There, I said it

Change

2011-11-07T11:08:00.000-08:00

Artists to my mind are the real architects of change, and not the political legislators who implement change after the fact.

- William S. Burroughs

2011-11-04T09:38:00.000-07:00

Ann Coulter Auto-tuned "Our Blacks Are So Much Better Than Their Blacks"

Ann Coulter over 2pac

2011-11-01T13:01:00.000-07:00

A little mix I put together. Ann Coulter "Our Blacks Are So Much Better Than Their Blacks” over 2pac Lil Homies

Download the MP3: 2pac Lil Homies feat Ann Coulter

Our mythical two-party system

2011-03-02T18:46:00.000-08:00

Please check out this essay:

Heads They Win, Tails We Lose: Our Fake Two-Party System - Stephen H. Unger, Professor, Emeritus, Computer Science and Electrical Engineering at Columbia University

The Premise:

The key feature is an electoral system based on two political parties, the Soft Party and the Hard Party. The Soft Party plays the role of "people's advocate", mouthing rhetoric suggesting that it is really for ordinary people, as opposed to the wealthy people (WP). The Hard Party is designed to be more harsh than the Soft Party with respect to style and the measures it advocates. It is more openly supportive of the WP. However, both parties are largely financed by WP, tho not necessarily to the same extent by the same individuals. Their basic principles are the same: to maintain and enhance the power of the WP. Having two parties gives different WP opportunities to debate minor differences in tactics, and gives more of them chances to gain public attention.

Priceless Quotes:

... clever tactics used by the [wealthy people] to maintain their control involve dividing potential opposition. For example, private sector unions are pitted against public sector unions

Thus, we have a stable situation in which the WP, a very small minority, are able to maintain their dominance over a large population with minimal use of force and in a society that appears to be quite free and democratic.

The drift toward loss of liberty, unending wars, environmental degradation, growing economic inequality can't be stopped easily, but it will never be halted as long as we allow corporate interests to rule our country by means of a pseudo-democracy based on the two-party swindle.

Our two-party politics are like Pro Wrestling

2011-02-25T10:33:00.000-08:00

I'm sure somebody has made this comparison before, but it is becoming increasingly clear to me the many parallels between politics in the U.S. and Pro Wrestling (what we used to call "Big Time Wrestling" when I was a kid).

In both cases, each player assumes a role, often an overstated one - a character. At the height of Wrestling's popularity, when a Pro Wrestler stepped into the ring, there was an immediate visceral reaction of the crowd - jeers and cheers, and even tears sometimes. Hulk Hogan, the clean cut, pro-USA face would square off against the evil Russians. "Hacksaw" Jim Duggan made his point with a 2x4 and waving an American flag. The good guys and bad guys have changed, but pro Wrestling still works like this. The story is basic: good vs. evil - more importantly, it is base, entirely feeding on emotion, that of supporters and detractors. It doesn't matter if a character is hated or loved - it only matters that they stir powerful sentiments, one way or the other.

This is exactly what we see in U.S. politics. If you want to get a strong reaction, just utter names like Nancy Pelosi, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, or Dick Cheney. And it goes beyond those in government too. If you want to really get people riled up, mention Rush Limbaugh, Al Sharpton, Glenn Beck, or Michael Moore.

These figures conjure an immediate and intense reaction. It doesn't matter what these people are for, their detractors are going to be against it. And this applies equally to the left and right.

Whether Nancy Pelosi, Michele Bachmann, Barney Frank, or Mitch McConnell, they all seem to be playing a very specific character, one that seems to, at times, be speaking more to their opposition than to their fans. It's hard to find people that really love Pelosi, even on the left, but it's easy to find people on the right that find her utterly repulsive - their rage comes through just speaking of her. The same can be said regarding Michele Bachmann for those on the left.

The issues don't matter when you're talking about these extreme characters. It only matters who came up with the idea and who it is promoting it. And, in fact, no one really looks too closely at the actual voting records anyway, except on the really extremely emotional issues like abortion, gay-rights, and such heated topics. What no one notices are the many quieter issues, where both the parties, all the characters on both sides pass bill after bill supporting special-interests, the super-rich, at the peril of the middle-class and poor, like tax-cuts for the super-rich, bailouts for Wall Street bankers, wars that send billions of middle-class tax dollars to Halliburton and KPG, and healthcare legislation that favors insurance companies. Yes, even Democrats vote for these same bills too, sometimes under (simulated) protest, but eventually all this stuff gets a YEAH vote from Democrats too.

They all play the role of their defined character, to stir up the emotions, mostly for the sake of those that hate them, while quietly voting the same as their counterparts at the end of the day.

Sometimes this comes out. One in-your-face example was the bailouts. Both sides voted for them and yet both sides use rhetoric to blame the other - and each side has been able to successfully convince their supports that the OTHER side was the cause of the bailouts - but both sides voted FOR them folks, remember? Diane Feinstein's office, just one example, was inundated with calls opposed to the bailouts - 93% opposed them, but she voted for them anyway, telling her constituents they were just "confused".

Even when it's in our face like this, we seem to just revert to business as usual, and seldom hold these monsters accountable - by voting them out.

Nowhere is logic or rationale - we have WWE type characters playing to the most base fears and emotions. That's what stirs people. Once you sink your claws into their base emotions, they don't need logic anymore - they will seek out and find the "rationale" they need for that position and filter out all opposing arguments, no matter their merit, or basis in fact. On the Internet it is easy to find information to support any given crazy position and equally easy to filter out any information that you don't like.

Sometimes it looks like these characters, like Sarah Palin and Barney Frank, exist more to stir up the other side than anything else. That math works. As long as there are enough voters hating one side, there will be enough votes for the opposing side. This is most evidenced by how voters speak of choosing the lesser evil - most people end up voting against the other guy, not voting for anyone.

This driver gets so powerful that people become their own worst enemy. If you consider how some of the nation's poorest people endorse hard-line issues that help the super-rich at their own expense - it's because the other side is even worse, on the grounds of them not being god-fearing Christians or other such emotional basis. We have these same people calling teachers "greedy" while Wall Street bankers are "important" - all because San Franciscans and East Coast elites are so easy to hate.

Ever notice how the issues that have the least monetary impact get the loudest arguments, with both sides entering into what are practically screaming matches - all for theater, establishing their character's role, while not having much impact to anything significant (especially not financially significant), while some of the issues with the greatest potential impact are mostly radio-silent, with votes taken on weird days at weird times, and with almost no debate.

There was almost no media outcry or debate on the house floor about the Iraq war or the Wall Street bailouts. While issues such as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT), a Ground Zero Mosque, or a House resolution to protect Christmas (to say nothing of Charlie Sheen and Tiger Woods), receive all the media attention. While these issues may be important, they really have little impact, one way or the other, on money and power, so they are terrific places for politicians on both sides to "take a stand" - to go over the top to bring out the nature of their character using the most theatrics possible. And they are issues where the vote can match the rhetoric because, at the end of the day, these issues have little impact on those at the top in control (applies to both parties) so they don't really care a whole lot how their ~~puppets~~ members vote. These kinds of fake issues are wonderful for both sides. They let the characters really play up their role, without any cost to their power.

The so-called "Bush tax-cuts" and the 2008 Wall Street bailout (AKA Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008) really highlight this point. With the bailout, the GOP staged theater showing how they opposed the bill, but in the end, sold out and enough of them voted for it and the bill passed. We saw the same thing with the tax cuts for the richest Americans. At first, Democrats made all kinds of noise, but ultimately, they pretended to "compromise" and voted for the exact same bill they so passionately opposed a few days earlier.

It's hard to imagine that there isn't somebody in charge of this. It all seems so well orchestrated. While some members of congress are pretty obvious shills, it doesn't really require Mitch McConnell and Barney Frank to even know they are just playing a role. It probably is not that hard to find people that mostly believe their own rhetoric and think they are "doing the right thing" but sometimes have to step in line with the party leaders when it's time to tally the votes, in the name of compromise and "good sense," even if it is in conflict with their own rhetoric. But somebody had to seek out and find those characters and help them get elected, or put them in a prominent position of power or place them on a popular radio or TV talk show.

I hate to suggest a conspiracy, but it's hard to believe this just happens naturally. And there is the question of who wins and following the money.

We still get to vote - and I still believe our elections are mostly not fraudulent - we just have to stop doing what they want us to do. We must look past the rhetoric and not get caught up in emotional trigger-words. Look at what our elected criminals vote for, what they actually do, and the impact to ordinary Americans, not what they say or how they say it.

This information is out there - it can be hard to find among all the misinformation, but it's there. Don't take Glenn Beck's or Rachel Maddow's word for it.

I agree with the Tea Party on one thing - vote the bums out - we just might not be talking about the same bums. Somewhere in there may be a few decent apples, particularly in the House where some folks can perhaps run under the radar for a while - but ultimately they all need to answer to their party's leadership - and so they are screwed... and we are screwed. I suggest we begin by simply voting out everyone that voted for bailouts. You have to start somewhere.

Don't let Wisconsin divide us.

2011-02-21T17:49:00.000-08:00

Via Washington’s Blog

Conservatives and liberals actually agree about the most important things.
In fact, most Americans – conservatives and liberals – are fed up with both of the mainstream republican and democratic parties, because it has become obvious that both parties serve Wall Street and the military-industrial complex at the expense of most Americans.
In reality, all Americans – conservatives and liberals:
Want to break up the unholy alliance between big government and big banks
Want to break up the giant banks (and see this)
Agree that the Wall Street criminals who committed fraud should be thrown in jail
Agree that the Federal Reserve should be audited
Are against corporate socialism
Are against rampant inequality
Want to stand up to the ruling class
And are against unnecessary imperial wars

Could not have said it better myself.

The Tea Party, a populist movement, but to what end?

2011-02-10T09:34:00.000-08:00

Being the contrarian that I am, whenever it becomes popular to ridicule something, I find myself asking "wait a minute. Is there more to this?" Many of the figures of the Tea Party movement are pretty easy targets, making it easy to dismiss the whole movement as a bunch of extremists, ignorant backwoodsmen or agents of some evil puppet-master.

