The Amendments We Need

It was Twenty Years Ago Today, David Hasselhoff Told His Band to Play...

2009-11-09T09:14:00.003-05:00

Okay, so a riff on Sgt. Peppers segueing into the Fall of the Berlin Wall doesn't work so well...

November 9th. It was indeed 20 years ago, this day when the East German government made the announcement that they would be easing travel restrictions between East and West. Try to remember, but after 1945 when the Allies crushed Hitler's evil we had divided control of Germany into four parts: American, British, French, and Russian (the Poles should have been included but thanks to Stalin they got squat, actually worse than squat over the next 40 years). By 1947 it became clear Stalin and the Soviets weren't going to honor agreements about freeing Eastern Europe and the dividing lines formed in Germany. In 1948, the Berlin Blockade and the subsequent Airlift essentially solidified West Germany and East Germany. Well into the early 1960s, West Berlin was like a funnel out of the Soviet-controlled Eastern Block, thousands of people fleeing the oppression, but outside of military invasion there was little the Soviets could do.

So they built a Wall. They said it was to keep us out of Eastern Europe but in truth it was to keep the rest of their people in. And ironically the Berlin Wall helped keep the peace, although it came at the cost of tens of people dying while trying to cross over (and under, and around) it.

For 20-plus years the Wall stood. When I was born in 1970 the Wall was 9 years old and already covered on the Western side with legal graffiti. There had also been numerous escape attempts across it, even with the East German guards ordered to shoot. By the 1980s, the we'd gotten used to the Wall. Even as Reagan became the first President to openly call on the Soviet leadership to "Tear Down This Wall," it seemed like a permanent feature on the political landscape.

But by the 1980s, the Soviets were flailing. As utopian ideals Communism and Socialism looked nice on paper, but in real-world application those -isms fell apart real effing quick. The paradoxes of one-party rule (a 'pure' party is still corrupted from within by greed, paranoia, obsession with bureaucratic power and calcification) was finally taking its toll. The Soviet leader of the day, Gorbachev, was doing what he could to 'open up' the Soviet system, to bring about market reforms and also freedom of thought reforms. But in truth the system - calcified during the 1970s during the Breshnev years - was dying...

The Polish Solidarity movement had, from the 1980s on, given the Eastern European nations the tools needed to begin causing rifts within the control structure of the Soviet hegemone. By 1989, Gorbachev tried giving the satellite states more local autonomy, perhaps as part of a process of 'demilitarizing' the East so he could cut back on Soviet military expenses, or on the bureaucracy consuming so many resources. For whatever reason, the Russian Soviets would no longer directly intervene in their puppet regimes the way they did in the 1950s and 1960s.

The Domino Effect quickly took action. Poland quickly legalized the Solidarity party by April 1989. Hungary began tearing down their border fence with Austria by May, and by October, Hungarian Communists changed labels to Socialists (as a way of presenting themselves as 'less evil'). And with East Germany... well, with that Hungary/Austria border now open, thousands began fleeing into the West through Hungary, forcing the East German government to begin restricting their peoples' travels to other Eastern states. By October, the issue had come to a boiling point, with refugees camped out in West German embassies in Prague.

So, by November 9th, the East German government relented, deciding to allow some (not open) movement between East and West Germany. Especially at checkpoints along the Berlin Wall.

But, in football parlance, the East Germans proceeded to muff the snap, the punt, the punt recovery and even the whole fourth quarter offense.

The announcement came quick and unexpected. The government's intent was to have their travel program begin the next day, when they would be prepared for the overflow. However, their spokesman didn't get clear instructions on that, and when asked for when the program would start, he assumed it was immediate.

The media, mostly the West German media (which the Eastern Block could still see and hear), jumped on this as meaning the East German borders were 'open to everyone'.

Checkpoints were quickly swamped with mobs chanting for their freedom. The guards were completely unprepared. After an hour or three of frantic phone calls where no one wanted the horrible responsbility of using lethal force, the guards relented and let people pass even without papers or procedure.

It was akin to opening the floodgates for both sides. The biggest party in human history just began as East and West Berliners joined up at the Wall to hug, dance, drink, dance, drink, and drink some more. This was at the early beginnings of global cable news: CNN began showing nonstop images of Germans getting up on the Wall itself to celebrate. Pickaxes and shovels suddenly appeared as people began hacking away at the symbol of the Iron Curtain.

And oh yeah, David Hasselhoff played at the remains of the Berlin Wall on New Years' Eve. By then nearly every Eastern European nation once over Soviet rule had fallen (Czechslovakia by peaceful means, Romania by violent overthrow, and the Balkan states beginning their rumblings to break free of the Soviet Union itself) and the Cold War nearly done (in two years the Soviet Union would suffer a failed coup against Gorbachev and that would be that).

And now, it's twenty years later, celebrations afoot across Germany and in some respects around the world. For a good while you couldn't imagine the Wall gone. Now, you can't imagine a Wall had ever gone up. Except for the memorials for those who died trying to cross it...

Oh, and I'm pretty sure the Hoff will show up and lip-sync some more. :)

Moderates Have Principles

2009-11-05T11:06:00.004-05:00

I am not a fan of Rush Limbaugh.

Which seems to be mutual. He's not a fan of Moderates.

Rush seems to think that moderates "cannot be governed by principle. They can't be. Moderates don't have principles. If they had principles, they'd be one thing or the other..."

Dear Rush: Here's a list of moderates' principles.

1) Moderates support competency. We support things THAT WORK. If it doesn't work (example: THE WHOLE BUSH ADMINISTRATION) we don't support it. So there.

2) Moderates recognize not so much the NEED for bipartisanship (or compromise) for the SAKE of bipartisanship. Bipartisanship and compromise between opposing factions are welcome when the end result will be something THAT WORKS.

3) Moderate Republicans are actually pro-life. We just don't support SHOOTING PEOPLE and BLOWING UP BUILDINGS to enforce our own personal values. We also recognize that there are medical reasons for abortion (to save the life of the mother) and legal reasons (rape and incest). If that makes us too open-minded on the issue, TOO BAD.

4) Moderates support FAIR taxation, not necessarily CONSTANT tax-cutting. When the tax rates were clearly too high (above 50 percent!), we agreed on getting the tax rates down. But now that the governments (federal and state) are struggling with massive deficits, MORE tax cuts are clearly not an answer (there's a reason why current polling of the voters show that a plurality - 46 percent - think the tax rates are 'just right'). And we Moderates aren't too thrilled that these tax cuts never come with serious attempts to cut back on the massive spending as well, to make government justify every expense with correlating revenue.

5) Moderates love America. We also love all Americans with few exceptions (rapists, murderers and embezzlers, pretty much anyone deserving of life in jail). What we don't do is go out of our way to divide this nation into the US vs. THEM crap that you and your wingnuts seem to do every second of every day.

6) One thing Moderates don't do is watch FOX. We also don't watch CNN or MSNBC or any of the other major news outlets, pretty much because they're all wastes of oxygen any more (all of them filled with ego-driven know-nothings who pontificate on crap they don't understand). We're pretty much getting our news from the Daily Show and Colbert Report any more... and we're STILL better informed.

6a) and ESPN. Moderates love college football.

7) Moderates are perfectly capable of being as rude and vulgar as you wingnuts.
So I finish with the immortals words of Harry Truman: Fuck you, Rush.

Hope that clarifies things for you.

Observations from the 2009 Off-Cycle Elections

2009-11-04T09:45:00.005-05:00

By off-cycle I mean the national-level 2-year cycle of Congressional elections/4-year cycle of Presidential elections. Anything going on here will be either state and local elections of import (Governorships of Virginia and New Jersey), special ballot initiatives (gay marriage in Maine and Washington State), or special Congressional elections to fill seat vacancies (New York and California).
There was especially some crazy stuff involving NY-23, so this year was more special than most. So let's head to the observations (I will come back later to edit in links, I'm currently juggling between this and my A+ class studies):

1) Every other pundit or blogger pontificating about the results - other than ME - will get the results completely WRONG. Heh.

2) The real consequence of these elections for Governor and/or Congress isn't about who's in the White House: it's about the actual candidates and how the state and voting districts liked/hated them.

3) The result in Virginia - Republican beating Democrat - wasn't about Obama: it was about the fact that the Democrat ran a mis-managed campaign from the get-go and that Virginia is one of those borderline states that shifts regularly between Republican and Democrat.

4) The result in New Jersey - Republican challenger overthrowing incumbent Democrat - wasn't about Obama: it was about how unliked the incumbent was. That the race itself came down to the wire - before the results came in with a solid victory for the Republican - was due to the fact the Republican was swimming upstream against a lot of anti-GOP sentiment and personal issues of his own.
In fact, there was polling for the VA and NJ elections where the exit polls specifically asked "Was Obama part of your decision-making on your vote?" Solid majorities in both states said Obama wasn't a consideration. So how do those results honestly reflect on Obama? Answer: they don't. It's just the Far Right wants to attack Obama on EVERYTHING so every GOP victory is a referendum that VOTERS HATE OBAMA and every GOP defeat is a referendum that VOTERS ARE REALLY CONSERVATIVE EVEN THOUGH THEY VOTED AGAINST US, OH AND THEY HATE OBAMA. /Headthump

5) The result in New York - A Democrat narrowly winning in a district/region that hadn't gone Democrat since the Grant administration! - was about Obama only as far as the outside agitators who hijacked the election from the established GOP candidate wanted it to be. Oh, but it's still about the VOTERS HATING OBAMA. /Headthump

6) Once again, a moderate Republican candidate stepped up to represent in a state/region where moderates are key to victory, only to have the Far Right Wingnuts from outside charge in, disrupt everything with their own extremist choice, and end up tossing the district/state to the Democrats. The Kos guy just sent the Club for Greed a big "Thank You" card.
And for some Godforsaken reason, the Far Right still thinks this is GOOD FOR REPUBLICANS to have their representation drop to levels that will make the party an ineffective minority party for now and the forseeable future. At what point will the Republican leadership look around and say "Hey? Club for Greed? STOP KNEE-CAPPING US! Our whole party is now small enough to fit in a Denny's banquet room!"

7) The Bucs unofficially have the first overall draft pick for next April, and they REALLY need to look at the BEST AVAILABLE DT coming out of college. I mean, sign him up in February for God's sake... oh wait, that's my football observation, my bad...

8) The gay marriage state referenda mostly split, with Maine narrowly shooting it down but Washington State passing their gay rights (everything up to marriage rights) package. Thing is, sooner rather than later this is gonna get to be a moot point... gays will get the right to marry. All it takes is keeping the pressure up, and recognizing the fact that the opposition to gay rights is a overly paranoid, overly selective reading of the Old Testament that won't stand up to scrutiny (ask the anti-gay people if they uphold EVERYTHING in Leviticus or anything else deemed Abomination in the Bible, and I guarantee you half of them won't even answer you).

9) What does this all mean? I'm going go against Conventional Wisdom of the Beltway and say it's ALL GOOD FOR OBAMA! IT'S ALWAYS GOOD FOR OBAMA! What? It can't be GOOD FOR REPUBLICANS all the time...

Three Things That Will Happen With NY-23

2009-11-02T08:33:00.004-05:00

Since the previous post, the 'official' Republican candidate - Scozzafava - that had to drop out because the 'unofficial' Conservative candidate - Hoffman - was getting all the national Republican support made her official statement to her followers on whom they should support in the coming election.

The Republican told them to go vote for the Democrat.

Let's be blunt: this is unheard of. A candidate from one of the established parties just simply doesn't support the opposition candidate. There would only be one reason for this to happen: The usurping candidate is just so damn unpalatable that "Better the Devil You Know/Respect" Rule comes into play (the fact that Owens' response to Scozzafava's drop-out was respectful whereas Hoffman's was pretty much a self-satisfied "Ha-Ha!" kinda sealed the deal).

How will this actually play out come election time? Pollsters still think Hoffman secures the edge because as the Conservative (and now unofficial Republican) candidate he'll get enough of the self-ID'd Republican voters who vote GOP out of habit. But there was a reason Hoffman wasn't the original candidate in the first place (he's not local, and he's too far to the Right for the actual community). There's also the revenge factor: Scozzafava's supporters don't hate Owens, they'll hate Hoffman, and people tend to vote AGAINST someone, not FOR. There's also the Parochial factor: the local NY voters can't be too thrilled that their election got hijacked by the national players (Palin, national GOP figures, the wingnut media crazies like Malkin) who are essentially pushing on them a candidate (Hoffman) that's NOT of their district and who's more representative of Southern (basically anything south of the state border with Pennsylvania) values.

