Suddenly, a young woman in a t-shirt reading "Troops Home Now" waded into the middle of the gun rights group, shouting "Bring the troops home!" and forcing McCain to stop speaking while she addressed the television cameras.
After a few seconds of camera time, a woman got up from her table at the NRA breakfast, wrapped the protester in an embrace and pushed her out of the limelight. A second protester was also lead out first by NRA members and then by security guards.
As the protesters left the room, McCain leaned into the microphone for the most emphatic thing he said all morning.
"Well, my friends, we beat you yesterday," he said. "We'll beat you today . . . And we'll beat you tomorrow!"
The crowd rose in an enthusiastic standing ovation, setting aside for the moment any past differences they may be holding against McCain.
Well, as predicted long ago, the New York Times' effort to get people to pay to read Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman has come to an end.
Krugman kicks off a new blog called "The Conscience of a Liberal" today with an article on income inequality. Krugman claims:
The great divergence: Since the late 1970s the America I knew has unraveled. We’re no longer a middle-class society, in which the benefits of economic growth are widely shared: between 1979 and 2005 the real income of the median household rose only 13 percent, but the income of the richest 0.1% of Americans rose 296 percent.
And yet, if you look at the graph he provides, it does not show this:
As you can see, it certainly appears that the great divergence he harps on appears to start after 1987, which is inconvenient as heck for Krugman, since you know damn well that he wants to blame it on Ronald Reagan and the Republicans. Indeed, it is quite apparent that a large part of the rise in inequality that he bemoans comes during the Clinton era.
Krugman also does his usual peak to non-peak comparison; no surprise there as we have seen him do this often in the past.
Eventually they start to believe kooky things like that John Kerry won the 2004 election, and they become irrational, and eventually have to be tased. He's a typical crank, getting into the "Skull & Bones" thing before being dragged off. Huge entertainment value!
This is what Al-Qaeda was responding to that day, revolting against the United States policies which have plagued the Asian continent for far too long, in particular in proliferating the Afghanistan civil war from 1979-1989 against the Soviets by funding the Mujahideen, drawing the Soviets offsides into the war. Our government is constantly meddling in the affairs of the Saudis and Pakistanis, which have real world ramifications on the lives of the neighboring Afghanis, and they were responding to this too. And it's all for oil and new markets to exploit, destabilizing other regions to ensure our own stability. That is what 9/11 was about, Al-Qaeda striking back against those waging economically inspired wars. What options have we left them? Our economy is devastating the globe, forcing poverty and instability onto the weaker nations of the world, with our government murdering to protect it's precious capital.
So much nonsense in that one paragraph that it's hard to know where to start. Al Qaeda certainly did not object to our "proliferating" the Afghan struggle against the Soviets, since we were backing the Muslims. The Soviets weren't drawn offsides, and we don't do enough meddling in the affairs of the Saudis and the Pakistanis.
He shows basic ignorance of the facts; for example consider his claim of Dick Cheney having a conflict of interest:
What about Vice President Dick Cheney's conflicting ties with Halliburton, a company which has received billions of dollars in lucrative no-bid government contracts during the wars we are waging in the middle east, which Dick Cheney used to be Vice President of, who is holding 100,000 shares of unexercised Halliburton stock?
Let's see, Cheney used to be CEO (not vice president) of Halliburton, and he does not have any personal financial stake in the company. Although Cheney does some unexercised stock options, he has pledged any proceeds from those to charity. He was owed deferred compensation from Halliburton, but they handled that by purchasing an insurance annuity, so that if Halliburton were to go bankrupt tomorrow, he'd still get paid.