There are things I should like about the movement. First, it started as a populist movement, which is what I think we need to shake up the current rigged two-party monopoly. But it hasn't played out that way. Tea Party proponents say they "don't care about party labels" and that they "don't care what party you're in; they just want to know if you reflect their values." However, in practice, there is no place for Democrats in the Tea Party - and what's more, all Tea Party candidates have run on the Republican ticket, not a third party ticket.

Ok, so the real Tea Party is older, white, somewhat more male, and 30% more likely to identify as "born-again" Christians than the general population. They have a favorable opinion of the Republican Party and an unfavorable opinion of the Democratic Party. But what do they want?

A common slogan is "Take back America." When I see representatives of the movement speak, whether official PR spokesmen or ordinary attendees at rallies etc. it feels like this is code for a number of what appear to be fear-driven goals. In a lot of ways, "Take back America" seems to mean taking America back to a mythical, idealized time in the past, when white people had it good, jobs were plentiful, taxes were low, and everybody feared/loved Jesus in appropriate quantities.

They want to roll the clock back to some imagined version of America that never really existed. It's a fictionalized, Rockwell-esque amalgam of all the best of America, from their perspective, from many different times in history. Except in this rose-colored-glasses story, they leave out the ickier parts.

They want lower taxes and less government, but does that mean going back to a time before Social Security and Welfare? If there was a Tea Party back when those issues were moving through congress, it certainly would have opposed them, going by their stated mission of strongly opposing such social programs. Keep in mind, 43 percent of the federal budget goes to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, yet the vast majority of Tea Party members support these programs and want them to continue.

Or how about civil rights? This "better time" they long for allowed segregation and countless forms of formalized racism and discrimination, even slavery, if you take them at their word that they want to revert to the original doctrine of the Constitution.

The Tea Party says they support reduced government interference and "liberty" while at the same time Tea Party candidates have said "we would like to see prayer back in school" and activists carry signs reading "Yes, we are a Christian nation" and "United government under God." Or there's Governor Robert Bentley announcing that "Anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus christ as their savior, I'm telling you, you're not my brother and you're not my sister." So, "liberty" in the Tea Party definition, appears to be the liberty to impose Christianity.

Tea Party darling Christine O'Donnell famously said "Evolution is a myth." Recall that, even though Clarence Darrow made William Jennings Bryan out to be a fool at the 1925 Scopes trial, he lost the case and Scopes was found guilty of illegally teaching evolution - and those anti-evolution laws were not repealed in Tennessee until 45 years later, in 1967! Yes, you read that right - it was illegal to teach evolution in Tennessee as recently as 1967! Is that the America the Tea Party wants, where factual science is excluded from education by government mandate?

As for tax rates, nobody likes paying taxes and getting rid of government waste sounds great. But let's give it some perspective, shall we? Analysis shows that the effective income tax rate is currently at its lowest level since at least 1955 and corporate tax rates are already lower than they’ve been in 50 years. High taxes are not the problem.

Tea Party enthusiasts are quick to throw around the word socialism in reference to Obama’s tax policies. They claim he wants to raise the tax burden on the rich and lower it on the poor to "distribute wealth" but the facts, again, don't bear it out. The rich continue to get richer. Even if Obama had gotten his way, it would have represented a pretty paltry tax increase for the richest people and, even then, it would only get things closer to where they were because, while the tax rates for nearly all households have been dropping since the 60s, the rates of the richest have dropped the most, by far. If the Tea Party sees a pro-business, pro-capitalism moderate such as Barack Obama as a socialist with all his tax cuts, imagine what they would think of a president who ran a federal government with significantly higher tax rates than today and who raised taxes while in office, specifically, Ronald Reagan.

The basic message of the Tea Party movement is quite appealing: Government is too expensive, too intrusive and too big. But the devil is in the details. In the end, I don't think there's anything new here. The Tea Party should be praised for managing to organize some of the anger and frustration that's out there into something people are looking at - and perhaps it can be a model for other populist movements in some way. But for the Tea Party itself, there is no "there" there, at least not yet - it's not that unlike the old "moral majority" but with a much narrower agenda. And like that movement, it will continue to be a fringe element. It is a movement that cannot deny that it is heavily loaded with extremists - truth hurts, sorry. Mocking them really is easy, and justified in most cases. Again, tough luck. You are what you are.

After all these years of bloated deficits, how do Republicans still own the "fiscally conservative" talking point?

2011-02-09T11:01:00.000-08:00

Everyone knows that only Republicans are fiscally conservative. There's only one thing: It's not true.

I do not understand how this meme prevails. It's a study in PR and propaganda to rival any other. There may have been a time when Republicans believed in fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets, but that time has long passed.

The reality is that the debt explosion that Republicans today rail about began in 1981 with their, now mythically reinvented hero, Ronald Reagan. Here are the facts: Deficits remained relatively flat with Gerald Ford (R) and Jimmy Carter (D). But they ballooned with Reagan (R), $85 billion to $255 billion, and H.W. Bush (R), $255 billion to a peak of $432 billion. With Clinton (D), it decreased all they way back to $18 billion at the end of his term, when under another Republican president, G.W. Bush, with the full support of a Republican congress, it skyrocketed from Clinton's $18 billion to $1.017 trillion in 2008. As David Stockman, Reagan’s first budget director, recently wrote in The New York Times, the “debt explosion resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party’s embrace … of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts.”

As Republicans on the one hand decry our nation’s enormous deficit, successfully blaming Democrats I might add, they also forced Obama to cave on extending the Bush tax cuts, even though the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities report that the revenue loss from the Bush tax cuts accounts for about a quarter of the current federal deficit, and if extended, those cuts will be responsible for 54 percent of the yearly deficit. According to the Pew Economic Policy Group, the extension of the Bush tax cuts will cost $3.1 trillion over ten years, with nearly all of the benefits going to the richest 1 percent, those with incomes of more than $500,000 a year.

Yet, somehow, Republicans still manage to own the debate, successfully making fiscal responsibility part of their party platform, campaign slogan and self-professed philosophy - And people buy it - Polls suggest voters are angry about the deficits and are blaming the Democrats. Go figure.

Putting faces to "these people" who voted against the 9-11 First Responders Bill

2010-12-20T23:56:00.000-08:00

Shepard Smith and Fox News are getting all kinds of credit for their rant about Congress failing to pass the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010

However, what a lot of people didn't seem to notice is that the Fox anchors never mention that it was Republicans that blocked the bill. Instead, they use terms like "these people" and "congress" or the dreaded "they" - Shepard calls "them" out to be accountable. So who are "they?" Well, listed below are the senators responsible for this "national disgrace" including their photos so we can remember their smiling faces and links to their page on http://opencongress.org

Senator
	Sen. Lamar Alexander [R, TN]
	Sen. John Barrasso [R, WY]
	Sen. Robert Bennett [R, UT]
	Sen. Christopher Bond [R, MO]
	Sen. Scott Brown [R, MA]
	Sen. Jim Bunning [R, KY]
	Sen. Richard Burr [R, NC]
	Sen. Saxby Chambliss [R, GA]
	Sen. Thomas Coburn [R, OK]
	Sen. Thad Cochran [R, MS]
	Sen. Susan Collins [R, ME]
	Sen. Bob Corker [R, TN]
	Sen. John Cornyn [R, TX]
	Sen. Michael Crapo [R, ID]
	Sen. Jim DeMint [R, SC]
	Sen. John Ensign [R, NV]
	Sen. Michael Enzi [R, WY]
	Sen. Lindsey Graham [R, SC]
	Sen. Charles Grassley [R, IA]
	Sen. Judd Gregg [R, NH]
	Sen. Orrin Hatch [R, UT]
	Sen. Kay Hutchison [R, TX]
	Sen. James Inhofe [R, OK]
	Sen. John Isakson [R, GA]
	Sen. Mike Johanns [R, NE]
	Sen. Mark Kirk [R, IL]
	Sen. Jon Kyl [R, AZ]
	Sen. George LeMieux [R, FL]
	Sen. Richard Lugar [R, IN]
	Sen. John McCain [R, AZ]
	Sen. Mitch McConnell [R, KY]
	Sen. Lisa Murkowski [R, AK]
	Sen. James Risch [R, ID]
	Sen. Pat Roberts [R, KS]
	Sen. Jefferson Sessions [R, AL]
	Sen. Richard Shelby [R, AL]
	Sen. Olympia Snowe [R, ME]
	Sen. John Thune [R, SD]
	Sen. David Vitter [R, LA]
	Sen. George Voinovich [R, OH]
	Sen. Roger Wicker [R, MS]

Note: Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic leader, switched his vote to 'no' at the last moment in a parliamentary move that allows him to bring the measure up again for a vote. [See AP Story for details]

Source: Roll call number 269 in the Senate: http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2010/s/269

Full info on the bill: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h847/show

Obama's failure? Not correcting failed Bush administration policies fast enough

2010-12-19T11:43:00.000-08:00

The GOP and right-wing die-hards have hated Obama from the start. Now, just about everyone, left and right, is at least annoyed with him, and more likely, fed up.

What he calls "compromise" has been nothing but back-sliding and it hasn't helped his position with conservatives in the least - they still hate him and bad mouth him at every opportunity - at the same time, this backsliding has cost him his, once tremendous, support among liberals.

What a stupid and feckless strategy for someone that appears to be so smart.

We could go on and on about what he could have done differently - but for me, what's more important is what are we to do for 2012? The GOP has not earned my vote. Their childish tactics and full focus on messing with Obama instead of worrying about finding solutions for the country is unforgivable and sickening. He gives them what they want, and they just call him a flip-flopper. Meanwhile, the democrats, who despite two years with a majority in congress and the president on their team, continue to be unable to get out of their own way to get anything done (or un-done as the case may be) and have become as worthless and ineffective as I can recall in my lifetime.