This is, beforehand, a pretty unpredictable election coming up. 'Course, afterwards we'll all be slapping our foreheads and going "Oh, we knew that was going to happen!" But not really.

All we can tell is that the result will go one of three ways:

1) Hoffman wins. Regardless of the lead or actual results, if it's a blow-out (unlikely) or if he wins by one vote. What will happen is that the Far Right Wingnut machine will celebrate like it's New Year's Eve 1984, that it will ABSOLUTELY VINDICATE EVERYTHING they believe, that the election is a referendum on HOW UNPOPULAR OBAMA IS, NOBODY REALLY LIKES HIM, HE CHEATED AND ALL BECAUSE HE'S NOT REALLY BORN HERE, that TRUE AMERICANS are terrified that OBAMA IS DESTROYING AMERICA, etc. It will justify the Club for Greed's efforts to purge moderate candidates and officials from elected office, and will accelerate their efforts across the nation. Moderates from seemingly safe states like Maine will either flee the party a'la Specter or fearfully line up lockstep to receive their marching orders.

2) Owens wins by a reasonable margin, within 5 percent over Hoffman's results, or in a squeaker with just one vote. Democrats will celebrate with smug satisfaction that once again it proves that the GOP is destroying itself with this intraparty sniping, but that would be about it. The mainstream national-level Republicans will shrug this off as a close race and ignore it within one news cycle, or focus instead on how they easily won in Virginia. There will also be a slight chance that New Jersey's governorship will go their way, so they could celebrate that. The Club for Greed and their wingnut allies will still crow that they hold the upper hand within the party structure, that moderates still have to fear their power to knee-cap them in primary challenges.

3) Owens wins in a blowout (anything 60 percent and over is a blowout). The Demorats will still be overly smug about the victory, but that'll be about all they'll get out of it. The real fireworks will be on the other side of the aisle. If the Democrat does get that many votes in what is a safe Republican district, it will obviously be because the moderates and independents who backed Scozzafava virulently opposed the Conservative Hoffman. The Club for Greed and their ilk will still crow about the RINO scalp they earned (simply because they never learn, and Everything Is Good For (ultra-Right Wing) Republicans in their POV), but a humiliating defeat like this is going to scare the rest (AKA the rational few) of the Republican Party. Newt Gingrich will be justified and have ammo to take to the Sunday Talk Shows about how right he was to support moderate candidates like Scozzafava in places like New York and the Northeast. Regional GOP leaders (at the state levels) will start balking against having their efforts getting hijacked the way this one was. There's a good possibility the financial backers of the Club for Greed will take a step back and review just what exactly they are getting out of their money (clues: The Club for Greed removes moderate Republicans who could be their kind of pro-business allies and ends up getting Democrats who aren't favorable to their business interests elected to office instead. Sooner and sooner all that knee-capping kills your own interests...), which is actually very little at all. Given how defensive the wingnuts get (after all, they're always the victims even when they're the ones committing the crimes), they may even feel justified in going after MORE RINO scalps because Scozzafava openly 'betrayed' the GOP by getting her supporters to vote for the Democrat (even though Scozzafava and her people were ALREADY betrayed by the wingnuts' hatred of moderates. So there).
In this scenario, the intraparty civil war will get worse for Republicans because it won't get lopsided the way a Hoffman win would: it will embolden moderates into proving they have enough power to decide elections and that they can keep the party afloat. And the wingnuts, always on the defensive, will refuse to see reason and fight harder to make the Republicans their purity party.

Of the three scenarios, Option 3 is less likely: electoral blowouts don't happen outside of ridiculously gerrymandered safe districts. Option 2 (Owens win close) is my personal preferred, because I'm a moderate who has no love for the Club for Greed anyway. I dread Option 1 (Hoffman wins), only because it will make the Far Right go even crazier than they already are, which is honestly frightening.
There are some who feel that if Hoffman does win it will only accelerate the self-immolation of the GOP because it will drive all the moderates Indy or Dem. Just look at the current polling numbers, and try to imagine the GOP getting smaller because of their purity efforts because that's the ONLY response you will get. The wingnuts think their purification will actually ATTRACT more voters who will be drawn towards how shiny and sparkly their ideology is: in truth all it really does is scare away anyone with enough brains cells to have, you know, actual doubts about things... Look at the Independent numbers. I have NEVER seen polling that had more Independents than both Democrats or Republicans. All those Indys HAVE to be moderates fleeing the GOP, because look at how level the Democratic numbers have remained (near about 35 percent)... and when do national parties shrink BELOW 30 percent of the voting population (GOP at 20-21 percent)?

I hate nail-biters. They distract me from my homework and NaNoWriMo efforts. Phoeey.

UPDATE: Just spotted a pre-election commentary by Nate Silver at 538. As always, he's got great access to the polling numbers and a better way of evaluating just how crazy the whole election thing gets. Key points: Owens is in a better position because of Scozzafava's endorsement; Hoffman will benefit from an active conservative turnout; while a Hoffman win won't change the intraparty dynamics for the GOP, the Democrats would be better served by a close Owens win that would leave conservatives (read: Club for Greed) empowered enough to sabotage moderate efforts in major elections like the Florida 2010 Senate seat (an Owens blowout would embolden the likes of Crist who will be able to convince voters that the national-level wingnuts don't know what they're doing and don't care).

Night of the Undead Greedheads

2009-10-31T13:09:00.005-04:00

Any Moderates interested in starting a Third Party? We can call the Swedes, see if we can get the franchise rights for the U.S. market from the Pirate Party...

Reason why I'm saying this is that today - Halloween, very appropriate day to do so - the official Republican candidate for the special election in New York 23rd District bowed to pressure to let the unofficial Far Right Wingnut candidate finish the race: (text bolded by me)

In recent days, polls have indicated that my chances of winning this election are not as strong as we would like them to be. The reality that I’ve come to accept is that in today’s political arena, you must be able to back up your message with money—and as I’ve been outspent on both sides, I’ve been unable to effectively address many of the charges that have been made about my record. But as I’ve said from the start of this campaign, this election is not about me, it’s about the people of this District. And, as always, today I will do what I believe serves their interests best. It is increasingly clear that pressure is mounting on many of my supporters to shift their support. Consequently, I hereby release those individuals who have endorsed and supported my campaign to transfer their support as they see fit to do so.

I am and have always been a proud Republican. It is my hope that with my actions today, my Party will emerge stronger and our District and our nation can take an important step towards restoring the enduring strength and economic prosperity that has defined us for generations. On Election Day my name will appear on the ballot, but victory is unlikely. To those who support me – and to those who choose not to – I offer my sincerest thanks.

The official candidate - Scozzafava - had been chosen by the local party figures to fill a vacancy caused by the 23rd's Republican Congressman getting tabbed by Obama to become Secretary of the Army. For a while there the campaign was going her way. But the Far Right conservatives took one look at her - Scozzafava was as solid a Moderate Republican you can find in the Northeastern states, pro-choice and pro-gay marriage - and became revolting (yes, I pun). They pushed a more hard-line Republican, Hoffman, to run for the district on the Conservative ticket (New York politics is damn close to unique: small region parties have the power to nominate shared candidates, for one thing; for another, those regional parties have enough oomph coming from a wealthy media-rich state to campaign rather effectively for these kinds of elections).

End result: The Democrats sat pretty with their candidate Owens while the Republicans tore themselves to shreds over whom to back - Scozzafava or Hoffman.

The Far Right, pushed by the likes of Malkin and Palin and Teabagging coordinator Armey, supported Hoffman and openly derided Scozzafava as being further to the left than the Democratic candidate. The more rational leaders of the GOP - led by Gingrich, who for all his criminal hypocrisy isn't stupid and knows damn well the Republicans can't survive at 20 percent voting numbers - backed Scozzafava, arguing that “...Local people picked a local candidate (Scozzafava came in first in the balloting at the district selection)... You should call and ask them and say what’s the purity test for the governor of California? Does anyone pass the purity test? I just want to know what the test is... You are talking about a region where we currently have 3 out 39 seats in the House. Why is it that? When I (Gingrich) was Speaker we had a substantial number of seats in the region..."

But in the last few weeks, Hoffman surged, raising more funds because he ended up getting the one true support that any Republican or Conservative candidate needs in this day and age: Hoffman won the backing of the Club for Greed, and it has become increasingly clear that whomever Club for Greed wants to back and drive into ruin, then Club for Greed gets it.

What does Scozzafava's dropping out mean?

Obviously, it means that from now on, anyone not in the Democratic party wanting to run for office better start kissing the boots and asses of the Club for Greed's leadership. Past that, well... read these guys.

Andrew Sullivan (two threads):

...No one knows what might happen now. For the insurgents, it means a scalp they will surely use to purge the GOP of any further dissidence. But the insurgents were also backed by the establishment, including Tim Pawlenty, who's supposed to be the reasonable center.

What we're seeing, I suspect, is an almost classic example of a political party becoming more ideological after its defeat at the polls. in order for that ideology to win, they will also have to portray the Obama administration as so far to the left that voters have no choice but to back the Poujadists waiting in the wings. And that, of course, is what they're doing. There is a method to the Ailes-Drudge-Cheney-Rove denialism. They create reality, remember?

From the mindset of an ideologically purist base - where a moderate Republican in New York state is a "radical leftist" - this makes sense. But for all those outside the 20 percent self-identified Republican base, it looks like a mix of a purge and a clusterfuck. If Hoffman wins, and is then embraced by the GOP establishment, you have a recipe for a real nutroots take-over. This blood in the water will bring on more and more and deadlier and deadlier sharks.
...Within the GOP whatever nerve anyone had to resist the imprimatur of Erickson, Malkin, RS McCain et al is surely gone now. If a moderate cannot survive even in up-state New York, it's over.

Balloon Juice:

...Think that this one taste of blood will satisfy the birthers, supremacists and Christianist extremists who fuel the teabagging movement? Wingnut, my friends, has not yet begun to peak.

Before moving on to something else, take a moment to sympathize with coalition builders like Newt and David Frum, no doubt tearing their hair out at the runaway success of Sarah Starbursts’ insurgent crusade.

Moderate Voice (to be fair, the person posting this is NeoMugWump, so it may seem like I'm overlapping the postees which is not my intent):

I guess the message from all this is pretty simple: if one deviates one bit from the current Republican “script” they are a RINO and must be driven out. Only the “pure” can be accepted.

The sad thing is that Hoffman doesn’t even know or care about issues affecting the district he is supposed represent should he win. Scozzafava knew her district,but because of her so-called liberal stances on gay marriage and abortion she is being drummed out of the party (My EDIT: well, she's not out of the Republicans. It's just she's not going to represent like she hoped).

How Scozzafava was treated makes me wonder how long I will keep the moniker of Republican. I consider myself a pragmatic conservative and will remain one. But I am increasingly finding it hard to stay in a party that does not want me even though I agree with them on more issues than I disagree with them.

The party is headed towards destruction. I don’t know if I want to be there for the end...

The reason why I have the title of this blog "Night of the Undead Greedheads" is because I'm going to finish up with a rant against the Club for Greed, which about only 7 people will ever see. Anyway.

Here's where we are in 2009 for the Republican Party: they've just finished most of the Aught Decade (2000-2010) mostly in control of all three branches of the Federal government. They had the Gingrich/DeLay/Armey faction in charge of Congress from 1994 to 2006. They had Cheney/Bush in the White House between 2000-2008. They had a 5-4 advantage in the Supreme Court.

They spent - literally in most cases - most of their decade in power tossing money about like drunken teenagers with their parents' credit cards, racking up huge debt and deficits by adhering to a strict massive-tax-cut policy that crimped the government's ability to, you know, actually afford all Teh Crazy Sh-t they wanted to buy. Billions of dollars to the Big Pharma under the guise of Medicare reform! Billions upon billions for two wars and nation-building occupations that became quagmires far deeper and more unstable than Vietnam! Lax regulation of federal oversight of our financial institutions allowing for massive toxic funds to clog the economy! More and more Government revenue lost to such deep tax cuts that when the time came for the Feds to try and handle a massive economic collapse caused by said toxic funds there wasn't enough wriggle room to pull off anything to truly re-stabilize the nation's economy (oh, sure the banks are safe, but try telling the 27 million UNEMPLOYED that we're out of the Bush Recession).

And why was that? Why did the Republican Party, once in power, acted so irresponsible with fiscal and business policies during their rule?

Because of the likes of the Club for ~~Growth~~ Greed. They're not the only Far Right advocates of massive tax cuts, but they're the most noticeable. They're the ones who came up with the term RINO. They're the ones who highlight officials they call 'comrades' (ahh, that old SOCIALIST smear campaign crap) for attempting any policy or program that tries to provide public aid for people in need. They're the ones who back primary challenges against moderates or any Republican who yes raises taxes in attempts to balance the budgets and keep governments solvent, and they're the ones who prefer they LOSE the elections in order to ensure THEY remain in power among the GOP ranks, even as the Republican Party itself loses any actual voice, leadership, or effectiveness within the halls of Congress.

