Jon Prins' Tumblog or whatever

This is a spot for posts and bookmarks of the programming, math and science persuasion.

The First Amendment is first for a reason. If the Obama Administration is going after reporters’ phone records, they better have a damned good explanation.

Boehner

My explanation? 2001-2008 set the stage for an ultra paranoid security state, where spying is the norm. Stop complaining, Boehner - you’re just reaping the seeds your party’s previous administration sowed. If you want to fix it, fix it. You are, after all, the legislature. But you don’t want to fix it; you want to stymy any attempt at fixing anything (unless ‘fixing’ is codeword for ‘winning,’ no matter the cost to the American public).

I would say that this would be the chance for Republicans to stand up and demand actual smaller government by dismantling the unknown-cost-domestic-spying-apparatus, but we all know they don’t have the balls to.

It’s not much of a surprise, I guess. The American Jobs Act never had a particularly good chance of passing the House. But as of yesterday, it’s officially dead. Majority Leader Eric Cantor isn’t even pretending the two sides will work something out. “The $447 billion jobs package as a package: dead?” A reporter asked him. “Yes,” Cantor replied.

The jobs bill is dead - The Washington Post (via brooklynmutt)

Was expecting this, but doesn’t keep me from being disappointed.

(via theamericanbear)

thenewrepublic:

In light of GOP criticism of the Buffet Rule, Timothy Noah writes:
“Back in 1981 Republicans might not have liked a proposal to tax millionaires to at least the same extent that we tax mere mortals, but they would have been reluctant to oppose it on the grounds that our economy depends entirely on rich people maximizing their incomes. You could believe that, but you couldn’t say it out loud. This inhibition no longer burdens the GOP.”
With millions of people still out of work, why has the GOP been able to rally support behind supply side, or “trickle-down,” economics so easily?
Courtesy of Slate.com 

thenewrepublic:

In light of GOP criticism of the Buffet Rule, Timothy Noah writes:

“Back in 1981 Republicans might not have liked a proposal to tax millionaires to at least the same extent that we tax mere mortals, but they would have been reluctant to oppose it on the grounds that our economy depends entirely on rich people maximizing their incomes. You could believe that, but you couldn’t say it out loud. This inhibition no longer burdens the GOP.”

With millions of people still out of work, why has the GOP been able to rally support behind supply side, or “trickle-down,” economics so easily?

Courtesy of Slate.com 

(via think-progress)