So where has Obama disappointed us the most? It is in NOT successfully un-doing the mistakes and failed policies of the Bush-era. So why on earth would anyone be thinking about going back to a presidency brought to you by the same people that brought you George W. Bush (and Sarah Palin) now? As bad as Obama has been in terms of not correcting all of the Bush administration's damage fast enough for us, would we be better off with an administration that continues to introduce more such problems?

This is what is perhaps so frustrating about the "tax cut compromise" - not only does it show once and for all how poorly Obama is at debate and positioning, it perpetuates a policy that has been clearly shown to be ineffective and downright dangerous. Reagan's own Office of Management and Budget - David Stockman - calls the Bush tax cuts "the biggest fiscal mistake in history". This "compromise" has come to represent everything that has gone wrong with Obama's administration. It puts a fine point on just how badly the Obama team has been out maneuvered by the GOP. They constantly have him on his heals, fighting their fights, on their terms - the fight still carries Bush's name in the popular media for freak sake! And the GOP can, on the one hand, successfully rail against "democrat spending" [sic] and on the other, they can push for bank bailouts and pass these tax cuts for the wealthy, representing $700 billion added to the deficit! Un-freaking believable.

Obama backs down every time - that is, unless it's against his own party - that's the only time he seems to get tough.

Anyway, the point is, what the heck are we supposed to do in 2012? As noted, the GOP can't win again - we cannot suffer another "Bush-era" (or worse) that someone else has to try to clean up after. On the other hand, Obama has not shown the kind of savvy persuasive power with his political enemies required to move things forward. To say nothing of his willingness to support bad policies, like Wall Street bailouts and continuing to engage in two expensive and futile wars.

I disagree about agreeing to disagree

2010-11-06T16:28:00.000-07:00

My brother and I attended the "Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear" in Washington DC (at the last minute, we drove down from Philly).

It was crowded and fun and had a good vibe, if a bit too hipster for my tastes. The crowd was very diverse, across pretty much every dimension, ethnicity, demographics and, despite the hipsters, representing many age groups.

But the whole thing left me a little empty. I understand the frustration people feel with all media that goes for ratings by pushing hot buttons of all sizes and shapes. But somewhere in all this, I feel that Stewart's message is telling me "just roll over, keep quiet, quit making waves." The Rally seemed to be speaking to the old-school "Independents" with no ideology who sit back and wait to be inspired.

The message of "agreeing to disagree" misses the point that differences matter. Sure "Sanity" is all well and good, but "compromise" is not always the answer either. Sometimes there are ideas worth fighting for.

BP is not the root cause of this spill

2010-06-20T12:22:00.000-07:00

BP is clearly the proximate cause of the Gulf disaster. However, the root cause is you and me and our unending demand for oil.

I'm not saying we should let BP off the hook. But they would not be drilling a mile down from the surface unless there were people willing to pay for that oil. Those people are you and me. When you see those horribly sad pictures of heavily oiled Brown Pelicans, it's easy to blame the easy to dislike British aristocrat BP CEO. But really, we should be looking in the mirror - we're just as guilty as BP in killing those Pelicans and if we want to change it, we need to change our ways and start getting serious about alternative energy.

We want our cozy lifestyle but in getting it, our agents, including the CIA, the US military, and huge oil companies like BP, are hurting others so that we can be comfy and cozy. A leads to B. Stop burying our heads in the sand.

"In the Works" says it all

2010-06-20T11:30:00.000-07:00

The folks at politifact.com have maintained their Obameter tracking, by their count, president Obama's 505 campaign promises.

The fact that 334 of them, or 66% are either "Stalled" or "In the works" says it all.

This includes:

No. 38: Repeal the Bush tax cuts for higher incomes

No. 126: Begin removing combat brigades from Iraq

No. 175: End the use of torture

No. 177: Close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center

No. 180: Restrict warrantless wiretaps

Sheesh. What a case of "Inaction in action."

Tiger Woods / Nike - Weird Ad and Funny Remix

2010-04-08T11:54:00.000-07:00

The Real Ad

The Re-Mix:

The Bll Black attack - financial crisis not a "mistake" but deliberate fraud

2010-04-03T12:37:00.000-07:00

If you haven’t already seen this Real News Network interview with Bill Black, I highly recommend it (I first saw it on Polizeros "Bankers, Gangsters").

The other segments can be found here – Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, and Part5.

A story of crony capitalism, accounting fraud, and the global Ponzi scam.

After over a year of the Obama administration being in charge, the people that perpetrated the crime are still in charge. We need to get rid of them. President Obama, you said you stand for the little guy - show us and boot out the criminals. Fire Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Office of Thrift Supervision chief John Bowman, Fed chief regulator Patrick Parkinson, and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Chief John Dugan. Get rid of Ben Bernanke as chair of the Fed.

Also see Bill Black's Top Ten Ways to Crack Down on Corporate Financial Crime

Obama is to the right of Nixon, so why all the hate?

2010-04-01T11:19:00.000-07:00

It's quite clear that conservatives in general, and Republicans specifically, have decided that anything that Barack Obama proposes must be a radical, left-wing, socialist agenda.

They call him the most radical left-wing liberal president ever and they label every policy proposal as such, or socialist, or worse. While the left considers him the liberal messiah.

This rhetoric allows the hate and anger on both sides to persist, as though it's based on something real, while in reality both sides are taking us to the cleaners.

Obama is not a liberal and his policies are not progressive - he is to the right of Nixon. He's a corporate shill, just like Bush. Republicans love to hate Obama and liberals love to hate Bush. But the fact is, when it comes to policy making, they are much more similar than they are different. They do it wearing far different hats, but they both do it, just the same.

Whether its Wall Street Bailouts or Iraq War profiteering, they both operate on "take from the poor and give to the rich" policies - their direct actions take money straight from the working middle class and hand it over to wealthy executives - they're so bold about it now, they don't even make a pretense of hiding it anymore.

Obama can take a conservative proposal and, when he says it, the same exact thing, it is suddenly labeled as radical and left-wing. Calling Obama a liberal is an insult to liberals. And doing so, just to keep the fire of bipartisan hatred burning is foolish - it's the distraction both sides want, while they steal our money, just like as shown in the 1890's cartoon below.

Notice where the politician’s right hands are located. They prop up the "left-winger" to fight the "right-winger" on some "invented" basis that both sides get all emotional about, and meanwhile the politicians on BOTH SIDES snatch money out of our wallet!

Wake up People!

Stop falling prey to Glenn Beck, Keith Olbermann, and the rest of them and look a little deeper. The person you love to hate, the regular old "liberal" or "conservative" down the street is on your side (yes, even the Tea Partiers). Our common enemy is the scum politicians on both sides who are pretending to be on our side with their rhetoric, using all the words and phrases we want to hear, all the while stealing our rights and our money from right under our noses. As long as we're fighting each other, on the terms they've laid out for us, we're doing them a favor.

When "Patriots" Attack

2010-03-31T21:39:00.000-07:00

Goons hurling racial slurs at the likes of civil rights hero John Lewis.

Anti-gay attacks on the openly gay Barney Frank.

Death threats and vandalism.

This Must Not Stand

Where are the G.O.P. leaders to denounce this racial and homophobic behavior.

Joe Stack’s Online "Suicide Note"

2010-02-18T12:10:00.000-08:00

Pilot Joseph Andrew Stack apparently left a "final" blog post at his EmbeddedArt.com site. He first registered the site for his software business in 2003 and this is what it looked like until at least 2008. Embedded Art, according to the old version of the site, was “a small independent software house, specializing in process control and automation. In its current form it represents the culmination of 20 years of experience in the software development consulting business.” The site was “[founded] by Joe Stack in 1983 (under the name of Prowess Engineering) in Southern California, the company thrived for 15 years until shifting focus to the Sacramento area to take advantage of growth in the Silicon Valley.”

The entirety of Joseph Andrew Stack’s suicide note is reproduced below:

If you’re reading this, you’re no doubt asking yourself, “Why did this have to happen?” The simple truth is that it is complicated and has been coming for a long time. The writing process, started many months ago, was intended to be therapy in the face of the looming realization that there isn’t enough therapy in the world that can fix what is really broken. Needless to say, this rant could fill volumes with example after example if I would let it. I find the process of writing it frustrating, tedious, and probably pointless… especially given my gross inability to gracefully articulate my thoughts in light of the storm raging in my head. Exactly what is therapeutic about that I’m not sure, but desperate times call for desperate measures.

We are all taught as children that without laws there would be no society, only anarchy. Sadly, starting at early ages we in this country have been brainwashed to believe that, in return for our dedication and service, our government stands for justice for all. We are further brainwashed to believe that there is freedom in this place, and that we should be ready to lay our lives down for the noble principals represented by its founding fathers. Remember? One of these was “no taxation without representation”. I have spent the total years of my adulthood unlearning that crap from only a few years of my childhood. These days anyone who really stands up for that principal is promptly labeled a “crackpot”, traitor and worse.

While very few working people would say they haven’t had their fair share of taxes (as can I), in my lifetime I can say with a great degree of certainty that there has never been a politician cast a vote on any matter with the likes of me or my interests in mind. Nor, for that matter, are they the least bit interested in me or anything I have to say.

Why is it that a handful of thugs and plunderers can commit unthinkable atrocities (and in the case of the GM executives, for scores of years) and when it’s time for their gravy train to crash under the weight of their gluttony and overwhelming stupidity, the force of the full federal government has no difficulty coming to their aid within days if not hours? Yet at the same time, the joke we call the American medical system, including the drug and insurance companies, are murdering tens of thousands of people a year and stealing from the corpses and victims they cripple, and this country’s leaders don’t see this as important as bailing out a few of their vile, rich cronies. Yet, the political “representatives” (thieves, liars, and self-serving scumbags is far more accurate) have endless time to sit around for year after year and debate the state of the “terrible health care problem”. It’s clear they see no crisis as long as the dead people don’t get in the way of their corporate profits rolling in.

And justice? You’ve got to be kidding!