The Club for Greed is adamantly opposed to raising taxes, and tax hikes, ostensibly under the libertarian ideology that "government is the problem" and that people (read: Corporations) know better what to do with their hard-earned money than the government does. They're the ones who worship at the foot of the Laffer Curve: a simple Bell Curve claiming that the higher the tax rate, the less actual revenue it generates (without any actual numbers or stats to have backed it up) for the government. Of course, that Laffer Curve also demonstrated that the lower the tax rate, it also generates less revenue as well (in a perfect world according to the Laffer, the tax rate should be 50 percent!), but the Clubbers seem convinced that at the 30-35 percent tax rate we're basically at now, we're still on the HIGH end of that Curve (we're NOT).

The Club for Greed also opposed any government regulation of corporations, of the industries of high finance and banking at what not. Because, gosh, the United States always did so well when businesses were free of interference and oversight and allowed GREED to overrun our economies like in the 1920s and the 2000s. Yeah, I was in SARCASM mode that last sentence.

You would think, just getting out from under a massive economic collapse that even made Greenspan apologize, that the Club for Greed would have lost face, lost prestige, lost whatever access or connections to those in power granted them. We are right now living in a time where the Federal government is the one sure anchor we've got: 1/10 of the nation is unemployed, states are fighting to keep their budgets afloat, no one is hiring, people are on edge worried we're going to have another economic disaster around the corner because the banks and financial overlords responsible for last year's collapse are still around and getting more brazen with their tricks. This is, as any honest student of history will tell you, a time where Keynesiansim and not Randianism should be prevalent in economic/political thought. We simply can't afford to let the financial behemoths run ragged and smash everything again: We do need to raise revenue to be able to pay for the government programs that are needed to reset the engines of industry and business.

And yet, here's the tax-cutters claiming a RINO scalp that now gives the Democrats a respectable shot at securing yet another Congressional seat. The Greedhead Zombies rise from the dead.

In fact, the Club for Greed won't - CAN'T - die. For starters, they still have all the money: their deregulation/tax-cut advocacy still gets their coffers filled by those who profit literally from their defense of GREED. For another, there are enough foot soldiers within their ranks who are geniunely terrified of Socialism... despite the fact that such a threat is ludicrious (And also if they think FDR's New Deal was Socialist (they do) that shows how WRONG they are (The New Deal SAVED Capitalism: without it, the real Socialists or worse yet the Facsists would have taken over)). Such devoted, whacked-out devotees assures the Club for Greed won't fall until they themselves push their own destruction (it's called PRIDE, you GREEDHEADS, and it does come before a fall)...

So, this is what I learned a good long time ago. It's one of the reasons I gave up on the Republicans and left the Party that had already left me. It's why I still post comments on Sanders' NeoMugWump blog, wondering if he'll ever get the hint and find solace in independent voterhood.

It's also why I opened up this blog asking if anyone can help form a viable Third Party for true Moderates. Because I do geniunely think the Republicans are reflecting the path of self-destruction once mirrored by the Federalists and the Whigs. We're going to need another Party to fill the void when all the Club for Greed has left for their knee-capping efforts is 5 Senators and 29 Congressmen (no women) from Southern states... So let us now look to forming a Moderate Party, one dedicated to true political reform, sensible efforts to balance budgets including targeted tax hikes to afford needed government programs (like the military, natural disaster emergencies, public transit, effective interstate commerce, job safety, and funding of state-level programs such as education, law enforcement, and health care), and a respect for the Constitution (including recognizing the No Religious Test requirement as a means to ensure equal protection of ALL true faiths). All we really need is a Moderate with at least $300 million to spend... anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

The Chicken Little Scenario

2009-10-26T12:41:00.006-04:00

Not so much along the lines of "The sky is falling" but more along the lines of "OMG the country is falling apart!"

I mean, first off, in the beginning of the year as Obama took his oath of office, we had the Drudge Report and the Wall Street Journal pick up on some obscure Russian professor predicting for the last 10 years that the United States will break apart Balkans-style by 2010. Complete with color-coded map showing just how ridiculous the idea is (Texas will join other states in seceding? HA! South Carolina in the same economic dominion as New England where there are few economic reasons and absolutely NO social and political reasons to do so? Headthump).

Then we got that jackass from NewsMax yapping about the Obama Problem and how a nice clean non-violent military coup would solve everything.

This morning I get on to view The Moderate Voice blog and the top article for the hour was this piece of hysteria titled "Could the U.S. See a Military Coup?":

...Are the nation’s fiscal, economic, military, political and social challenges
setting us up for a Military Coup? Will the U.S. Military Industrial Complex,
acting through our Joint Chiefs of Staff or some other high-level corps of U.S.
Military officers, and supported by a variety of angry business leaders and
extreme conservatives be so resentful of any changes to our national priorities
that they would encourage a complete removal of our elected civilian federal
government, save the Department of Defense?
If the President and Congress decided to actually reduce or freeze Military spending over the next 4 years in real dollars, eliminate some programs to build or acquire various types of military hardware, close more domestic and foreign bases and remove troops from Europe and Asia, and veto any escalation of and start deep reductions in our military presences in Afghanistan and Iraq, will the conservatives in our Military be outraged enough to take action? This consideration might make
President Obama a bit skittish about not following his generals’ current
recommendations to escalate our national and NATO presence in Afghanistan. His
decision on this matter and other domestic issues might be viewed as the
precipitating events for actions that could significantly alter the U.S. and
global history.
If a direct physical removal of civilian government by military force is not in the cards, perhaps some generals and strong military supporters could defeat President Obama and the Democrats in 2010 and 2012. This peaceful mechanism is constitutionally-protected and these political campaigns could be well-financed by the many large international arms manufacturers and other parts of President Eisenhower’s vast military-industrial complex...

Facepalm

Nearly everything in those first three paragraphs drip with paranoid freak-out crazy juice. The writer skittishly terrified that if Obama dares jump one way or another on military budget issues (that btw has already happened, anyone notice the outrage over the F-22? *cricket chirp* Thought so...) that the Far Right Wingnuts and their DoD cronies will stage a Seven Days In May takeover, or perform some underhanded vote stealing during the upcoming midterms...

Okay. Everyone take a chill pill and SETTLE. Except, I suppose, from the wingnuts who'll worry said pill is poison. Sigh.

I suppose an effort needs to be made about why there's this anxiety among the Villagers.

The most likely explanation is that all this sound and fury over possible coup attempts is that the Village (no, not THAT one) made up of the DC Beltway elites is feeling, well, unhappy and out of sorts. The Villagers - the ones who keep making all these pronouncements about this scandal and that outrage, and almost always proven wrong or uninformed about how the rest of the nation is really acting - have been spending the last nine months trying to fit the new White House regime into their perfectly easy-to-label ideological plot points, only to keep having said attempts fail. Sometimes with hilarious results. The Villagers in the media circles are watching their newspaper revenues drop to dangerous, might-be-out-of-jobs levels, all the while FOX Not-News' rating go up because they gleefully sell their Obama-Hate to those who scarf it up like candy... even as FOX Not-News gets absolutely EVERYTHING wrong to the point where any day now someone, FINALLY, will sue them for libel/defamation in an airtight case.

That link to the Digby article about Beltway elites itself links to earlier articles written back in the day when Clinton was caught in an affair with Lewinsky. And where the most outrage about it came from that Beltway circle who felt absolutely "betrayed" by a man who turned out to be doing exactly what every other guy in DC was doing (hi, Newt!). It was truly that incident where the Beltway found itself isolated from the rest of the nation: where the Villagers saw criminal action that had to be punished by their own 'righteous' anger, the rest of the country was more willing to forgive, and was actually taking the Villagers themselves to task for overhyping matters to where BLOWJOBS were impeachable offenses (forget the whole 'lying to the public' and 'lying to the civil court' issue. People in the real world know people lie about affairs, and more Americans realized the whole Paula Jones case was an excuse for a 'fishing expedition' than the Villagers did). The Villagers, for what I see, still haven't forgotten or forgiven about the Lewinsky scandal, and still can't understand why A) Clinton survived the impeachment with decent public polling, B) the nation's voters threw out more Republicans during the 1998 midterms when the Villagers believed the GOP would have gained more seats due to the scandal, and C) why people outside of their circles started tuning them out.

So you get this disconnect between the Real World and the Villager World. And inside the Villager World there's apparently truckloads of paranoia about what's going on: what they see as a massive Hate-Obama Fest when in fact it's overhyped staged events led by FOX and mere handfuls of teabaggers; military leaders that live within said Village expressing their 'disgruntled' disagreements with the White House over how to handle Afghanistan, when in fact a majority of actual troops and officers are serious about their oaths of office, will follow orders regarding Afghan/Iraq deployments, and will never engage in a coup; fears that Obama's 'socialist' agenda will anger enough rednecks to have them rioting in the streets, when in fact said rednecks are really few, not fully organized, and under better surveillance by law enforcement than the Villagers expect.

Here's the truth: Obama's polling relatively as well as any other President under these circumstances. If Obama's failing at anything it's failing to make job-creation a higher priority. The majority of Americans WANT health care reform, and there's not going to be rioting in the streets because of it (even if it fails). Our military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan currently are wobbly, at best, but everyone (even the Generals who AREN'T griping to their fellow Villagers) involved know it's not going to be solved by overreaction, flooding the war zone with more troops we barely have on hand, and prolonging quagmires that can only truly be solved by calmer, more diplomatic efforts.

We're not facing any coups. And if we were, they would be most likely carried out by fanatical misfits so completely out of tune with reality that the reaction against them would be swift, merciless, and painful for all involved.

As for the other thing, this whole 'OMG states are seceding' thing. For starters, that Russian Expert has the worst idea of how America's regions truly operate. Lemme see if I can get that map pasted here:

Like I mentioned earlier, anyone notice anything wrong with how that Russian professor thinks America will break apart?

For starters, he has Texas going along with other states under a 'Texas Republic' banner. Bull. Texas is large enough population-wise and economically to completely break away as its own nation-state, and in fact that's how Texas started. It didn't become a state until annexed by John Tyler (yes, that jerkoff), and that's one of the reasons why Texas has a noticeably large secession movement. And the other thing? None of those other states - I can guarantee you Florida for certain - would want to join those damn arrogant Texans in ANYTHING.
He's got an Atlantic-Coast merger that has South Carolina joining the New England states, mostly by his arguments for economic reasons. Um, no: there are very few economic reasons for SC to hang around with the Northeastern states (seaports/trading is the only thing I can think of). And there is no way, given South Carolina's history, that they would even consider being allied with those damn Yankees.
Even if we do consider that the United States could break apart due to massive economic collapse (which seems to be how he's dividing this map), the paradox is that the states right now are facing bankruptcy and near-financial collapse themselves and can't even think about removing themselves from a more solvent Federal government. Just look at California! Without that stimulus package from the Federal government earlier this year, half of the states would be completely failed right now. They'd be in no condition to attempt secessions in the first place.

The more likely scenario for secession right now is mostly social-political: if enough wingnut crazies took over any state/local governments to force the issue. If that does happen, the more likely scenarios are that:

The largest states - Texas obviously, California, New York and Florida next possibles - will break off to form their own nation-states. But given the current economic crisis in California, expect that state to balkanize even further into metro regions (San Francisco and the Northern Cali, Los Angeles, Orange County/San Diego, all other points in-between) due to that state's inability to resolve their tax code issues and the near-certain strife that will erupt between the DFHs and the Prop-13 worshipers.
The states that made up the sides of the Civil War to basically divide along the same lines, but with variations. Because New York will divide the NE corridor, the New England states will form their own coalition and forced to cater to Massachussetts' power structure. The MidAtlantic states from Pennsylvania to Virginia, or maybe even North Carolina (which may finally shake of the old political dominance of South Carolina due to their growing and more diversified population) would forge their own power structure.
South Carolina would probably WANT to form their own, but won't have the economic or political strength to pull it off, and will merge with George, Alabama, Mississippi and possibly Tennessee into their own group. It could well include Louisiana and Arkansas (making it, sans Florida, the SEC made political). North Carolina could join if it can't fit into the MidAtlantic structure.
Kentucky would most likely go with the Great Lakes states, throwing in with Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota. West Virginia could go in if it feels more in common with Ohio than Pennsylvania/Maryland/Virginia, but unlikely.
The Midwest would comprise of Oklahoma up to the Dakotas, with Missouri added to the mix. Arkansas and Louisiana could go along with this powerset, mostly if to keep control of the Mississippi River as a trading route/source of income. This is why Arkansas and Louisiana are true wild cards in this: the Grain States and the SEC States will vie for those two unlike any other states in the potential breakup.
The mountain states will revolve mostly around Colorado as Denver is the most dominant metro in the region. They can pull to them Montana, New Mexico, and Wyoming. Utah and Idaho, both dominated by Mormons socially and/or politically, could be part of this group but could also separate and form their own Mormon nation-state (very unlikely though). Arizona could become part of this faction, but it all depends on how Nevada reacts to California.
Nevada will be in a huge pickle. Their largest metro, Las Vegas, is tied to Cali as a major tourist attraction (remember all the wingnut complaints about high-speed rail between LA and Vegas?). Given the otherwise sparse nature of their state, they may be compeled to join in with California... depending on if Cali can solve their tax issues and don't fall into their own civil war. If Nevada falls in with California, so too would Arizona.
That leaves the Northwest. Washington and Oregon would have little choice anyway but to merge forces. Odds are very good, however, that they could pull Northern Cali to them especially if that state falls into chaos. They could also include Alaska, but don't be surprised if Alaska and Hawaii - physically separated from the continental states - go their own ways (probably the only thing that professor gets right, although Alaska would make serious efforts to come under Canada's sphere of influence to prevent the Russians from gaining influence).

