strict legislation can be put in place to reassure the world that banks are making concrete investments, we live in a world where “asset” has lost its meaning. How are we over a year beyond the beginning of this crisis that most visibly began with the fall of Lehman Brothers without any major legislation in place to prevent the trend of credit default swaps, predatory lending, and other contributors to our current situation from running amok?

A stimulus bill was necessary, but it was merely  treatment, not the cure. If Wall Street and the banking industries are not soon regulated, it was all for naught.

• Remember the Dixie Chicks? Remember when they went to a foreign country to play a concert and said they they were ashamed to be from the same state as George W. Bush? Remember how conservatives reacted to that? Oh yes, they labeled the Dixie Chicks “unpatriotic” and tried to ban them from the radio. Wal-Mart stopped stocking their albums, and conservative groups even set up “patriotic concerts” in cities on the same night the “Chicks” would be there (and then they’d honor Dixie Chicks tickets at the door in hopes of “shielding people from their anti-Americanism“).
• Remember last year when Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) called Obama unpatriotic and then suggested Congress should investigate the patriotism of its members (very McCarthy-like) by saying “I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out: Are they pro-America or anti-America?”?
• Remember McCain’s slogan for last year’s election? No? Well, it was “Country First”. Yes, “country first.” So you’d gather that the idea is that we should always show our brightest red, whites, and blues; hold true to our country’s honor, etc. etc. Great. (let’s see how Republicans fare with this below…)
• Remember Sarah Palin’s claims that there was a “Real America” and a “Fake America” (yep, turns out “real Americans” – by her count, at least – live in the deepest red states, go figure…). Sorry New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago; you just didn’t make the “real America” cut this time.

So there, it’s outlined, Republicans are patriotic. Right? They’ll unquestioningly support America through anything, right? Well, here’s where that all starts to come unhinged… Here we go:

Since late-January, it seems like Republicans have been on an all out attack on their former views. What during the Bush Administration would have been called “unpatriotic” has (in their twisted logic) become the “patriotic thing to do”

For instance, Republicans have long criticized liberal war protesters as being “unpatriotic.” The charge was simple: they equated anti-war with anti-troops. While that logic is clearly flawed in the first place, the fact remained simple: Protests against the American government were unpatriotic. Fair enough.

Now…

• We have clowns on TV (Glenn Beck) who despite their claim to be non-partisan, clearly represent the Republican party, organizing anti-government marches on Washington, DC, rallying against our leadership. How patriotic is it to attempt to delegitimize an elected official by shouting lies (oh, you know, birthers, deathers, etc.)?
• We have members of Congress (Joe Wilson – R -SC) interrupting the President of the United States in the middle of a speech to spread hate and lies.
• We have members of Congress (Jim DeMint – R – SC) traveling to Hondouras to denounce the United States’ foreign policy (there’s a word for this, and it goes a little beyond “unpatriotic,” I think it’s “treason”).
• We have conservative media and legislators cheering when the United States loses its bid to host the Olympics.
• We have a governor former (1/2 term) governor (Sarah Palin – R – AK) traveling to foreign countries denouncing our president and our government, all while spreading lies (still doing the whole “death panel” thing… maybe it’s fresher over there…). (keep in mind, that this is the EXACT SAME THING the Dixie Chicks did – except Palin goes beyond saying she’s “ashamed” as the ‘Chicks’ did, and instead calls the President a murderer, suggesting he’s promoting the death of the elderly – yet where’s the outrage? Come on, conservatives! Rather than putting her ghost-written book on the top of the best seller list, why didn’t you instead boycott it? Oh, right, hypocracy…)
• And finally, Barack Obama wins the Nobel Peace Prize, and we have members of the conservative media and Congress saying ridiculous things like the Nobel Committee must have been influenced by “affirmative action“, that our president should “give the award back” (Glenn Beck), and Rush Limbaugh even said that he “agrees with the Taliban.” I mean really, what could possibly be more patriotic than siding with the Taliban when they speak out against our president?

What I want to know is when rooting against your country to get the Olympics and denouncing your President’s receipt of the world’s most prestigious award became “patriotic.” Please, someone, tell me.

It’s not that I don’t believe conservatives have a right to voice their opinion (they do!): good, bad, positive, negative; it’s simply the fact that they’re not living up to their own standards. Standards they’ve used to destroy any liberal who dared “cross the line” by saying anything even remotely critical of our country.

One has to wonder, just one year after Palin’s famed “real America” comment and Bachmann’s “pro-America, anti-America” comment, which party is pushing themselves further into the “anti-America” (by their own standards) side of this paradigm?

And rather than read my rambling 811 word assault, I suppose this video courtesy of Media Matters (non-partisan) would have sufficed:

But remember… “Country First,” right?

Two nights ago on Larry King Live, the discussion focused on the media’s role in the political spectrum. Unfortunately, one of the guests was Michele Bachmann (R-Minn., best known for accusing Obama of not being born in the U.S., calling Obama supporters “anti-American, calling the U.S. Census unconstitutional, and, well… you get the point, just check out this site for some more examples). Just after King had pointed out that even the highest rated 24 hour news network averaged just over 3 million viewers per night, Bachmann interjected to proclaim that the viewers of this network (Fox News, again, unfortunately), were a “critical mass.” (for those who might be a bit more intelligent than our dear Congresswoman from Minnesota, 3 million viewers equals 1 percent of our population, hardly a “critical mass”)

But in thinking about this, I might have come to my conclusion on just exactly WHY Fox News has such a ridiculous and misinformed viewership. Whereas I read a newspaper, watch/listen to/read various non-partisan media outlets and THEN spend my evenings watching the likes of Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, the die hard Glenn Beck viewers get their news solely from him, Sean Hannity, and Bill O’Reilly.

The fact of the matter is that the followers of the conservative talking heads clearly take every over-spun, vile word that spews from their mouth as the gospel truth. I mean, really… Anyone with ANY sources of information outside of Fox News would clearly understand the many falsehoods regarding current policy that we are all being barraged with.

1. Joe Wilson’s “You Lie!” outburst – Wilson accused the President of lying about something that was clearly outlined IN WRITING, IN THE BILL IN QUESTION.
2. Sarah Palin’s “Death Panel” Facebook post – Again, this is another figment of the right’s imagination. “Death Panels” simply don’t exist. The portion of the Bill she was referencing refers to end of life counseling, something that Miss Palin promoted during her 1/2 term as Alaska’s governor.
3. etc. (this list could get long… you get the point)

It’s a lack of investigation on part of the Fox News viewership that allows the Becks, Hannitys, and O’Reillys of the world get away with pushing their agenda on Americans the way they do. Do I take Olbermann’s words as absolute, non-partisan truth? Of course not. Any one of these pundits – whether it be Olbermann or Maddow; or whether it be Beck, Hannity, O’Reilly, or Limbaugh – USE the news to make personal ideological statements. Had I not read the news earlier in the day and merely taken the editorial word of the evening as absolute fact, of course I would be misguided. And honestly, it’s a shame that we can’t all make an effort to be a more informed society.

In closing, I’ll concede the point that Fox News can draw in 1% of Americans. I’ll concede the point that these are clearly the loudest 1% of our populous. But I’ll take solace in the fact that 1% an electoral victory does not make.