How can any rational individual explain that white elephant conundrum in the middle of our tax system and, indeed, our entire legal system? Here we have a system that is, by far, too complicated for the brightest of the master scholars to understand. Yet, it mercilessly “holds accountable” its victims, claiming that they’re responsible for fully complying with laws not even the experts understand. The law “requires” a signature on the bottom of a tax filing; yet no one can say truthfully that they understand what they are signing; if that’s not “duress” than what is. If this is not the measure of a totalitarian regime, nothing is.

How did I get here?

My introduction to the real American nightmare starts back in the early ‘80s. Unfortunately after more than 16 years of school, somewhere along the line I picked up the absurd, pompous notion that I could read and understand plain English. Some friends introduced me to a group of people who were having ‘tax code’ readings and discussions. In particular, zeroed in on a section relating to the wonderful “exemptions” that make institutions like the vulgar, corrupt Catholic Church so incredibly wealthy. We carefully studied the law (with the help of some of the “best”, high-paid, experienced tax lawyers in the business), and then began to do exactly what the “big boys” were doing (except that we weren’t steeling from our congregation or lying to the government about our massive profits in the name of God). We took a great deal of care to make it all visible, following all of the rules, exactly the way the law said it was to be done.

The intent of this exercise and our efforts was to bring about a much-needed re-evaluation of the laws that allow the monsters of organized religion to make such a mockery of people who earn an honest living. However, this is where I learned that there are two “interpretations” for every law; one for the very rich, and one for the rest of us… Oh, and the monsters are the very ones making and enforcing the laws; the inquisition is still alive and well today in this country.

That little lesson in patriotism cost me $40,000+, 10 years of my life, and set my retirement plans back to 0. It made me realize for the first time that I live in a country with an ideology that is based on a total and complete lie. It also made me realize, not only how naive I had been, but also the incredible stupidity of the American public; that they buy, hook, line, and sinker, the crap about their “freedom”… and that they continue to do so with eyes closed in the face of overwhelming evidence and all that keeps happening in front of them.

Before even having to make a shaky recovery from the sting of the first lesson on what justice really means in this country (around 1984 after making my way through engineering school and still another five years of “paying my dues”), I felt I finally had to take a chance of launching my dream of becoming an independent engineer.

On the subjects of engineers and dreams of independence, I should digress somewhat to say that I’m sure that I inherited the fascination for creative problem solving from my father. I realized this at a very young age.

The significance of independence, however, came much later during my early years of college; at the age of 18 or 19 when I was living on my own as student in an apartment in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. My neighbor was an elderly retired woman (80+ seemed ancient to me at that age) who was the widowed wife of a retired steel worker. Her husband had worked all his life in the steel mills of central Pennsylvania with promises from big business and the union that, for his 30 years of service, he would have a pension and medical care to look forward to in his retirement. Instead he was one of the thousands who got nothing because the incompetent mill management and corrupt union (not to mention the government) raided their pension funds and stole their retirement. All she had was social security to live on.

In retrospect, the situation was laughable because here I was living on peanut butter and bread (or Ritz crackers when I could afford to splurge) for months at a time. When I got to know this poor figure and heard her story I felt worse for her plight than for my own (I, after all, I thought I had everything to in front of me). I was genuinely appalled at one point, as we exchanged stories and commiserated with each other over our situations, when she in her grandmotherly fashion tried to convince me that I would be “healthier” eating cat food (like her) rather than trying to get all my substance from peanut butter and bread. I couldn’t quite go there, but the impression was made. I decided that I didn’t trust big business to take care of me, and that I would take responsibility for my own future and myself.

Return to the early ‘80s, and here I was off to a terrifying start as a ‘wet-behind-the-ears’ contract software engineer… and two years later, thanks to the fine backroom, midnight effort by the sleazy executives of Arthur Andersen (the very same folks who later brought us Enron and other such calamities) and an equally sleazy New York Senator (Patrick Moynihan), we saw the passage of 1986 tax reform act with its section 1706.

For you who are unfamiliar, here is the core text of the IRS Section 1706, defining the treatment of workers (such as contract engineers) for tax purposes. Visit this link for a conference committee report (http://www.synergistech.com/1706.shtml#ConferenceCommitteeReport) regarding the intended interpretation of Section 1706 and the relevant parts of Section 530, as amended. For information on how these laws affect technical services workers and their clients, read our discussion here (http://www.synergistech.com/ic-taxlaw.shtml).

SEC. 1706. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN TECHNICAL PERSONNEL.

(a) IN GENERAL – Section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:

(d) EXCEPTION. – This section shall not apply in the case of an individual who pursuant to an arrangement between the taxpayer and another person, provides services for such other person as an engineer, designer, drafter, computer programmer, systems analyst, or other similarly skilled worker engaged in a similar line of work.

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE. – The amendment made by this section shall apply to remuneration paid and services rendered after December 31, 1986.

Note:

· “another person” is the client in the traditional job-shop relationship.

· “taxpayer” is the recruiter, broker, agency, or job shop.

· “individual”, “employee”, or “worker” is you.

Admittedly, you need to read the treatment to understand what it is saying but it’s not very complicated. The bottom line is that they may as well have put my name right in the text of section (d). Moreover, they could only have been more blunt if they would have came out and directly declared me a criminal and non-citizen slave. Twenty years later, I still can’t believe my eyes.

During 1987, I spent close to $5000 of my ‘pocket change’, and at least 1000 hours of my time writing, printing, and mailing to any senator, congressman, governor, or slug that might listen; none did, and they universally treated me as if I was wasting their time. I spent countless hours on the L.A. freeways driving to meetings and any and all of the disorganized professional groups who were attempting to mount a campaign against this atrocity. This, only to discover that our efforts were being easily derailed by a few moles from the brokers who were just beginning to enjoy the windfall from the new declaration of their “freedom”. Oh, and don’t forget, for all of the time I was spending on this, I was loosing income that I couldn’t bill clients.

After months of struggling it had clearly gotten to be a futile exercise. The best we could get for all of our trouble is a pronouncement from an IRS mouthpiece that they weren’t going to enforce that provision (read harass engineers and scientists). This immediately proved to be a lie, and the mere existence of the regulation began to have its impact on my bottom line; this, of course, was the intended effect.

Again, rewind my retirement plans back to 0 and shift them into idle. If I had any sense, I clearly should have left abandoned engineering and never looked back.

Instead I got busy working 100-hour workweeks. Then came the L.A. depression of the early 1990s. Our leaders decided that they didn’t need the all of those extra Air Force bases they had in Southern California, so they were closed; just like that. The result was economic devastation in the region that rivaled the widely publicized Texas S&L fiasco. However, because the government caused it, no one gave a shit about all of the young families who lost their homes or street after street of boarded up houses abandoned to the wealthy loan companies who received government funds to “shore up” their windfall. Again, I lost my retirement.

Years later, after weathering a divorce and the constant struggle trying to build some momentum with my business, I find myself once again beginning to finally pick up some speed. Then came the .COM bust and the 911 nightmare. Our leaders decided that all aircraft were grounded for what seemed like an eternity; and long after that, ‘special’ facilities like San Francisco were on security alert for months. This made access to my customers prohibitively expensive. Ironically, after what they had done the Government came to the aid of the airlines with billions of our tax dollars … as usual they left me to rot and die while they bailed out their rich, incompetent cronies WITH MY MONEY! After these events, there went my business but not quite yet all of my retirement and savings.

By this time, I’m thinking that it might be good for a change. Bye to California, I’ll try Austin for a while. So I moved, only to find out that this is a place with a highly inflated sense of self-importance and where damn little real engineering work is done. I’ve never experienced such a hard time finding work. The rates are 1/3 of what I was earning before the crash, because pay rates here are fixed by the three or four large companies in the area who are in collusion to drive down prices and wages… and this happens because the justice department is all on the take and doesn’t give a fuck about serving anyone or anything but themselves and their rich buddies.

To survive, I was forced to cannibalize my savings and retirement, the last of which was a small IRA. This came in a year with mammoth expenses and not a single dollar of income. I filed no return that year thinking that because I didn’t have any income there was no need. The sleazy government decided that they disagreed. But they didn’t notify me in time for me to launch a legal objection so when I attempted to get a protest filed with the court I was told I was no longer entitled to due process because the time to file ran out. Bend over for another $10,000 helping of justice.

So now we come to the present. After my experience with the CPA world, following the business crash I swore that I’d never enter another accountant’s office again. But here I am with a new marriage and a boatload of undocumented income, not to mention an expensive new business asset, a piano, which I had no idea how to handle. After considerable thought I decided that it would be irresponsible NOT to get professional help; a very big mistake.

When we received the forms back I was very optimistic that they were in order. I had taken all of the years information to Bill Ross, and he came back with results very similar to what I was expecting. Except that he had neglected to include the contents of Sheryl’s unreported income; $12,700 worth of it. To make matters worse, Ross knew all along this was missing and I didn’t have a clue until he pointed it out in the middle of the audit. By that time it had become brutally evident that he was representing himself and not me.

This left me stuck in the middle of this disaster trying to defend transactions that have no relationship to anything tax-related (at least the tax-related transactions were poorly documented). Things I never knew anything about and things my wife had no clue would ever matter to anyone. The end result is… well, just look around.

I remember reading about the stock market crash before the “great” depression and how there were wealthy bankers and businessmen jumping out of windows when they realized they screwed up and lost everything. Isn’t it ironic how far we’ve come in 60 years in this country that they now know how to fix that little economic problem; they just steal from the middle class (who doesn’t have any say in it, elections are a joke) to cover their asses and it’s “business-as-usual”. Now when the wealthy fuck up, the poor get to die for the mistakes… isn’t that a clever, tidy solution.

As government agencies go, the FAA is often justifiably referred to as a tombstone agency, though they are hardly alone. The recent presidential puppet GW Bush and his cronies in their eight years certainly reinforced for all of us that this criticism rings equally true for all of the government. Nothing changes unless there is a body count (unless it is in the interest of the wealthy sows at the government trough). In a government full of hypocrites from top to bottom, life is as cheap as their lies and their self-serving laws.