Now. Take a long good look at everything I just wrote. See how I've divided things up? See how *wrong* I can be on absolutely nearly every point? And yet my reasonings/explanations/theories on secession could be just as valid as that Russian professor's... and given how Texas and South Carolina would act/react, I'm probably more accurate.

And here's the thing: I'm STILL WRONG. Secession in the United States won't happen, certainly not now: too much pride regarding the matter, for one. The historical resolution of the matter back in the 1860s, for another.

So will EVERYONE calm down? We are NOT dying as a nation. We are NOT at each others' throats no matter how much the wingnuts WANT us to be. EVERYONE CHILL!

...Yeah, I thought so...

Facepalm

This Tears It: Senators Blocking Benefits

2009-10-21T20:57:00.003-04:00

This is something that will get me out of my damn chair. As an unemployed person - back at college studying for A+ Cert to see about computer jobs - this directly affects me. And it affects the 9.8 percent of the WHOLE FRAKKING NATION THAT'S UNEMPLOYED WITH ME:

Two Republican Senators have placed Holds - or otherwise delayed - a simple, much-needed emergency extension to the unemployment benefits for the 26 million-plus unemployed. You know, the people struggling with foreclosures, sick kids, cars falling apart, lack of gainful employment nationwide that happened because some political party went all out to deregulate the banks so they would self-destruct over toxic assets.

What the Republicans in the Senate want, annoyingly enough, is to add amendments for cringe-worthy crap that couldn't get passed on their own merits. You know, the kind of pork-barrel crap that benefit very few people or annoy a lot of people because of its' ideological BS. I may be expressing a little bit of anger and frustration right about now. Because like I noted, THIS SH-T IS AFFECTING ME! (Just remember, it's not a crisis until it's your own ass on the line)

And it's amazing the major media outlets aren't even noticing. Actually, it's not. The FRAKKING mainstream media don't want to rock the boat as it were. Unless it's a blowjob scandal for some Godforsaken reason. *Facepalm*

The Senator who started this crap is Jon Kyl (R-Arizona). The backup jerkass is Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).

The deal is, emailing don't help. Using their webpages to rant don't help. That stuff gets shifted over to a Delete file and no one notices. You need to call them. Call the offices. Not even the ones in D.C. Call the ones back in the home state, because you overwhelm them and you'll start making them worry that "Gee, maybe I'm losing my voter base. Oh gosh, maybe I'll be unemployed some time soon..."

Also, seriously suggest calling your own Senators, whichever state you're in. Make them uncomfortable that they're letting their two colleagues RUIN THE LIVES OF 26 MILLION AMERICANS GODDAMMIT GET OFF YOUR ASSES AND HELP US!!!

Ahem.

Phone numbers:
Jon Kyl's Arizona - 520-575-8633(Tuscon) and 602-840-1891 (Phoenix)
Orrin Hatch's Utah - 801-524-4380 (Salt Lake City) and 801-375-7881 (Provo)

Florida's Bill Nelson - 813-225-7040 (Tampa) and 407-872-7161 (Orlando) and 850-942-8415 (Tallahassee)
That new guy, George LeMieux - 813-977-6450(Tampa) and 407-254-2573 (Orlando)

I'm calling. You all, all seven of you reading this blog, you better call too. 'Cause in this weak-ass economy, it's gonna be YOUR ASS on the unemployment lines soon too...

The Nobel Prize for Not Being Dubya

2009-10-09T08:48:00.008-04:00

I've got this thing about complaining how the Far Right has this "Obama Problem" via my Shoelace Hypothesis, because they'll complain about EVERY little thing he does up to and including how he'll tie his shoelaces. Follow the labels for shoelace hypothesis to follow the trend...

But I wake up this morning to pretty unusual headlines. This morning it seems we're getting the perfect example of how the Far LEFT obsesses over Obama with overt praise, sometimes excluding all reason and evidence that Obama hasn't really done as much as he ought to (JOBS, OBAMA WE NEED JOBS, ahem)...

The Norway-based Nobel Prize Committee has awarded this year's Peace Prize (sorta the "They Like Me! They REALLY LIKE ME!" Award for global leaders) to Barack Obama.

That noise you just heard was the entire Right Wingnut faction from Limbaugh to Malkin and the entire FOX News Zombie Force screaming "SOCIALIST!" But I digress. This isn't about them. This is about Obama.

Even though he's only been on the job nine months. Even though he's STILL overseeing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (and might even increase troops there!). Even though he's a bit... reluctant to pursue war crimes investigations into the torture-lovers from the previous administration (pretty much everyone from Cheney on down the roll call). Even though a lot of the things he's really done on the global stage - dropping the missile shield projects for Europe, talking to Iran to comply with international nuclear treaties and oversight, following through on pre-set troop stand-downs in Iraq - are pretty much proposed actions rather than actual accomplishments.

To wit: he hasn't really DONE anything. The only thing he's really really done is... show respect to other nations. That's officially it.

Unofficially, there's an even better explanation, and a good number of observers (even Greenwald) have picked up on it right away: Obama won the Peace Prize because HE'S NOT GEORGE W. BUSH.

Let me remind you seven readers: I'm not a huge fan of Dubya to begin with. And I'm not defending him either. I can understand PERFECTLY why the Nobel committee would want to snub and insult Bush the Lesser any and every way they can.

Bush is pretty much the ur-example of how NOT to work towards winning a Peace Prize:

A questionable invasion of Iraq and years-long occupation of that country;
Mismanagement of a global intervention and rebuilding effort in Afghanistan in response to 9/11 and Taliban human rights abuses to where Afghanistan is an even worse place to live than before;
Pushing an inane missile defense system that did little but put money into defense contractors' pockets and also cheese off the Russians;
Hampering international efforts across the board on things such as climate change issues;
A massive criminal enterprise of torture, illegal detentions, more torture, and deaths of innocents;
Basic personal cluelessness regarding personal protocol. You do NOT give any woman an unsolicited backrub.

Basically, Dubya's Reign of Error presided over America's slipping in international prestige from Number One to Number... well, somewhere below Brazil. This was, in some respects, why Obama won the election in 2008, why Obama's overseas trips get crowds the size of a U2 or Springsteen stadium performance: Obama is not Bush.

Obama is NOT Bush in terms of demeanor, and especially in terms of sincerity. When Obama talks of wanting peace, wanting other nations to join in efforts to end war and threats of terrorism, he says it like he means it. Unlike Bush the Lesser, who seemed to be going through the motions, making the gestures, acting solemn but not actually achieving the resolute stature you need to pull it off, and also pushing the issue with phrases like "You're with us or against us."

That's pretty much the only reason Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. To piss off the Far Right still worshipping the Worst President Ever.

I can vaguely recall when the Far Right wingnuts promoted certain individuals as "nominees" for the Peace Prize when the people doing the nominating weren't on the Nobel Committee, making the distinction worthless. It was during the build-up to the Iraq invasion, to have these war proponents argue for bloodshed under cover of "peaceful" intent. BS. I'm pretty sure after Al Gore got the Peace Prize in 2007 for also Not Being George W. Bush that the wingnuts stopped pushing the Nobels as a worthy resume add-on. This is going to go over well at the Weekly Standard.

And I'm pretty sure Obama would want to trade the award in to get the 2016 Olympics back. I mean, Japan or Cuba vs. USA in Wrigley Field??? AWESOME.

Update: Linkage to Sullivan's linkage to prominent reactions to Obama's win. And the Volokh Conspiracy is starting a Top-10 list of Reasons Why Obama Won. The best one so far: "The Norwegians wanted to honor one of their own, and the committee discovered that Obama was born in Oslo, Norway, the son of a Volvo factory worker."

Update pt.2: It always helps after a few hours to try and gain perspective of what happened, and I found this bit by Steve Benen on Washington Monthly apt:

For all the recognition of George W. Bush's unpopularity, it's easy to overlook the ways in which the international community was truly mortified by the U.S. leadership during the Bush era. The irreplaceable leading nation could no longer be trusted to do the right thing -- on use of force, torture, rule of law, international cooperation, democratic norms, even climate change. We'd reached a point at which much of the world was poised to simply give up on America's role as a global leader.
And, love him or hate him, President Obama changed this. I doubt anyone on the Nobel committee would admit it, but the Peace Prize is, to a certain extent, an implicit "thank you" to the United States for reclaiming its rightful place on the global stage.

It's indicative of a degree of relief. Much of the world has wanted America to take the lead again, and they're rightly encouraged to see the U.S. president stepping up in the ways they hoped he would. It's hard to overstate the significance, for example, of seeing a U.S. president chair a meeting of the United Nations Security Council and making strides on a nuclear deal.

This is not to say Obama was honored simply because he's not Bush. The president really has committed himself to promoting counter-proliferation, reversing policies on torture, embracing a new approach to international engagement, and recommitting the U.S. to the Middle East peace process. But charting a new course for American leadership, breaking with the recent past, no doubt played a role.

As outraged as American conservatives are this morning, notice the international reactions. Praise was not universal, but Mohamed Elbaradei, for example, said, "I cannot think of anyone today more deserving of this honor. In less than a year in office, he has transformed the way we look at ourselves and the world we live in and rekindled hope for a world at peace with itself." Mandela, Tutu, and Gorbachev, among others, also praised the announcement.

The most angry international responses came from Hamas and the Taliban.

Rush Limbaugh made an explicit comparison that he and the Far Right are on the same page as the Taliban. Um, you sure that's the right comparison to make there...?

Oooh, I just noticed I got a comment! Lemme go read it!

One Year After The Almost-Fall of Wall St.

2009-10-07T12:05:00.005-04:00

For the seven of you reading this blog, you might recall about this time last year I issued a rant about the evils of unregulated capitalism and greed that nearly destroyed our nation's (and our planet's) economy.

It does not please me to note that one year later nothing much has changed.

Many of the players - the financial institutions, the ratings agencies, the captains of banking - are still where they are, unpunished and unrepentant. Any criminal investigations that might be ongoing are off-the-radar if they are happening at all.

Meanwhile, unemployment is at 10 percent, the highest since the 1981-82 recession, threatening to reach Depression-era levels. And that's the OFFICIAL number: the unofficial numbers really are at Depression-era levels and getting worse. So while the upper echelons of our economy had been stabilized by Obama's stimulus package earlier this year, NOTHING HAS HAPPENED TO HELP THOSE OF US (pretty much the 99.95 percent that AREN'T billionaires) WHO REALLY NEED THAT HELP.

With regards to what Obama is doing, to what he CAN do, to what Congress should do... That will be for another post as soon as I can get some thoughts straightened out about that.

Interesting to note that the unemployment numbers would be a huge weapon against the Democrats right about now, but the Republicans are in no position to use it (I've heard a few GOP politicians bring it up, but outside of that, almost nothing on the Intertubes or FOX Not-News of note). Also reason for that other post...

Carl Sagan Has Been Modified (cross-post)

2009-09-26T17:41:00.004-04:00

This was something posted over on my other blog, but I wanted to cross-ref it here for the 7 people who might actually visit this site:

Consider my mind blown for the weekend.

Iran: Not Forgotten

2009-09-18T14:42:00.003-04:00

It's been some time since I've posted on Iran. Mostly because the green uprising over there had quieted down due to the illegal regime's crackdown.