I know I’m hardly the first one to decide I have had all I can stand. It has always been a myth that people have stopped dying for their freedom in this country, and it isn’t limited to the blacks, and poor immigrants. I know there have been countless before me and there are sure to be as many after. But I also know that by not adding my body to the count, I insure nothing will change. I choose to not keep looking over my shoulder at “big brother” while he strips my carcass, I choose not to ignore what is going on all around me, I choose not to pretend that business as usual won’t continue; I have just had enough.

I can only hope that the numbers quickly get too big to be white washed and ignored that the American zombies wake up and revolt; it will take nothing less. I would only hope that by striking a nerve that stimulates the inevitable double standard, knee-jerk government reaction that results in more stupid draconian restrictions people wake up and begin to see the pompous political thugs and their mindless minions for what they are. Sadly, though I spent my entire life trying to believe it wasn’t so, but violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer. The cruel joke is that the really big chunks of shit at the top have known this all along and have been laughing, at and using this awareness against, fools like me all along.

I saw it written once that the definition of insanity is repeating the same process over and over and expecting the outcome to suddenly be different. I am finally ready to stop this insanity. Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let’s try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well.

The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.

Joe Stack (1956-2010)

02/18/2010

An additional copy of Stack’s suicide note, originally posted on his website, EmbeddedArt.com, is available and downloadable in pdf format here.

Education measured by earnings potential alone?

2010-01-25T11:05:00.000-08:00

The language of this article infuriates me: College Degree: Still worth it? It has been reprinted all over the country under various headlines. The article appears to originate at the Kansas City Star by Mará Rose Williams - call 816-234-4419 or send e-mail to mdwilliams@kcstar.com.

For example:

"With money scarce, many newly cost-conscious families are trying to work out the math."

There is similar language throughout the article, positioning a college education as measured solely by the amount of income it may produce. In fact, it even suggests that "success" itself is measured purely in salary terms, as though there are no other achievements in life.

There is a lot more to Humanity than that. Study of Nietzsche or Plato is not likely to appear on a job application, but this article suggests such study isn't worth anything. So why study any of the classics, or history, or even science and math, if it will have no directly traceable impact on our annual income? This is what dental school is about - not what a liberal arts education is about. Isn't there something to gain from the collective knowledge assembled over centuries in literature, languages, philosophy, history, mathematics, and science that goes beyond their impact to our annual salary?

There's a brief mention of "intangibles" but even that quickly circles back to "success" measured by annual salary. How about developing one's rational thought and other intellectual capabilities?

In short, I think this article sends a, commonly held, but horribly misguided analysis of what college education is about. For those that desire such an education, the "cost" must be measured by more than the impact on salary. College is essentially a once in a lifetime opportunity - we will never be that age again. It's not for everyone and I'm not saying force it on everyone. But for those that want it, there has to be a better "return on investment" analysis than how it may or may not impact earnings.

It's hard to be rude to Christianity

2010-01-16T13:41:00.000-08:00

I've often been involved in conversations at parties and what not, in which people begin poking fun at some fringe religion, sometimes far fringe like "cults" but other times, somewhat less fringe like Mormon or Scientology. They joke around about how absurd the stories and so on, similar to how people speak about ancient Roman or Greek Mythology. What I usually try to point out in these situations is that the stories of modern "accepted" religions, including the most accepted one, Christianity, are no less far-fetched and fantastic.

Daniel Dennett, in an interview by Jonathan Miller says it much better than I do, of course. Listen below.

Here's a few quotes:

If somebody's a member of a cult, as we say, we have no trouble being rude with them, with laughing at the Raliens, or those people that got interested in the comet, various doomsday prophesiers when the prophesies don't come true, we laugh at those people and the world laughs with us at them. So we have a line where we consider some religious belief to be just too kooky to take seriously, and we are rude with impunity when talking about those.

If Christianity were a small sect in the world, I think it wouldn't receive the respect, but look at all the churches that the Christians have built, look at all the great art, look at all the great music. It's hard to be rude to a religion which has created so much great culture.

The biggest point for me is that, if one is informed and is being intellectually honest, Christianity is in fact just as "kooky" as any other religion across all time. The only thing that makes it seem less "kooky" is that it is so widely accepted and practiced and that most people are only exposed to a "sanitized" version of its traditions, edited to be more G-rated, one more consistent with 21st century morals and norms. If Christianity were a small sect in the world, it would receive no more respect than any cult or mythology in the world.

Christmas-day Detroit flight bomb - more knee jerk reactions

2010-01-01T16:43:00.000-08:00

My prediction: the TSA will do what it always does and enact some inane protocol that will change nothing in terms of making us more secure. Instead, whatever new rules they impose will simply waste money and add to passenger inconvenience and hassle, all in the name of "doing something".

Come on, a so-called "watch list" with a half a million names on it, but you can't detect a man who has made multiple trips to terrorist training camps and who is credibly alerted as a potential threat – by his own father, no less?

And now there will be new TSA rules that will very effectively inconvenience millions of travelers who pose no credible threat whatsoever while providing zero improvement in actual security and safety. Thank you knee jerk reaction.

With no public option, analysts raise health insurers price targets as "reform" moves through Congress

2009-12-22T14:30:00.000-08:00

First we had the "wealth transfer" bills, over $1.5 trillion, in the wall street and other bailouts - and now we have another "take from the middle class and give to corporations" plan in the, now completely debilitated, "health care reform" legislation.

Health insurers surge after key vote - The Associated Press

Credit Suisse Ups Targets on 7 Health Insurance Stocks - StreetInsider.com

Yes, our health care system in the U.S. sucks - that's a fact - and our health insurance system is terrible - but unfortunately this legislation, as it has been watered down, will not help. Well, at least it won't help anyone except the insurance companies (and presumably the crooked politicians who push it through).

This is just another form of corporate bailout, and for an industry that isn't even in trouble this time - they're just extra greedy - health insurers.

It's not about "socialism" or "big government" - it's that this bill has been thrashed and warped by corporate influences and no longer has anything for the people in it. It must be squashed. It looks like the U.S. will not be able to do what the rest of the industrialized world has done.

Those evil, socialized countries manage to provide universal health care to their populations with better quality outcomes than ours and at about half the cost! So what do all of these countries have in common? They all prohibit health insurance companies from being for-profit.

It sounds impossible here in the U.S. But it's not - at least in theory. Switzerland was the last of the developed countries to make that transition, which it did about 25 years ago. Their example shows that it is possible to develop a transition system in which the investors of for-profit health insurance companies don't get screwed.

We make war too easy, distant, clinical

2009-12-09T09:24:00.000-08:00

Bob Herbert, NYT A Fearful Price:

"If voters had to choose right now between instituting a draft or exiting Afghanistan and Iraq, the troops would be out of those two countries in a heartbeat."

So true.

Dennis Kucinich To Congress

2009-12-04T15:48:00.000-08:00

I don't always agree with Congressman Kucinich, but I agree with the following comments he made to Congress:

"America is in the fight of its life and that fight is not in Afghanistan - it's here. We are deeply in debt. Our GDP is down. Our manufacturing is down. Our savings are down. Our trade deficit is up. Business failures are up. Bankruptcies are up."

"The war is a threat to our National Security. We'll spend over $100 billion next year to bomb a nation of poor people while we reenergize the Taliban, destabilize Pakistan, deplete our army and put more of our soldiers' lives on the line. Meanwhile, back here is the USA, 15 million people are out of work. People are losing their jobs, their health care, their savings, their investments, and their retirement security. Trillions in bailouts for Wall Street, trillions for war; when are we going to start taking care of things here at home?"

Mr. Obama, undo the Bush-era Constitutional wrongs

2009-09-10T16:47:00.000-07:00

In 2007, the American Freedom Agenda Act (H.R. 3835) failed (never made it out of committee).

President Obama, will you commit to restoring the Constitution's checks and balances and protections against government abuses that we gave up under the Bush administration? Any future president can use them again, unless we correct these wrongs.

Specifically:

Fully restore the right to challenge the legality of one's detention, or habeas corpus, and the right of detained suspects to be charged and brought to trial.
Prohibit torture and all cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
Prohibit the use of secret evidence.
Prohibit the detention of anyone, including U.S. citizens, as an "enemy combatant" outside the battlefield, and on the President's say-so alone.
Prohibit the government from secretly breaking and entering our homes, tapping our phones or email, or seizing our computers without a court order, on the President's say-so alone.
Prohibit the President from "disappearing" anyone and holding them in secret detention.
Prohibit the executive from claiming "state secrets" to deny justice to victims of government misdeeds, and from claiming "executive privilege" to obstruct Congressional oversight and an open government.
Prohibit the abuse of signing statements, where the President seeks to disregard duly enacted provisions of bills.
Use the federal courts, or courts-martial, to charge and prosecute terrorism suspects, and close Guantanamo down.
Reaffirm that the Espionage Act does not prohibit journalists from reporting on classified national security matters without fear of prosecution.

Mr. Obama, fill the leadership vacuum

2009-09-10T08:35:00.000-07:00

We're ready. Take our hand. Lead us. Ruffle some feathers. Rattle some cages. Take names and kick ass if you have to, but for god's sake, do it already.

NY Times columnist Maureen Dowd in Less Spocky, More Rocky - September 8, 2009:

In the absence of more vivid presidential leadership, the Democrats have reverted to their old DNA — self-destructive scrapping and spending. And the Republicans are sticking to theirs — being mean-spirited and shameless, attacking big government spending while taking no blame for their own.

The longer this vacuum goes unfilled, the more it will be occupied by the crazies and nutjobs.

Come on Mr. President, the country is ready and willing to be led - hungry for leadership, even. Make hay while the sun shines.

Republicans exercise childish behavior at their own peril

2009-09-10T07:40:00.000-07:00

The Republicans appear to have taken a page from the second grade school yard playbook. Their deep hatred for Obama and anger over losing the Congressional majority has taken their head out of the game. It's no longer about the message, but the messenger. Even when Obama recasts a G.O.P proposal, the Republicans still refuse to support it. As NY Times columnist Bob Herbert recently said "The entire Republican Party has decided that it is in favor of absolutely nothing." If Obama proposed "Sunshine in the morning, Harry Reid couldn’t persuade a single Senate Republican to vote yes."

But this childish approach is going to backfire. Democrats will eventually be forced to say "if you want to pout in the corner, so be it" and they will move on without Republican involvement. It's the self-fulfilling prophecy the Republicans were afraid of before the election - now they're going to get it, if they don't get over themselves and start participating again.

And it's not just hurting the Republicans themselves. It's hurting all of us:

Democrats will have to load bills with old-school pork to get enough votes without the G.O.P.
The end result will be even greater division in the country

Come on Republicans, buck up and get back in the game - the country needs you.

Van Jones isn’t nearly as nutty or “anti-American” as most of the folks asking for his head

2009-09-08T21:00:00.000-07:00

The Jones appointment is being criticized on the left as dubious and poorly vetted but hardly a threat to the nation. On the right it’s being treated with a hysteria that is as crazy as the craziest of the 9/11 “truthers.” “Truthers” are a fringe among liberals. But among the right, utterly crackpot, dishonest and insanely demagogic ranters have become legion, promoted, widely praised and even granted leadership roles.

Jones is not high on my radar – he’s a better appointment – not as crazy and likely more competent – than a couple of dozen aides to Bush. The hyper-platitudinous, Twilight Zone-inhabiting Christian Right was handed thousands of square feet of executive office space by Rove. As were disastrous cronies and hacks like Harriet Meiers, Al Gonzales and the notorious “Brownie.”

It’s okay in conservative circles to argue that FDR deliberately let Pearl Harbor get hit. It’s okay in conservative circles to argue that FDR deliberately sold out Eastern Europe to Stalin at the behest of his Red State Department. It’s okay, among the pundit class, to become a one-man “1939 Truth Commission” like Pat Buchanan, arguing that Hitler had no designs on greater Europe until he was provoked by…uh…Churchill, or something. It’s okay in right-blogosphere circles and on pundit lists to call for rounding up Americans on the basis of their ethnicity, like Michelle Malkin. But a guy who is assigned to develop strategies for Green Energy can’t ever have questioned whether Bush let 9/11 happen. It's a damned shame.

I’m inclined to defend Jones just because the people who are calling for his head are such outrageous, despicable scum. Reason enough. These creeps want an all-out partisan war. Fine.

I AM AN AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE SHITHEEL

2009-09-02T20:35:00.000-07:00

http://www.alteredhaste.com/acs.html

Healthcare reform questions

2009-08-12T08:32:00.001-07:00

This will probably degenerate into a flame war, but I hope it doesn't. (This one time) stirring the pot is not my intention. :)

I've read through the bills and analyses and I must say, my biggest question is "What problem are we trying to solve?" I know healthcare is "broken" but we all seem to have different definitions of what "broken" means.

It appears that a big goal of the proposed healthcare reform is to reduce the number of uninsured. Is that right? And, if so, will the reform actually achieve that goal? The Whitehouse.gov site says: "Assure affordable, quality health coverage for all Americans" But what does "affordable" mean? I mean if I spend my money on Xbox games, then I can't afford health insurance. So how do we define "affordable" and what makes it not "affordable" today? Will the new plans really be more "affordable"? Why? How? In what way?

My take is that this reform is too much of a compromise and will end up not doing a whole lot, with a lot of potential for unintended consequences. It seems to be more of a health insurance consumer protection act than healthcare reform. As I read it, it sounds like it may help the uninsured at the expense of the rest of us.

Obama has promised, and the proposal states, that if you are satisfied with your current plan, you can keep it. However, your current plan must be a "qualified plan". The New York Times article A Primer on the Details of Health Care Reform quotes Dallas L. Salisbury, president of the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a supposedly nonpartisan group:

“The president and Democrats in Congress are saying what they would like [that people can keep their current insurance]. Their promises may not be literally true because your health plan may change, and your doctor may no longer accept your insurance.”

Regarding all the scare tactics from right-wing crazies about euthanasia and "death panels", even the AARP says “The rumors out there are flat-out lies.” So don't even go there, please.

I am concerned about one of the issues raised by the right-wing (and others): the potential impact to Medicare. Proposed cuts to Medicare account for nearly 40 percent of the bills’ cost (that's a lot of how the reform is so-called "deficit-neutral"). Obama says these cuts will not reduce Medicare benefits, but if you're taking $150 billion out of the system (over 10 years), one has to believe some things will change, that some doctors and hospitals might stop treating medicare patients on the new payment terms, etc.

But again, back to my original question: Can someone tell me what specifically this proposed reform is trying to fix (as opposed to in the general statements from the Whitehouse.gov website like "Improve patient safety and quality of care")?

Ed "warrantless wiretap" Whitacre to chair "new" GM

2009-06-10T19:19:00.000-07:00

This can be filed in the truly absurd department, or as Snagglepuss might say "unbelievable, even."

If not for FISA "reform" that gave the telcos retroactive immunity, Edward E. Whitacre Jr. would be in jail - you see, back when Ed's AT&T performed the "warrantless surveillance" for the Bush Administration, it was a felony.

Instead, the Obama administration is awarding him with the General Motors Chairmanship - say what?

When he was running AT&T, he said he didn't use computers or text messaging. Yesterday, he told the press in an interview after his appointment: “I don’t know anything about cars.” It figures. Just what GM and the US auto industry needs.

Ed "Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?" Whitacre is also the same guy that lobbied so heavily against net neutrality, something Obama told us he supported.

Whitacre, it turns out, is just another in the long line of executives running GM who knows next to nothing about cars, going back to Roger Smith, who destroyed the company's pride and global competitiveness in the 1980's - and it's been downhill ever since.

It's a damned shame. I was never a huge GM guy, but one had to respect them, and the cars they made. The American auto industry was a benchmark for the world and the American automobile was a symbol of our culture and the envy of the rest of the world. Buick, Pontiac, Chevrolet, Oldsmobile and Cadillac were all incredible brands with passionately loyal customers. Now, most people are embarrassed to admit they own one of these cars.

The choice of Whitacre for GM is a black eye for the Obama administration and a clear indicator that politics in Washington have not changed. "We the people" are screwed, as usual.

Former commander of U.S. forces in Iraq Calls for Accountability for War Crimes

2009-06-08T11:23:00.000-07:00

The former commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, Ricardo Sanchez, is now calling for an investigation of Bush-era policies. According to PR-Newswire:

General Sanchez, the former top coalition commander in Iraq, called for a Truth Commission so we might fully understand the failure of the military and civilian command to honor the pledge of our constitution.

Sanchez, the first General to go on record to call for a Truth Commission, stressed that the outcome must embrace a variety of solutions, including prosecution.

Last week also brought to light two under-reported stories: 1) Cheney personally led secret Congressional briefings on torture methods, and 2) as early as 2004, the Red Cross privately expressed concerns to Colin Powell that U.S. detention and interrogation methods violated international law.

I think one of the reasons we're not seeing more pressure on these charges from Democrats is because it is not a purely Red-state or Bush-Cheney problem, and that politicians on all sides, Republicans and Democrats, will be implicated.

Former Interrogator Rebukes Cheney for Torture Speech

2009-05-26T15:07:00.000-07:00

Dick Cheney's claim that torturing detainees has saved American lives is patently false. Watch as Matthew Alexander, the senior military interrogator for the task force that tracked down Al Qaeda-in-Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, explains how Cheney's torture policy was directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds if not thousands of American servicemen and women.

Read rest of article at http://www.bravenewfoundation.org/

Why regulating Wall Street isn’t enough

2009-05-26T08:08:00.000-07:00

From Byron DeLear, author, lecturer, former US Congressional Candidate in Missouri and co-founder of Friends of Article V Convention.

Our Founding Fathers were all about preventing tyranny as they were throwing off the yoke of the British Empire; the despotism of Crown and Church, they could see it a million miles away and designed our government to prevent it.

Their remedy? Checks-and-balances, compartments of government self-regulated through inter-agency skepticism and scrutiny.

Given the recent Wall Street bailouts in the amount of trillions upon trillions, deficit spending and skyrocketing debt, it seems as if an important protection to help Washington be more accountable is missing from the Founder’s design. But it isn’t. It just hasn’t been used.

A consensus has emerged on how to fix the rules in our broken financial system - Regulation. This response to the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression sees the deregulation that had occurred in the banking and mortgage industry - combined with good ol’ fashioned greed - as the primary cause of the collapse. It follows then, that by restoring key corporate oversight, a future economic meltdown will be averted. Only regulating Wall Street won’t be enough.

Wall Street had a silent partner in creating this mess: Washington, DC. Without the collusion between Wall Street and Washington, this debacle wouldn’t have been possible. The lobbyist driven repeal of important protections such as the Glass Steagall Act in 1999 or the unregulated mania of corporations like AIG, Bear Stearns or Lehman would never have occurred without a complicit Congress, essentially bribed to be asleep at the switch. We have witnessed, quite literally, the ‘Enron-nization’ of the American economy.

In our nation’s history, the Federal government has offered top-down guidance to the States. Sometimes in the form of a moral check-and-balance as in the case of women’s voting rights or guaranteeing African-Americans entry into schools in the South. America became stronger through these interventions. But the reverse, a restraining check-and-balance to an excessive Federal government, is also necessary. When Washington has grown beyond its means, overreaching and incapable of self-correction, the people must intervene.

This was the purpose of the convention clause of Article V of the US Constitution, to give the people an opportunity to offer solutions to a recalcitrant Congress unwilling or unable to act. When corruption has become institutionalized into the Federal government, the States can petition for a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution, a process occurring outside of Washington, bypassing the entrenched corruption. Before becoming law, amendments would have to be ratified by three-fourths of the States, eliminating any extreme or radical proposals.

But ideas like a Balanced Budget Amendment, which would help to root out abuse and cronyism inherent in the system today, could be introduced and seriously debated through our nation’s first Article V Convention. Delegates would assemble, C-SPAN would cover it, we would all get educated a little more and our representative democracy reinvigorated. There is a critical reason why the convention clause exists, and the Framer’s put it there not to be ignored, but to provide a “peaceful alternative to a violent revolt” during times of strong popular frustration with the Federal government.