Today, however, the place has exploded: apparently Ahmadinejad tried to host an anti-Israel/anti-American rally during something called Qods Day (apparently a day meant for solidarity with Palestinians). The reformist leaders called for people to join, and reportedly spread word to use the rally instead to challenge Ahmadi's and Real Evil Overlord Khamenei dictatorial rule.

Hundreds of thousands of people attended. Hundreds of thousands - fully aware of what kinds of punishment awaited them if caught - rose up with green signs even though told not to. Hundreds of thousands marching the streets chanting against Russia instead of the United States. Hundreds of thousands of Iranians showing that even after all the crap that's been done to them and their families, THEY ARE NOT AFRAID.

Rumors abound during times like this, and stories about mass arrests and more mob violence will abound as this weekend progresses. But Khamenei and Ahmadinejad and their lackeys have to be afraid right now, because the people they want to rule over no longer are afraid. Like any bullies, they should be terrified that their intimidation tactics aren't working...

With hope, it shouldn't be much longer. To everyone in Iran standing up, God Bless you and yours. Stay safe.

EDIT: via Sullivan, this blog Tehran 24 has a slew of photos of the day. Link it.

Andrew Sullivan Thinks it's Petty to Punish Wilson

2009-09-16T12:08:00.005-04:00

Let us not look at the rebuke of Rep. Joe (if that IS his real name) Wilson in terms of politics, but in terms of his actual behavior.

He acted rudely during a formal presentation. Let us not consider the location - Congress - as a place of political discourse and instead consider it as a workplace, or a school auditorium.

If a teenager disrupted or acted rudely during a formal presentation, the school administration has to punish him. Not because it is petty but because the school can't function if students are allowed to disrupt events in any way.

If an employee disrupted or acted rudely during a formal orientation or meeting, the upper management has to discipline that employee, because again the workplace can't function if disruptions like that are allowed. Personal experience bears this out: a low-level employee at my previous workplace made snarky and uncalled-for remarks about a guest speaker during an annual orientation, and that employee wasn't an employee two weeks later because of it. It wasn't pettiness: it was necessary.

If a Congressman acts the way Rep. Wilson does, and is not rebuked or punished, then not only will that Congressman continue to act that way we will have more and more Congressmen acting that way. And yes let's please consider the worse-case scenario that unpunished behavior will get worse (when shall we start seeing congressmen carrying canes, hint hint). And please also consider Wilson's behavior since then. His apology to Obama afterward is turning out to be weak tea: Wilson is selling t-shirts now promoting his 'stand' against Obama, for God's sake. That 'apology' of his now reeks of insincereness.

If you think that Wilson getting rebuked is partisan politics, then you're thinking exactly like Wilson and his fellow far-right GOP hacks: that it's all politics, that it's all fair game, that punishments are a ticket to martyrdom. You're not thinking like a manager of a workplace, or a high school principal who has to say "This is it, this is the line of common decency and acceptable behavior. This line, and no crossing it."

We've lost all common sense regarding acceptable public behavior. Is Congress not allowed to try and reset the guidelines again?

Yes, This Is A Remembrance of 9/11

2009-09-11T12:27:00.001-04:00

I was at the main library in downtown Ft. Lauderdale meeting with other librarians in the tech lab (computers) departments. The library was switching to a new email system (groupwise) and they wanted us to perform the in-house training. Meeting started at 9 am. One of my coworkers was late, coming in and saying there was news a plane had hit one of the Twin Towers.

It was sad to hear, but we all knew the story about the Empire State building getting hit with a plane back in the 1940s, so we assumed it was a tragic pilot’s error or bad weather or something (it was a clear day that morning in Florida. I think it turned out the whole Atlantic seaboard had clear skies… it was going to be such a beautiful day…) So we settled in, going over the email system, what we should teach, what the handout materials should look like, etc. It took about an hour, just sitting there in the classroom lab unaware of what was happening outside.

When we finished the meeting, we left the classroom and walked out into the foyer area and up the escalator to the library’s main floor. They had dragged out a TV on a cart and was trying to get a signal. For some reason, TV reception was lousy in that building, and they didn’t have cable connection. I saw an old boss of mine who was also at the library for a meeting and approached her, asking what was going on.

“Oh my God,” she told me. “There was another plane hitting the other World Trade Center tower.”

It took a few seconds. It took a few seconds to realize that one plane was an accident. Two planes, one right after the other… hitting each tower…

I knew then it meant war.

The lobby TV was terrible, snow and static, and I went up the 8th floor to see if reception for a TV in the staff lounge was better up there. It wasn’t. They tried moving it into a meeting room closer to the windows to see if that could help. And barely. There was still a lot of static and snow, and some of the guys I was with didn’t agree with me when I swore one of the towers had collapsed.

By that time, reports of the Pentagon strike were all over the place, rumors about other buildings getting hit with car bombs, more planes in the air… The call went out from the county government: everyone close down and go home.

Every skyscraper in Ft. Lauderdale was closing (the odds of terrorists striking South Florida seemed ridiculous, but by then panic was unshakable). The parking lot for the library was actually a few blocks to the other side of the government center across the street. I walked across and met a young couple who were trying to enter the government building. The county center had already locked their doors. The couple didn’t know. I told them. “Terrorists are flying planes into buildings. They hit the Twin Towers. One of them’s gone, just flat out gone.”

By the time I got to my car and got the radio on – the first time I could clearly get news about what was happening – the second Tower fell.

I couldn’t go straight home: while the downtown buildings were closed, other library branches were still open and I had to report back to the NW Regional branch in Coral Springs. When I got there, the whole staff knew. I met with my tech lab workers and we all talked about what was happening in low hushed tones. There were probably 7 patrons in the whole building, just one in that lab. Just before lunch time, the word came down that all libraries were closed until further notice from the county.

That whole day ended up with me in a daze. I went home first, sitting with my two cats and watching CNN for hours. Reports on the last plane – Flight 93 – started coming in. By the afternoon, I felt restless, despairing. I decided to go donate blood. I had never done it before: I hate needles, was terrified of doing it, but that day… well I wasn’t the only one. The only blood bank anywhere in North Broward was crowded well out into the parking lot. I ended up standing there for three hours before it had gotten so dark that you couldn’t see the persons you were talking with (few parking lot lights). So I went home and went back to donate blood that Saturday.

They ended up not taking my blood. I tested positive for Hepatitis C and spent the whole month of October getting re-tested before they confirmed it was a false positive. They never told me what I did test positive for, though. But I digress.

"Just One More Thing, Sir," as Columbo pulled from his trench coat a copy of the Roberts Rules of Order

2009-09-10T16:52:00.005-04:00

Some further notes on Rep. Joe Wilson:

Far be it to defer to Daily Kos diarists writing that we should focus more on the fact that Rep. Wilson lied. Oh, c'mon, guys, this is pure schadenfreude over here. Let's just enjoy the moment for what it is: watching a political douche blowhard twist slowly in the wind...
Speaking of Joe Wilson being the liar, he gets nailed for it by my favorite political critique source Politifact.com. Wilson is insisting that Obama and the Democrats are pushing to provide health care to illegal immigrants: is still now insisting it, when he 'apologized' in the media for his outburst he still claimed the health care bills were providing coverage for illegals. But read that Politifact link: that 'coverage' is not found on the pages the chain emails and astroturf talking points claim it's on. Politifact can't find anything supporting the claim illegals will get anything from the health care bills at all.
Here's the deal on Politifact: it's managed by the St. Pete Times, a respectable paper that wins it's fair share of Pulitzers (one for Politifact!) for investigative reportings. I grew up in the Tampa Bay area and I've read the Times. I trust this publication more than any other media source (plus, any media corporation that p-sses of Bill O'Reilly has to be doing something right).
And an interesting side note: Politifact's research has 11.9 million illegals living in the U.S. at the moment and 6.8 million are uninsured. Wait: there's 5.1 million illegals who ARE insured??? How the hell did THAT happen?
There's been some blogger discussion about how the British Parliament - the closest democratic institution to our own - has a solid history and even a tradition of back-bench heckling, and that if the Brits can heckle, why not the U.S.?
Andrew Sullivan discusses this, and almost immediately points out that even with the heckling there's one unbreakable rule: You can't call someone a liar: "...Once the opposition starts yelling "You lie!" they have essentially abandoned the deliberative process, by questioning the good faith of a speaker. Without an assumption of good faith or a factual rebuttal, just calling someone a liar abolishes the integrity of the debating process..." So Rep. Wilson wouldn't even get away with it in Parliament.
As for Wilson's Democratic opponent Miller getting truckloads of campaign funds from just five seconds of Wilson's faux pas? According to the Kos people who track this stuff: Miller has raised $170,000 within the last 24 hours just on the ActBlue fundraiser itself. Political observer Charlie Cook now considers this a race: while he considers it unlikely Wilson will pay at the polls another year away from this, Miller now has the funds to make this a decent fight.

Edit: Oh, yeah, one more thing:

If that little amendment idea about lies not being protected speech I've been pushing the past few years had made it into law, Wilson would be toast by now...

Famous Last Words: Sept. 9th Edition

2009-09-10T12:27:00.009-04:00

From what I posted yesterday:

They still have Obama's health care speech before Congress tonight to whine about.

From Congressman Joe Wilson (R-South "Yeah Like We Needed More A-Hole Politicians Screwing Up In Public" Carolina) during last night's Obama-Health Care speech before a join session of Congress:

You Lie!

Congratulations, Rep. Wilson (no relation to other Joe Wilsons out there)! You've just earned our ~~Employee~~ Jerkass of the Month Award!

Just some of the prizes you'll be taking home:

You've just won the immediate recognition from the entire world (well, outside of RedState and related blogs) for being a loudmouth douche!
You've just given your Democratic opponent Rob Miller in the 2010 midterms a major boost in fundraising ($150,000 by 8 am this morning)! Not to mention that your outburst, Mr. Wilson, can be used in all mudslinging campaign efforts by Mr. Miller cleanly and effectively. He doesn't have to hire a fake actor or edit your words out of context to make you look bad. You already made yourself look bad!
You've made the phrase 'faux pas' one of the most popular Google Search Terms ever this week! Well, other than Bunny+Lesbian+Fruit Salad+Porn.
You got your good colleague Charles Boustany (R-Louisiana) off the hook from trying to give a memorable official rebuttal to Obama's speech: no one else is even talking about it this morning! No stress for Boustany today!
You also get this nice dog whistle which you were supposed to use instead of the bullhorn you went with.

Seriously, what Wilson did last night was to take another boring rah-rah "This Is What I Want To Do" Presidential pep talk to Congress and turn it into a "OMG Do Not Go There Girlfriend" moment. Per Washington Monthly:

But the damage has been done. Indeed, Wilson's outburst is an almost perfect summation of 2009 -- President Obama appears big, Republicans appear small. Democrat show class, Republicans act like children. One side is serious, one side is shrill. The White House says something true, Republicans lash out with falsehoods.

The whole month of August with the town halls exploding with pre-planned outrage now appears like a bad dream - all storm and rage, all sound and fury - washed away by this one night. Everything the Republicans have been doing since Inauguration to tear Obama down - the refusal of the stimulus, the fight over Sotomayor, the health care debacle - has now been funneled into this one outburst - "You lie!" - that may seem so simple and yet is that one wafer thin mint puking the entire GOP effort into the trashbin.

Here's the thing. Wilson didn't have to shout out what he did when and where he did. Wilson could well have waited after the speech and make comments to the media accusing Obama of lying (and maybe not even those words, but dog-whistle phrases to clue in those listening for them): when done then, and to that audience, it's not that big of a deal. It actually happens a lot between politicians accusing each other of this thing or that act or those fruit salads. Also, if you listened to Obama's speech, despite what Steve Benen writes in that Washington Monthly article, you'd notice Obama did point that Republicans - in general, no names were named but you could see him point at Sarah Palin and others - were themselves lying about "death panels" and that illegals would get health care. Which is why Wilson shouted his response.

Wilson's problem is that he 1) openly called Obama a liar right in the middle of a speech, and 2) right there on the floor of Congress. Even though Obama was challenging the Republicans' statements and was effectively calling them liars in the process, it was by the rules of Oratory fair game for him to do so in a formal speech: go read Cicero, especially his Cataline orations. But what Wilson did was inexcusable. There's a reason Wilson's fellow Republicans in government (not the bloggers) aren't going out of their way to defend Wilson, and why Wilson immediately apologized afterward: HE VIOLATED DECORUM.

Remember Dick Cheney (oh yeah, like we're forgetting his criminal ass any time soon)? For all the violations of law, for all his endorsement of torture, for all his rule-breaking, the one thing he did that really got Congress in an uproar was that he privately told an opposing Senator to "Go F-ck Yourself" on the floor of the Senate. There was an honest-to-God debate over whether ethics charges could be filed against Cheney for what he said.

There are rules of behavior for Congress, and for all their clowning and incompetence the one thing that matters to them (well, the other thing that matters is their own job security, damn incumbents) is that they behave according to the rules. Wilson's outburst went against that. There are ways during a speech for members of the opposition party to act out: refusing to applaud at key moments, for example. But anything along the lines of, say, booing the speaker while acceptable at certain public events (if a stand-up comedian goes off the rails) is practically verboten at formal events such as Presidential speeches (Edit: see next paragraph).

It's disrespectful of the office. Even if you're opposed to the man, common decency insists that you Respect the Office. ~~Which is why the likes of George W. Bush never received any of this disrespect even when the Democrats took over in 2007 and at a time when Dubya's polling numbers were lower than Truman's~~ (which was the previous record holder for unpopularity: Nixon was reaching Truman's post-1950 numbers over Watergate when he resigned). Edit: Democrats did boo Dubya during the 2005 State of the Union, hence the strikethru. There is no question that was boorish behavior on the part of the Dems. The problem there is that unlike Joe Wilson there isn't one person to highlight being a douche, so the Dems get away with it due to sheer numbers.

Even when Clinton was in office and the GOP was in charge of Congress, you never heard this level of disrespect on the public floor. Even the impeachment trial over BLOWJOBS was done with some decorum (some).

And this had been the Republicans' biggest problem all this year: their animosity towards Obama - questioning his birth origin, comparing him to Hitler AND Fascists AND Communists AND a Secret Undercover Muslim, claiming he was ruining an already-wrecked economy - was getting so personal that they were disrespecting the duties and requirements of the Presidency itself. Why else was there a noticeable backlash in the media - after months of accepting some of the craziest conspiracy crap since Vince Foster - over the Republicans' "outrage" of Obama speaking to school kids to study hard?

Wilson's "You Lie" is in some respects overshadowing Obama's actual intent from last night. Obama was trying to claim a leadership position on the health care debate to get Congress to pass reform legislation before the year ends. Instead, all the blogs are aflame about Wilson's faux pas and half the mainstream media is chewing it up and spitting it out like they do all overblown outrages. But let's be very clear about this: Wilson's statement will do a far better job of rallying the Democrats to respond with their health care package and waking them up to how boorish their Republican colleagues have behaved all year than it will keeping the Republicans on message. Just look at their immediate responses: Democrats are sending truckloads of cash to Wilson's opponent and talking about censuring Wilson; Republicans are reeling and on the defensive in a way they haven't been since 2005.

Makes all that talk about Republican gains in next year's midterms seem foolish and uncertain now.

Things That Happened on Sept. 8 2009

2009-09-09T11:42:00.005-04:00

Lessee...

Here's what happened on Sept. 8th:

Barack Obama gave a speech as President of the United States to the nation's schoolchildren encouraging them to stay in school, study hard, and make good on their lives.

Here's what didn't happen on Sept. 8th:

The planet did not explode.
The children were not taken over by pod people.
They did not come marching out of the classrooms in goosestep singing "Mombassa Uber Alles".
They did not begin speaking in Orc and sharpening spears at both ends.
They did not shatter the conch shell.
They did not line up at landing sites for the UFOs coming down to take them to Pied Piper Land.

I hope this didn't ruin the Republicans' week. They still have Obama's health care speech before Congress tonight to whine about.

Because the Insanity Won't Ever End: Hypothesis Proven

2009-09-04T10:56:00.002-04:00

I posted a good while back about my Obama Shoelace Hypothesis: that sooner or later the Republican Far Right wingnuts will get so obsessed with stopping Obama - no matter what topic and no matter how minor an issue - that they will criticize the way Obama ties his shoelaces.

While this isn't about his shoelaces, this is definitely a tipping point that proves my hypothesis: the Far Right has gone batsh-t insane over Obama's planned video speech nationwide to schools promoting a message to work hard and stay in school.

From this link:

This is no small, isolated fit, thrown by random nutjobs. The New York Times, Washington Post,LA Times, AP, and others all ran stories this morning about the coordinated national effort to either keep children at home so they can't hear their president's pro-education message, or demanding that local schools block the message altogether.

That's right. The wingnuts don't even want those kids whose parents actually think Obama is, you know, the lawfully elected President of these United States, listening to Obama speak on education.

From that Washington Monthly link, a link to TNR's Michelle Cottle:

This is disgraceful. For starters, Obama's message, as described in a press release from Ed Sec Arne Duncan, will stick to anodyne topics like the need to work hard and take responsibility for one's own success (which once upon a time were values Republicans could cheer.) Admittedly, I don't have an advance text, but I'll bet a year's supply of Ben & Jerry's Chunky Monkey that Obama will not be lecturing America's youth about the joys of bank bailouts, universal health care, or cash-for-clunkers--just as I am confident George W. Bush would never have used school children to hawk the Iraq war, the Medicare drug program, or "enhanced interrogation" techniques...
More broadly, Obama is the leader of this entire nation. It doesn't matter if you voted for him--or even if your head threatens to explode every time you think about him. He is the president, and, as such, it's a big deal that he's speaking directly to students about the importance of education. (Not teachers unions, you hysterics.) And, whatever one's party registration, the idea that any child should be kept home from class purely so their parents can make a political statement about an apolitical speech is appalling.

But this is where we're at. The Far Right is so obsessed with refusing to recognize Obama is President - that he won a fair election, that he's got a birth certificate and was born in the State of Hawaii - that they've taken to denying him the right and responsibility no matter how trivial to do his damn job.

What I posted on the Balloon Juice comments:

Remember Newton’s Third Law of Motion that states “for every action there is an equal opposite reaction”? It’s different in politics: “For every Democratic action there is a monstrously disproportionate Republican reaction”... (snippage)
The Republicans are complaining about Obama doing a perfectly normal function of the Presidency: speaking to the youth of our nation as part of his duty as Chief of State. Bush the Lesser did it, Clinton did it, Bush the Elder did it, Reagan did it, Carter did it, Ford did it, Nixon tried it, LBJ did it, Kennedy did it… anyone notice a pattern? Every President is supposed to speak to this nation, to provide leadership and motivation and morale, and the Republicans are throwing a goddamn hissy fit about it.

This is almost the same reaction they threw when Obama was invited to speak at Notre Dame. Only this time it’s worse: whereas the Far Right was outraged a pro-choice President was speaking to pro-life Catholics, this time the Far Right IS ABSOLUTELY TERRIFIED Obama is gonna turn all our kids into GODLESS SOCIALISTS! Based on absolutely no evidence but their own built up animosities towards him.

And the crazier they get, the more they get their damn faces plastered all over the plasma screens. Attention whores, the lot of them. Can’t wait for the moment in the movie when the wingnuts shoot us in the back, leave our collective corpse floating in the pool, and finish the evening with a grand flourish down the staircase for the cameras and lights…

The Wingnut acts insane. The Media provides them air time to spew their bullsh-t. The American people glance about wondering what the hell happened to this country.

Because the Insanity Won't Ever End Part XVI

2009-09-01T18:16:00.003-04:00

Coming from a rally in Colorado, Rep. Michelle "Don't Do The Census So I Can Lose My District" Bachmann said this:

In a fiery speech that had her conservative Colorado audience cheering, U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann railed against the dangers of health care reform and other Democratic initiatives, warning the proposals “have the strength to destroy this country forever.”
“This cannot pass,” the Minnesota Republican told a crowd at a Denver gathering sponsored by the Independence Institute. “What we have to do today is make a covenant, to slit our wrists, be blood brothers on this thing. This will not pass. We will do whatever it takes to make sure this doesn’t pass.”

Uh, um. Mrs. Bachmann, just to point this out: You slit your PALMS to make a blood oath. You slit your WRISTS to commit suicide.

This is why I have a Polar Cub facepalming as my avatar.

This message has been brought to you by Guys Who've Watched Enough Manly Action Movies To Know Better.

Why 2010 Isn't 1994

2009-08-30T19:04:00.008-04:00

I normally don't read Kaus on his Slate blog, but I couldn't pass this up:

What would be the best thing that could happen to Obama? Losing Congress in 2010, argues Red State's Erick Erickson of Red State. It worked for Bill Clinton! (snippage)

Here's the first thing Kaus should have noted: Red State isn't exactly rooting for Obama under any circumstances. Why should people expect anyone writing for a neocon blog of doom would be giving sage advice?

I also take offense at the "It worked for Bill Clinton!" argument. Um, I'm pretty sure Bill is still extremely p-ssed off he had a Gingrich-led oppositional Congress that spent nearly 6 years of his two terms hounding him over Whitewater and Paula Jones all the way up to that flimsy nightmarish impeachment attempt over BLOWJOBS. And that's overlooking that whole GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN in 1995 that only went Bill's way (barely) because Newt was too whiny. Now try to picture a GOP Congress facing Obama. We would have nonstop investigations into Obama's birth certificate until the Republicans get driven out of power again for being totally batsh-t insane. And if you think the battle over health care reform is nasty... we would honestly get absolutely no legislation passed. Total government deadlock. Even our military actions overseas would get shut down or screwed over by the power struggle.

And that was Clinton. Do you think George W. Bush and ~~Evil Overlord~~ Co-President Dick Cheney were thrilled the Dems held Congress in their last two years of office? Did ANYTHING substantial get done those last two years?

At least Kaus doesn't let the Red State madness go unmentioned:

Minor Hmms: 1) As things stand now, Erickson says, "Barack Obama cannot work the center." Hmm. I'm not so sure about that. He could be working the center a lot harder than he has been on education, welfare, the auto bailouts and the CIA, to name four. (And he probably thought he was working the center when he focused his health care pitch on curve-bending cost-control. Goes to show it's not enough to mindlessly triangulate.) ...

Kaus is actually a little off here. Obama has been working the center, or at least trying to work a bipartisan position, but doing so has actually cost him support from his Democratic base. Independents have wavered but within statistical norms. Republicans of course always had Obama low in their polls so no big loss there. And for all we know about how the auto bailouts went, it looks as though Obama & Crew handled it just right. One other thing: I don't see welfare as a major issue, outside of unemployment issues and of course the Health Care debate.

2) Erickson speculates that if Obama lost Congress he'd still get immigration reform through, thanks to moderate GOP senators like Grassley and Bennett. Hmm, again. Isn't immigration more likely to remain another one of those Washington Mirage Issues where you can technically count enough votes for legalization, but (because legislators are rightly skittish) the vote somehow magically never takes place? ...

"Speculates that if Obama lost Congress he's still get immigration reform through"? Erickson is definitely insane at this point: THE REPUBLICAN PARTY HAS POSITIONED ITSELF THOROUGHLY ANTI-IMMIGRANT. They even did this in opposition to Dubya and Rove! How the HELL does Erickson think the GOP will pull a 180-degree turnabout on an issue they're using to inflame the wingnuts? Didn't he notice the huge voter shift of Hispanics in 2008 away from the Republicans? Didn't he watch the same crap we did re: Sotomayor nomination?

Kaus points out that Immigration is a Mirage Issue: something that theoretically can get voted on, but because it's such a third-rail issue we'll never really see any action on it. I dunno. After this whole health care reform fiasco, I'm willing to bet the Democratic party is gonna use the rest of '09 and the whole of 2010 to push Immigration reform, simply because it'll drive the Far Right into Crazytown and drive all the Youth, Hispanic, Black, Asian, and Sane voters well into the Democratic side of the argument.

3) Erickson even speculates that Obama, recognizing the utility of a loss in 2010, will "start" to undermine the Blue Dogs in swing districts. Really? "Start"? What would he do to undermine the Blue Dogs that he's not doing already? ... Hmm.

And it won't be Obama doing the undermining. It'll be the Kos crowd: they'll be hunting for Blue Dog scalps the same way they hunted for Joe Lieberman's, especially if Health Care reform doesn't pass. And don't forget, Kos' crowd beat Lieberman in his primary: it took him to run as an 'Indy' with hefty Republican support (taken away from an actual Republican challenger btw) to stay in that Senate seat. Imagine that played out over 20-30 primaries in 2010... which is one of the reasons (not the strongest, but) the Dems will pass some form of health care package...