Constitutional scholars believe we have been denied our right to a convention. To date, there have been 754 valid applications from all 50 States for an Article V Convention that have hit the doorstep of Congress, far surpassing the two-thirds threshold needed (34). The research documenting these applications was completed last year by an intrepid non-partisan group of legal experts, a retired Michigan Supreme Court Justice and impassioned citizens from every State. The Friends of Article V Convention (FOAVC.org) assert that Congress has not only failed in its non-discretionary duty to issue the call, but is purposefully quashing the convention as a perceived (and real) threat to its power.

Aside from the partisan polemics surrounding the recent Tea Parties, it’s clear that millions of Americans of all political stripes are voicing deep concerns for the future of our country. They see the massive influence of lobbying power, industries writing their own laws, shameless earmark abuse and trillion dollar bailouts as the symptoms of a broken system.

President Eisenhower once remarked about Article V,

“Through their state legislatures and without regard to the federal government, the people can demand a convention to propose amendments that can and will reverse any trends they see as fatal to true representative government.”

It may be time to finally heed the original design our Founding Fathers built into the law of the land for just such an occasion - they did have a couple things right after all.

Byron can be reached at: ByronDeLear@gmail.com

Iraq 'Smoking Gun' Witness Found Dead

2009-05-13T11:07:00.000-07:00

From: IndictBushNow.org

The prisoner Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, who apparently under conditions of extreme torture, agreed to say that al-Qaeda was linked to Saddam Hussein, and whose testimony became a key source to justify the invasion of Iraq, has been found dead.

Several weeks ago, Human Rights Watch investigators discovered the missing inmate and talked to him. He had been secretly transferred by the administration to a prison in Libya after having been held by the CIA both in secret “black hole prisons” and in Egypt.

After recanting his testimony and revealing that he was forced to make false statements about Iraq under torture, Libi suddenly turns up dead.

A Libyan “newspaper source” says that his death is an apparent suicide. Many disagree, and want a full scale investigation:

This is not a political choice. It is a legal imperative. Mr. Libi’s death must be the first business of the investigation. When other prisoners who had been kept at secret sites were sent to Guantanamo, the Bush administration and the CIA intentionally kept Mr. Libi from being part of that transfer. Mr. Libi was publicly stating that the Iraq-al-Qaeda links attributed to him from his torture sessions were not true.

He was Exhibit A in the indictment that alleges that tortured confessions and the contrived legal justifications of torture set up by Justice Department lawyers in July/August 2002 were central to the launch of the war against Iraq.

His testimony would support the case that torture was ineffective, that it did not, as Cheney proclaims, “protect the country from terrorist attack.” But, rather, that torture was used for the personal political goals of Bush and Cheney.

Arlen Spector a watershed moment or just politics?

2009-04-29T11:42:00.000-07:00

With Arlen Spector, one of the last moderate Republicans, leaving the Republican party, it makes one wonder where the party is headed. In defining what constitutes being Republican, Ronald Reagan, said it is:

"our belief in restraining government spending, pro-growth policies, tax reduction, sound national defense, and maximum individual liberty.”

I'm not a Reagan fan, but other than the idea that "lower taxes solve all problems" I pretty much support the above positions. So why am I not a Republican? It's because, with a few exceptions, these words are not backed up by the deeds of the party.

Republicans have been responsible for the most massive increases in government spending in our country's history, first under Reagan, and then under W. Their deficit spending may prove to be the end for America - at the very least it is certainly inconsistent with their purported "small government" stance. Far from it - Republicans have become the party of big government.

Likewise, individual liberty appears to have no place in the Republican agenda (other than mock self-serving support for the second amendment). It was Republicans who wire-tapped and otherwise spied on hippies in the 60's and, heaven knows who, under GW Bush - before 9/11. It's Republicans who are as guilty of attacking the constitution as Democrats, if not more so. Consider the Bush administration's extravagant claims to presidential power. Nixon considered declaring martial law and he would have done so, until he realized there were 50 million armed law-abiding citizens standing in the way (Nixon's Justice Department had a list, called the ADEX file, of thousands of known dissidents who were to be picked up immediately). Detaining Americans without legal or constitutional recourse. Warrantless searches on Americans. The list goes on. It's Republicans who want to tell us all how to live, who to marry, who to sleep with, what to do with our bodies, and what god we should pray to. The Republicans can make no valid claim to being the party for individual liberty.

So if you believe in the ideals expressed by the party's hero, then it would appear you're no longer welcome in this Republican party. In an NY Times OP-ed piece, moderate Olympia Snowe says it well:

There is no plausible scenario under which Republicans can grow into a majority while shrinking our ideological confines and continuing to retract into a regional party.

So are these things factors in Spector's decision to change from Republican to Democrat? Who knows. Cynics say it is simple politics, that the move is needed in order for the senator to win the next election. Even if that is true, it says something about the party. It says his constituency of Pennsylvania voters have already forsaken the Republicans.

On the other hand, much like Europeans, the Democrats don't appear to stand for anything in particular. This leaves them wide open to attacks as "tax and spend" or "socialist".

Both these parties need a reboot.

Right-wing supports 3G

2009-04-08T12:37:00.000-07:00

No longer able to compete on substance, the republicans are falling back to their old stand by: Guns, God, and Gays.

When all else fails, do your best to tap into base fears and paranoia. Cheney is everywhere lately telling anybody who will listen that we are "less safe" (why does anyone still believe a single word out this man's mouth?).

The Vermont Equal Rights Decision appears to be a rallying cry for right-wing extremists.

What is this, 2004? The republicans have officially run out of ideas.

Entrepreneurs are the way out of this mess

2009-04-08T08:10:00.000-07:00

Instead of dropping money into the sink hole of Wall Street, we should be creating a landscape where startups can flourish. We have the resources we need to get out of this mess - and it is the collective brain-power and ingenuity of our people, young and old alike.

The Internet created an environment with low barriers of entry for new ideas to take flight, basically a much more level playing field, where those with limited resources could compete, on merit with larger established companies. If the government is going to throw money at the economic mess, throw it in this direction, in the form of incentives for startups and entrepreneurs, even capital, etc.

VC's have shown you don't even need to be all that selective. You could almost have a lottery system without wasting a lot of time and money reviewing ideas because there are enough smart people with drive and good ideas, if you throw money at the wall, it will stick. Literally throw the money out there to anybody with an idea - a lot of them will go on to create jobs, if not entire new industries.

The economic recovery starts at the bottom. People have to spend money. It starts with people having jobs. An ecosystem that enables thriving new businesses creates jobs. Forget these old-world Wall Street bafoons - they are not our saviour. We should put our recovery (and some money) in the hands of our smart entrepreneurial pool - that will produce results.

"Too big to fail" is a too big problem

2009-03-22T19:08:00.000-07:00

Even if you argue that AIG and others are "too-big-to-fail" so they need a bailout, we must NOT LET IT HAPPEN AGAIN.

We let smaller corporations merge into these mega-corporations that are inefficient, unable to adapt, or innovate, and ultimately non-competitive - because they don't have to compete - they have the implicit guarantee of a "too big to fail" bailout.

I still question whether the consequences of letting them "fail" will really end the world as we know it, as Bernanke (and may others) say. It's not like propping them up is really working all that great anyway.

If they fail, won't their assets be scooped up by smaller competitive firms and so the system will resume?

Obama not the defender of Individual Rights after all

2009-03-22T13:21:00.000-07:00

During the campaign, Mr. Obama told us:

"As President, I will uphold the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun-owners, hunters, and sportsmen. I know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne."

He was responding to the landmark Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which established that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms—not a collective one. Until this case, the Supreme Court never ruled, one way or the other on the matter, and now they have.

Then, after winning, Obama selected outspoken gun control advocate Eric Holder to serve as his attorney general. Throughout his career, Holder has argued in favor of the collective rights interpretation of the Second Amendment. During his confirmation hearings, when asked about this and his support for sweeping and restrictive gun control measures, he reluctantly said "the Supreme Court has spoken" - with a huge smirk on his face.

Such arrogance is bad news. This guy is the law now and clearly intends to ignore the Supreme Court and leading liberal legal scholars on the matter of the Second Amendment as an individual right and continue with his own interpretation of the Bill of Rights in general. Great. Didn't we have enough of such arrogance for the last eight years?

Bottom-up Bailouts instead of Top-down

2008-12-09T08:18:00.000-08:00

We need more proposals like Tom Evslin's suggesting that a better way to help the auto makers is to have the US govt. replace their fleet:

The US government should order a complete replacement for its vehicle fleet to be delivered over the next four years. The new vehicles must be either plugin electric hybrid, pure electric, or possibly natural gas. Obviously retooling both at the manufacturers and suppliers is required to deliver this order so the government should be willing to prepay a significant part of it as it does for new weapons systems. That gets money into the system fast and creates/saves jobs almost immediately.

We need more of these bottom-up ideas. We need them to get more support and coverage in the press and media.

Our congresspeople ignored us and went ahead and voted for the bailout even in the middle of an election, but they have to keep hearing from us on these things. Write to them and suggest that they work on more Bottom-up solutions instead of dropping money at the top.

Who's next in line for bailouts?

2008-11-10T11:05:00.000-08:00

It's Bailout, Baby, Bailout.

First we saw $168 billion stimulus package giving tax rebates, then $29 billion to J.P. Morgan Chase, a $300 billion "housing rescue" in July, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac taken over in September, the AIG $85 billion bailout, then finally the enormous $850B "stimulus package". Now we have the auto makers snuggling up to the government teet.