The one thing the Red State article highlights, and what Kaus' response highlights, is that people are looking ahead to the next midterms, and they're already trying out the math to see if the Republicans have a chance to rebound and regain seats. They're thinking that it's 1993-94 all over again (esp. with the same health care fight going so quickly to pot). To that I would like to make Five Observations:

1) Not every midterm goes against the person or his party currently occupying the White House. Seats may shift accordingly, and may go up and down depending on the actual races. But the Democrats currently enjoy a sizable seat count in both House and Senate, far too much to where they can actually lose control of either wing of Congress to the Republicans. At least not in 2010. To regain the Senate the Republicans have to win nearly 21 of the 22 elections up for grabs (unlikely) and to regain the House they have to win over 77 seats (and given the near-invulnerable status of incumbents that's unlikely as well). Throw into that mix that the Republicans are virtually non-existent in the Northeast anymore (save for a handful of moderates) and there's a lot of hurdles for the GOP to overcome in this regard.
EDIT: After re-doing the math, it may not be 21 wins needed for the Republicans to retake the Senate. It's NOT 22, it's 34 elections for 2010 (there are 3 extra for special elections due to replacing Senators who left for Cabinet jobs as well as Kennedy's passing. There may be more if Hutchinson from Texas follows through on resigning to run for Governor). There are 16 Incumbent Democrats and 12 Incumbent Republicans: do note Incumbents are very hard to defeat. There are 8 Senators retiring - 2 Democrat and 6 Republican - which is where the competitions tend to be fiercest. The deal for the Republicans would be 1) return all incumbents (12) and secure the vacating seats (6) meaning they need the 18 they already count on, and 2) take away 11 seats from the Democrats to get the Republicans over 50 total seats, most likely getting the 2 vacated seats (it's so doubtful Kennedy will get replaced by a Republican it shouldn't even be considered) and somehow earning 9 upset victories over any of the 16 Democratic incumbents (insert Ha-Ha noise here). Based on this math, the GOP Senate needs 29 wins out of 34 elections (so far). That's still very unlikely.

2) Add to 1) the fact that the Republicans in Congress (and overall) are still massively unpopular compared to the Democrats across general polling lines. And a lot of that unpopularity stemmed from a Republican-led government that had been in power long enough to leave some damage on the nation.

Compare to 1994. In the early 1990s the electorate had endured 25 plus years of Democratic control of Congress (save a few times the Senate tilted GOP), with that Dem control anchored in the Watergate crisis that IHMO threw off the electoral cycle by 10-15 years. During that time there had been scandal after growing scandal of Democratic misdeeds, culminating in the infamous S&L scandals and the less-remembered Rubbergate. There may have been a good number of Republicans caught in those scandals, but for the most part these were burdens on a Democratic leadership. It was most likely the Iran-Contra scandal that kept Reagan's GOP from exploiting that issue until his term of office was well over.

Compare that to right now. The Republicans had (barring one year hiccup) control of both houses of Congress from 1994 until 2006. 12 years to build up their own record of corruption and malfeasance. Voters are still blaming Bush (and by extension the whole Republican party) for the current economic hardships. While Obama and the Dems will have been in power for 2 years by the 2010 elections, it's still too early to shift everything worth blaming (the housing crisis, the wars, the joblessness) onto them.

A good amount of polling bears this out. While Obama's numbers have been slipping (into the low 50s/high 40s), for the most part the Democrats' numbers remain decent (high 30s) compared to the Republicans' numbers (low 20s). Voter registration should also be considered: as of 2004 it was 72 million D(em), 55 million R(ep), 42 million I(ndy). And the registrations trends by 2008 were solidly Democratic and Independent. I'm trying to see what the current allotment is...

3) The big question about the midterms: What will the Republicans be FOR?

Right now, what agenda (besides tax cuts) are the Republicans pushing? What issues are they laying the groundwork for as a platform to run on? Because for right now, all we voters know is what the Republicans are AGAINST: the Republicans are AGAINST OBAMA, AGAINST SOCIALISTS, AGAINST OBAMA, AGAINST HEALTH CARE REFORM (which, despite their current victories in the media battlefront, isn't going to win over voters to them either), AGAINST WISE LATINAS, AGAINST THIS, AGAINST THAT, AGAINST OBAMA. Repeat 20 times.

Compare to 1994. Gingrich and his fellow back-benchers got together to forge a Contract With America, listing items on a broad national agenda for the GOP Congress to rally around. While the Contract was dismissed as a gimmick, it proved a popular enough draw to conservative voters who came out to vote. When the Republicans won that midterm, the Contract was cited as a key reason.

Compare also to 2006. Howard Dean, essentially in charge of things for the Democrats at the DNC, initiated the 50-State Strategy to make Congressional challenges in every state, even those deemed 'unwinnable' for being so conservative. Dean realized that you can only win if you actually run for the damned offices, and pushed for candidates in as many places as were found. That strategy worked: it revitalized previously despondent Democrats in key states and helped the Dems re-take both houses in Congress.

Just as a side note: both in 1994 and in 2006 the ruling party in Congress suffered from waves of retirements (tens of Democratic incumbents fleeing in '94, tens of Republicans fleeing in '06.). Just to ask, do you see any massive dash for the lifeboats by the Democrats right now?

So, to re-state the argument: What are the Republicans FOR right now? Other than being obstructionist and paranoid, not a lot. That negativity is not a solid platform for campaigning.

4) Aside from the platform problem the Republicans have, what about their leadership? Upon whom can the mantle of flagbearer be placed?

The deal with Republicans is their organizational structure: they love to follow specific leaders (unlike the Democrats, who operate under a system best comparable to cat herding). It's been that way since, well, back in the day of machine politics. It's REALLY been that way since Goldwater in 1964. Lead up to Nixon in '68. Nixon's fall from grace really mixed up the party in the 70s, but there was Reagan by 1980. Bush the Elder went in via Reagan's good graces (albeit untrusted by the Far Right). With Bush's fall in 1992, it was left to Gingrich to rally the troops via that Contract in 1994...only for Gingrich to be driven out by backstabbers by 1998. Bush the Lesser was ostensibly the flagbearer as the President by 2000, but in truth by then the GOP Congress fell to the more corrupt elements that had driven Newt out (DeLay, Armey, anyone on Abramoff's payroll). And those clowns were out of office by 2006.

So who's in charge now of the Congressional GOP? Obstensibly the likes of McConnell, Cantor, Boehner. But how effective have they been with regards to GOTV issues? How effective have they been positioning themselves in the media as leaders in their own right? Because they haven't. In the media the only ones the voters see and listen are the rabble-rousers like Limbaugh, Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity. Irregardless of whom those guys invite onto their shows, you really don't see a lot from the congressional leadership.

Also, if voters could name anybody from today's Congress, it's going to be the wackos like Rep. Michelle Bachmann, who's been getting all the press that's been encouraging the GOP Base but scaring the hell out of moderates and Independents, the voters you still need to actually, you know, win elections. It's been these wingnuts who've been screaming about birth certificates and socialist concentration camps getting all the press. GOP Leadership? What GOP Leadership?

5) There's still a lot of time between now (2009) and the midterms (2010). As I've mentioned earlier, there's still a lot of time there for the Democrats to pull out other issues of major import - Immigration Reform! - that poll well for Dems but will cause massive self-inflicted damage on Republicans.

That's my position. I seriously doubt the Republicans will make any serious gains in 2010. They *could* win back some seats that are normally in GOP-friendly districts that they lost merely due to retirement/lousy candidates/the fact that Bush the Lesser, Cheney and Rove made the GOP brand less popular than swine flu, but that's all I would concede at this point. For all the noise they're making in the media, the Republicans just aren't impressing people with any sign of, you know, maturity and intellect and wisdom. Stuff we need from our elected leaders.

Dead Kennedys Get New Member

2009-08-26T09:22:00.002-04:00

Aiming for MOST TASTELESS HEADLINE EVER Award.

Yup. Ted Kennedy, Last of the ~~Heterodyne Boys~~ of the Kennedy Patriarchs kicked the bucket last night.

The news will be filled with how Ted had spent 30 plus years pushing for health care reform, how the Democrats should use his death to rally their more moderate and conservative members around a memorial health care reform bill, and how the Republicans are gonna claim that Ted was really a conservative at heart (They do that, they're like Mormons, you die and they add you posthumously to their church roster even if you were devoutly with another faith) and that Kennedy would have wanted a 'bipartisan bill' (read: no health care reform at all). We might even get a few of the hardcore remnants of the Nixonian crowd lining up to piss on Kennedy's grave the second he's in the ground.

For meself, gotta say the Kennedys weren't very much popular in my house. With my parents for the obvious reasons (Dad's a Nixon man), for meself mostly being a Gen Xer, who came after all the 60s hoopla... Yes, that family goes through a lot of bad sh-t. But seriously, half of it is self-inflicted upper class twittism. I don't see why the whole family has to be worshipped like royalty.

Give me a few days to be more coherent. By then we'll see how the whole "Ted Died For Your Health Care Bill" meme plays out.

I'd Do More, But the Frustration Gets Me Down

2009-08-23T16:22:00.004-04:00

This is mostly just for comments. Not linking to anything.

I'm sitting on the sidelines here, bearing witness to a Health Care Reform debate that's been hijacked by the gun-toting lying-through-their-asses Far Right, wondering where and when and how this whole thing turned to crap.

We've got a Far Right Noise Machine that's so deep into the distribution of falsehoods, crazed unprovable accusations, and intimidation that it surprises me no one's filed a defamation or libel charge on any of them. I'd be pushing for Fraud charges on some of these jokers, especially the lobbyist/astroturfing firms behind the twisted media push.

We've got a Democratic party that's never been able to organize behind any set of political banners - which is helpful in keeping the scandals localized (unlike the Republicans' whose organizational skills are unparalleled but leaves them vulnerable to larger, far-reaching scandals such as the Abramoff deal) but makes getting the whole party unified on any policy efforts akin to herding egomaniacal cats.

Which is leaving me in a major funk. I despise what the GOP's done and is still doing to this country, but I can't get myself worked up defending Democrats who can't even stay on message for one freaking day.

The only thing that will get me up out of my La-Z-Boy recliner...? We'll burn that bridge when we get to it.

Whatever happened to the Port-O-San Cleaner from Woodstock?

2009-08-15T11:35:00.005-04:00

Today is August 15th. It was 40 years ago today in 1969 that a bunch of enterprising hippies started what they thought would be a modest-sized 3-day festival out in the hills of New York state.

I grew up after, being born in 1970, with the Myth of Woodstock permeating the American culture well into today. Having one of the best film documentaries of all time playing every so often on PBS or Bravo or Biography channels (did MTV ever broadcast it? Probably, but I bet VH1 did a few years) didn't hurt.

The Woodstock documentary is pretty long (director's cut on DVD prolly moreso), and let's face it away from showcasing the musical performances it does meander and get self-referential/self-indulgent. But there are images and sounds you can never ignore: Richie Havens' impromptu jam of "Motherless Child" turning into a uniquely brilliant song "Freedom"; nuns flashing peace signs; the mud baths; Wavy Gravy being relatively saner than usual and warning others about the brown acid; Hendrix's Monday morning wake-up call with the bomb-sonic "Star-Spangled Banner," as the movie comes to a close with images of before (the calm rolling hills of farmland) and after (the mounds of trash and mud left behind by indulgent hippies, damn for a bunch of bleeding-heart do-gooders you can't clean up your own pollution?!).

But the bit that stays in my mind was added toward the end, a brief interview with one of the few guys actually working that weekend: the Port-O-San cleaner.

Here's this middle-aged guy, doing back-breaking work - and you don't see a crew there it looks like he's doing this solo, cleaning up after all the damn dirty hippies - and there's no anger or bitterness about him, he's just doing his job, and he says "Glad to be doing it for these kids. My son's here too. And I got one over in Vietnam too. Up in the DMZ now, flying helicopters."

Boom. Right there. One of the other things that Woodstock captured was the moment in history America was deep in a war. A war that had become increasingly unpopular, and not just with the hippies. Even by 1969 Vietnam didn't look like it was going to end well, but kids kept going over there as soldiers, families all across the nation had to recognize what the cleaner guy was going through. And there he was, a son in 'Nam, a son at Woodstock...

David Crosby mentioned the Port-O-San guy in an interview quote in Rolling Stone back in August 24th 1989 issue (can't find a full-text link, so check your local library!). Film reviewer Roger Ebert also took note. Crosby and I - and probably a few million others - all had pretty much the same question: What happened to that guy? What happened to his sons? Did his son survive Vietnam? Did his son survive Woodstock (I'm talking metaphorically here)?

Every so often, when this time of year comes around, I took a moment to dig about, try to see if anything available in the libraries - histories, newspaper articles, stuff like that - would provide some light on that question. Finally, someone updated a trivia note on the IMDb entry: the guy had sued the filmmakers "...on the grounds of mental anguish, embarrassment, public ridicule, and invasion of privacy. An appellate court opinion in this lawsuit may be read at Taggart v. Wadleigh-Maurice, Ltd., 489 F.2d 434 (3d Cir. 1973)."

O.o

This was kinda heart-breaking. Here he was, one of the real heroes of the Woodstock festival, filing a lawsuit out of what seemed to be anguish. Were people harassing him over his appearance in the film? What happened?

A link here to a copy of the transcripts to that court case.

36. Taggart contends that the sequence in which he was interrogated while performing his necessary though not necessarily pleasant employment was edited into the 'documentary' in such a way as to achieve, at his expense, a comic effect. That this may well have been the intended and actual effect is supported by evidence in the record of the reaction of critics. For example, Kathleen Carroll, the critic, stated 'The funniest scene shows the latrine attendant proudly demonstrating his job.' Craig McGregor, writing in the New York Times, April 19, 1970, stated '. . . and the man who is the real schizophrenic hero of Woodstock, the Port-O-San man, who empties the latrines of the beautiful people and has one son there at Woodstock and another flying a DMZ helicopter in Vietnam.' Taggart contends that while he was engaged in his ordinary work he was without warning, and without consent, drawn into a conversation and photographed so that the sequence could be used as a key part of the theme of the 'documentary' which was being prepared as a commercial enterprise.
37. When Taggart learned that he had been included in the commercial film he protested to the defendants, but they refused to delete the scene and proceeded to distribute the film nationwide. As a result, he alleges, he has suffered mental anguish, embarrassment, public ridicule, and invasion of his right to privacy which has detrimentally affected his social and family life and his employment. His deposition supports his contention that such ongoing damaging effects have occurred and are continuing...

Ouch. Well, I have to admit if I had been filmed and ended up in a movie without any compensation or right to say how I get shown in said film, I might be angry as well. The filmmakers contended as the defendants that, basically, they interviewed Taggart as he was part of a "newsworthy event," and as such isn't protected by most if any of the right to privacy laws. I'm not a lawyer, and I'm having a hard time figuring out what the appellate court is actually saying, but it looks like they're ordering the lower court to re-try the case in Taggart's favor. Dunno where it goes from there. Probably got settled out of court. Might need to check the New York court cases...

I'm still concerned though. Was Taggart getting hassled at work or at home by people for being in the movie? For being the Port-O-San guy? I've been scanning the 'Net, there's forums and blog entries here and there, and not one person is saying bad things about him. He makes the movie: some commenters say his part in the movie is the best one, way more than any of the performers. Maybe back then, back in the 70s when everyone was sulking away from the 60s like a bad dream, and people went out of their way to hassle any leftover hippies and anything associated with them even if they weren't hippies themselves. 'Tis the pity of it, if that be the case.

Look, I dunno where Taggart is now, given his age, given that it's 40 years later he might not even be here with us. But his family probably is. Maybe even his sons from Vietnam/Woodstock. I hope they're still not bitter about it. Please don't be (yeah I know, like they'll find this blog, like any of the seven commentators I've ever had ever came back...). Guys, your dad was a hero in that film, one of the good guys just doing his job and doing it well, and like the judge wrote in that appellate ruling "...the latrine sequence apparently makes a significant and memorable contribution to the film's overall impact..."

A toast, people. To Mr. Taggart, the Hero of the Woodstock Festival.

Job Vacancy! Florida Seat in the Senate

2009-08-09T23:46:00.004-04:00

So I'm driving to a part-time job I have tonight, it's not much and I'm still on unemployment benefits, and somewhere around Keystone Rd. it hits me. Hey, didn't Mel Martinez just resign from his seat as U.S. Senator representing Florida? Maybe I should send in my resume...

So, here goes.

To Governor Charles Crist
~~Tall Hassle, Xanth~~ Tallahassee, FL

Dear Governor:

I understand you currently have a vacancy for the United States Senate. I am very much interested in the position and I am hoping you can give me a fair hearing.

I am currently seeking full-time employment, and I am currently receiving unemployment benefits. Let me put it this way: if I am successful in convincing you to hire me, you will not only fill a vacancy but also lower the unemployment statistics for Florida by one. It's a Win-Win.

I am confident I fulfill the major requirements for the job: I am a long-time resident of Florida since 1977; I am over 30 years of age; and I am a natural born citizen (with a birth certificate and everything!).

As Senator for Florida, I would do everything within the powers of the office:

to ensure Florida's environmental concerns are addressed;
to ensure Florida's unemployed are provided for during this difficult economic period, and that the state's employment and business opportunities improve;
~~to ensure Mel Kiper stops picking on Tim Tebow~~ well, Tebow can take care of himself, I suppose...

I do openly admit that I am currently registered as Not Affiliated to any party, and would most likely enter the Senate as an Independent. But look on the bright side: I'm not a Democrat. Besides, it's not like the Republicans would be hurt even more by the lack of seats right now.

I am aware that the position is temporary, that the seat will receive a fully-elected representative in 2010. However, I still view the time I would have as Senator as a challenge to be met. I also revel in the opportunity to prove my effectiveness as a patriotic citizen, to serve my state and my nation in any way and with whatever time the job provides me.

I hope this letter finds you well. Please let me know if I might have a chance to forward my resume, some personal references, and my mom's apple pie with an eye for a formal job interview with your office at your best convenience.

Thank you, and enjoy the coming Labor Day weekend.

Signed.

...think it will work?

Because the Insanity Won't Ever End Part VI

2009-08-09T12:54:00.005-04:00

Guess this has to be discussed sooner rather than later, when the pre-packaged riots are hammering at the meeting doors in your own backyard.

Three different sources I suggest reading about this current - and for all intents ongoing-since-1946 - fight over health care reform. First, from Steve Benen at Washington Monthly, the big question "Why?":

...what do conservatives want out of the health care debate? "Wingnut, smash" isn't an especially compelling answer.
B.A. is right about the broad benefits for Americans. Some of Rush Limbaugh's listeners are one serious illness away from bankruptcy. Some Michele Bachmann voters can't get coverage because of a pre-existing condition. Some Glenn Beck viewers will see their insurance companies drop them when they need their coverage most. Many of Bill O'Reilly's fans already enjoy the benefits of government-run health care. Some RNC donors may want to start their own business, but can't because they can't afford to pay the monthly premiums. Some of the same people who attended "Tea Parties" in April saw the insurance for themselves and their families disappear after they lost their job.

There's nothing partisan or ideological about this -- everyone is getting screwed by the status quo. We're all paying too much for too little. A huge chunk of the country is uninsured, underinsured, or uninsurable, and the system is blind to how you voted in the last election.

Now, this is not to say that the Democratic proposals are flawless; they're not. But what's striking about the opposition to reform -- at least the loudest opposition to reform -- is that the right has chosen to completely ignore the actual flaws in the plan(s) and focus on imaginary, delusional nonsense. (ADDED NOTE: for example this meme about Death Panels being set up to euthanize the elderly and genetically infirm.)

So why are far-right activists so apoplectic? Why would people who stand to benefit from health care reform literally take to the streets and threaten violence in opposition to legislation that will help them and their families? President Obama supports an approach to health care reform that emphasizes competition and choice, doesn't increase the deficit, and wouldn't raise middle class taxes ... and conservatives are comparing the plan to the Nazi Holocaust?

B.A.'s confusion is understandable. I don't get it, either...

Benen tries to examine the protesters, identifying five different groups: The Greedy (a small group who profits from the broken system, and the ones by the by paying for all the protesters to get bussed in); The Partisans (politicos more obsessed with political victories than doing the right thing, basically they want Obama To Fail even if it means the nation suffers); The Tin-Foil Hats (the crazies terrified of anything they think of as 'foreign,' 'Socialist,' what have you, basically the Birthers who care more about Obama's birthplace than the REAL F-CKING WORLD); The Dupes (the great uninformed who believe whatever the other groups say, no matter the lies being told to them, basically anyone watching FOX Not-News); and the Wonks (the five or six conservative reformers who actually have some ideas on health care reform but of whom no one is paying any attention, basically people you haven't heard of because no one invites them onto the Sunday talk shows - the Wonks don't yell enough).

Benen's examination of the groups shows that the opposition is mostly the Partisans riling up the Dupes and the Tin-Foilers while the Greedy foot the collective bill: that it's not really rioting in support of anything, it's simply rioting for the sake of intimidation and a belief it would weaken Obama and the Dems come the 2010 Midterms.

The second link is to David Frum's article, followed by a third link to Digby's Hullabaloo response to Frum:

What would it mean to “win” the healthcare fight?

For some, the answer is obvious: beat back the president’s proposals, defeat the House bill, stand back and wait for 1994 to repeat itself. (ADDED: The Partisan view)

The problem is that if we do that… we’ll still have the present healthcare system. Meaning that we’ll have (1) flat-lining wages, (2) exploding Medicaid and Medicare costs and thus immense pressure for future tax increases, (3) small businesses and self-employed individuals priced out of the insurance market, and (4) a lot of uninsured or underinsured people imposing costs on hospitals and local governments.

We’ll have entrenched and perpetuated some of the most irrational features of a hugely costly and under-performing system, at the expense of entrepreneurs and risk-takers, exactly the people the Republican party exists to champion.

Not a good outcome.

Even worse will be the way this fight is won: basically by convincing older Americans already covered by a government health program, Medicare, that Obama’s reform plans will reduce their coverage. In other words, we’ll have sent a powerful message to the entire political system to avoid at all hazards any tinkering with Medicare except to make it more generous for the already covered.

If we win, we’ll trumpet the success as a great triumph for liberty and individualism. Really though it will be a triumph for inertia. To the extent that anybody in the conservative world still aspires to any kind of future reform and improvement of America’s ossified government, that should be a very ashy victory indeed.

Digby:

Frum seems to be operating under the illusion that the Republicans will be blamed for this, which I think is unlikely. Obama will be held responsible for the failure, just as Clinton was. it will be seen as a failure of legislative tactics ---- that's how liberal politics is discussed... (snippage)
Frum is fretting over the actual repercussions of failing to reform the health care system, which is completely beside the point for his fellow Republicans. Health care has officially joined the "faith based" constellation of issues, which includes global warming and evolution. They are now simply denying there is a crisis at all. And if there is one, there is simply no solution other than prayer and dogmatic belief in American exceptionalism and free markets.
The next couple of weeks will tell us whether the Republican obstructionism will result in backlash and give the progressives some room to maneuver. It's always possible the wingnuts have succumbed to hubris again --- having Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck as the spokesmen for their obstructionism might end up being a mistake similar to having Newtie push the government shut-down back in 1995. They often overreach and the hysterical, far right rhetoric people are seeing at these Town Halls may not resonate in the rest of the country quite the way the villagers think it will. We'll see.
But regardless of what actually happens, if health reform fails, I believe that when the history is written it will be seen as a Democratic failure. If you put an issue on the table and are given a mandate to enact it, you are blamed for its failure, particularly when the whole promise of your campaign was based upon the magical notion that you would change the very nature of the political system. Sadly, if that happens, the likely result will not be a newly invigorated, liberal president with lessons learned and a fresh approach. It will be a chastened and weakened president newly committed to the status quo, just as the Village ordered from the beginning. And that, in the end, may be what was being promised all along: symbolism over substance. It wouldn't be the first time...

Myself:

I keep looking at the world, seeing nearly every other Capitalist nation out there with a universal health care system and wonder why we can't see what the Brits and French and Germans and Japanese see. I keep watching the Far Right take offense at ANYTHING that doesn't have their royal seal of approval, and watching them express themselves in ways far more ignorant and violent than the Far Left has done in the last 20 years.

Part of me is thinking "The Democrats can't be THAT stupid, can they? They have to see that all this town-hall rioting is just the Republicans trying to bully them into doing something that 76 percent of the American population wants. They can't be going back to DC thinking 'gosh, Americans don't want health care reform, we'll just drop the Public Option and go back to the status quo and let the billion-dollar health industry rake in more dough at the expense of everyone else'? We're still going to get some halfway decent health care package that will reduce costs and improve basic care access and cover everyone, right?"

...Yeah, my pessimistic side is groaning right about now...

Meanwhile, expect the town hall meetings nationwide to be as much fun as the one we just had in Tampa... Seriously, they're getting death threats in Missouri and the rioters are Twittering about packing their firearms...

Everything I Needed To Know About Politics I Learned from Ferris

2009-08-07T05:12:00.002-04:00

John Hughes just passed away. From "Ferris Bueller's Day Off"

Ferris: Not that I condone fascism, or any ism for that matter. Isms in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, "I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me." Good point there. After all, he was the Walrus. I could be the Walrus. I'd still have to bum rides off people.

Also, I learned that Ben Stein is an incurable ham. But that's neither here nor there.