These have been called only the tip of the iceberg. So who's next on this list? Here's a few of my guesses:

Telecommunications companies: These are totally debt-based businesses. And if the politicians can argue that GM is "too big to fail" they certainly won't let the phones go dead (or the Internet stop working). They will fork over the cash when told by the new Ma Bell.
Commercial real estate: The focus so far has been on residential real estate and to be fair, it probably is the primary culprit behind the banking mess. However, the amount of commercial properties taken over by banks through foreclosures is up and banks are becoming more aware of the magnitude of the trouble in commercial real estate loans.
Insurance companies: AIG is not the only insurance company in trouble. The entire industry is imploding. Questions continue over capital adequacy, credit downgrades, uncertainty on future portfolio write-downs, and potential cash calls on CDS and other obligations.
States: With big budget shortfalls, some states (such as California looking at a $22 billion dollar shortfall) will certainly try to play the "too big to fail" card and take their seat at the federal trough.
Satellite radio: Hey why not. This is of course a terrible idea. But when has that ever stopped politicians? And as long as Uncle Sam is handing out cash...

There are probably countless other industries that will try to get while the getting is good and jump on the bailout bandwagon. Who knows how far it will go? Who can blame them for not wanting a share of the bailout pie?

It's like paying off one credit card with another credit card. And of course propping up failing companies like GM and Ford who can't compete naturally, shows the world how strong America is, right?

We need to put an end to it, but you already knew I was going say that. The far better strategy is to let them fail (or recover) on their own.

GOP Job Number one: address hypocrisy

2008-11-07T10:07:00.000-08:00

Republicans obviously have not cornered the market on cynicism and hypocrisy in politics. I certainly wouldn't be foolish enough to state that Democrats or liberals or other parties are perfect. But over the last couple of decades the GOP has simply gone over the deep end.

A couple of examples include the "Patriot Act" and probably the most insidious "No child left behind." A few other examples follow:

Support the Troops: They embrace slogans like "Support the Troops" and then treat soldiers like crap in reality, failing to provide adequate armor, facilities, food, and so on. Remember Walter Reed, keeping troops in IRAQ indefinitely (in violation of both the 2008 Defense Appropriations Act and the 2008 Defense Authorization Act), inadequate help and support for soldiers suffering from war-related psychological injuries, the whole Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch affairs, and the list goes on.

Big Government: This is a good one. Republicans tell us they are against "Big Government" and against "Government Spending" - things that sound really good to a lot of Americans. But Republicans have become the party of big government now. Government grew faster in two years of Bush than it did in all eight of Clinton. Spending has been out of control under Republican leadership. They want to insinuate the federal government in all manner of peoples lives. It's Republicans who want to tell us all how to live, who to marry, who to sleep with, what to do with our bodies, and what god we should pray to. How can they cry for less government control and then insist on enforcing control in areas of peoples' lives the government should have no part of?

Ethics and Corruption: There are plenty of individual cases of corruption and illegal activies from all sides. The big difference is, it always seems to be the Republicans who love to sanctimoniously lecture everyone else about ethics and morality. They tell us they are the party to fix corruption in government, but then overlook some of the worst offenders from their own party. The list here is so long, there's no way I can put it in a single blog post. You might want to check out this site. Perhaps a good proxy for this category of hypocrisy would be the Department of Justice's partisan abuses of power:

Attorney General Michael Mukasey named a prosecutor yesterday [Septempber 29, 2008] to investigate whether former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, other Bush administration officials or Republicans in Congress should face criminal charges in the firings of nine U.S. attorneys.

The above are just a few examples, but this is I think one of the biggest areas the GOP must address. Here's what Forbes writer Tom Coburn says in an article today:

The election also was a measure not just of the excellence of Obama's field operation but of the level of disgust with a decade of Republican hypocrisy. Voters expect Democrats to talk the conservative talk and backtrack, but they expect Republicans to do what they say in terms of enacting conservative policies. In many respects, the 2008 election was a continuation of the 2006 punishment voters exacted on Republicans who were saying one thing but doing another.

Republicans recently are all about do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do. They often live in the biggest glass house, yet throw the largest stones. This kind of "kissing babies" politics is nothing new, but the GOP needs to clean it up. They need to have their actions match their words much more closely if they expect anyone but the hardcore to listen to them and, more importantly for them, to vote for them. The Republican brand rests in the balance.

Long GOP knives for Palin are distressing

2008-11-05T18:53:00.000-08:00

So today we're told that McCain staffers were concerned about Sarah Palin's lacking the "degree of knowledgeability necessary to be a running mate, a vice president, and a heartbeat away from the presidency," or so they told Fox News Chief White House Correspondent Carl Cameron.

She didn't know what countries that were in NAFTA (US, Canada, and Mexico) nor did she understand that Africa is a continent and not a country in itself.

Cameron told Bill O'Reilly that McCain aides were truly "shocked" at the lack of knowledge Sarah Palin displayed. She did not know many of the basics of civics and local/state/national duties. Beyond being so ignorant, she also utterly lacked self-awareness and wanted to be allowed to speak out freely despite her knowledge limitations. They say she refused coaching before the Katie Couric interviews.

They also speak of temper tanrums and tirades, although I doubt she would be the first candidate with that particular habit:

in the closing week or so... she took to yelling and screaming at aides over her press clippings, even "tossing papers" around.

So the truth appears to be that she was not "attacked by the liberal media" but in fact is what she appears to be. This is not coming from the "liberal media" - this is Fox News throwing her under the bus. That might say something about her chances for 2012.

Steve Schmidt (who reportedly picked Palin as VP) would not let her speak on election night.

For Sarah Palin haters, this is going to be fun to watch. However, what's really disturbing about this is that John McCain and his campaign, and the RNC, apparently knew Palin was clueless, but did nothing about it. So much for "Country First." To think that up until 24 hours ago, she was within striking distance of the white house. It's an absolute outrage! Even Republicans should be angry about it.

UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan on this same topic:

You know: I took a lot of grief for my pretty instant realization back in August that the Palin candidacy was a total farce. But when you cop to the fact that the McCain peeps knew most of that too very early on after their world-historical screw-up, you've got to respect and be terrified by their cynicism. I mean: country first?

And they only lost by a few points?

Does this election signal a "mandate" - fall of the Republican party?

2008-11-05T14:35:00.000-08:00

If Democrats interpret this election as a mandate for Democratic policies, they will be in for a surprise.

Before the election was even over, people were already recalling how the Clinton administration's overreach on health care played a large role in a Republican majority in Congress just two years later.

Likewise, those counting out the Republican party and policies as a whole are overstating it. The party may have some real concerns, in particular that younger people, and non-whites, the fastest growing segments of the electorate, are not going their way. At the end of the day, however, things can turn fast. We saw George HW Bush help usher in Clinton, who then sparked a Republican sweep into Congress and eventually George W. Bush, who eventually led to Democrats sweeping back into Congress in 2006 and who played a major part in Barack Obama winning the presidency last night.

However, only dyed in the wool Republicans can rationalize how IRAQ, Guantanamo, Spying on Americans without warrants, or a $9.1 trillion National Debt on their watch is somehow the fault of the Democrats. Just as these election swings toward Democrats were driven in large part by these and other failings attributed to Republicans, the Democrats will be judged not by winning the election, but by how they now govern - if there is to be any "mandate" for the Democrats, it must be earned.

Barack Obama turned a number of red states blue and with that one may argue "mandate" - but if indeed there is a mandate, it is Obama's alone, and not that of the Democratic party, and Nancy Pelosi had better bear that in mind.

McCain Campaign Quick Takes

2008-11-05T14:25:00.000-08:00

Pundits and others will be analyzing John McCain's campaign to death over the next weeks and months. Here are my quick takes, before being influenced by any of them.

First, I think he did an amazing job. I was surprised it was as close as it was. It tells you how much people dislike Democrats. Sure, there are die-hard Democratic supporters, but a lot of this loss has to do with repudiation of George W. Bush mostly, and the Republican leadership to a lesser degree.

"McCain Version 2008" was not a very powerful candidate, so it is pretty impressive he did as well as he did, especially after being counted out back in the primaries. I'm personally repulsed by the almost exclusive focus on negative campaigning that he did, but looking at the numbers only, we have to say he did pretty well, given the cards he drew. It's unlikely any other Republican candidate would have done any better. This election was probably more the democrat's to lose, and with Barack Obama's skillful campaign, they were able to stay out of their own way.

Beware Exit Polls- VOTE

2008-11-04T11:16:00.001-08:00

Exit polls are notoriously inaccurate at predicting the winner of elections, as devastated Democrats know from the 2004 and 2000 elections. In 2004, exit polling showed John Kerry winning. In 2000, networks first announced Al Gore the winner, then Bush, and then at 4 a.m. then declared it was “too close to call” all based on exit polls.

There are many reasons for it, but one of the main ones is that, for some reason, Republicans are at least twice as likely as Democrats to refuse to be surveyed for an exit poll. One of those in charge of the 2004 polling fiasco later claimed that the discrepancy was because “Kerry voters were more anxious to participate in our exit polls than the Bush voters.” I could see the same thing happening this election.

So we have to do our best to wait until tomorrow morning to see where things stand. And, for heavens sake, do not let any early exit poll reports dissuade you from voting - GET OUT THERE AND CAST YOUR VOTE, regardless of who you're voting for.

Yet another leading conservative endorses Obama

2008-10-30T09:45:00.000-07:00

Francis Fukuyama has jumped on the Obama bandwagon. From The American Conservative:

McCain’s appeal was always that he could think for himself, but as the campaign has progressed, he has seemed simply erratic and hotheaded. His choice of Sarah Palin as a running mate was highly irresponsible; we have suffered under the current president who entered office without much knowledge of the world and was easily captured by the wrong advisers. McCain’s lurching from Reaganite free- marketer to populist tribune makes one wonder whether he has any underlying principles at all.

Amazing stuff. I don't remember a case where so many significant people and organizations have been so openly critical of their candidate - usually, especially in recent elections, you can count on the Republicans to tow the line. It's usually the Democrats that suffer the wrath of their own party brothers and sisters.

Talk of filibuster-proof majority hurts Obama

2008-10-28T14:30:00.000-07:00

Now that Journalists have named the 44th President, relegating next week's election a formality, the discussion has shifted to concerns (or hopes) of a filibuster-proof 60-40 margin in the Senate.

Ignoring for the moment that voters may find it offensive when journalists skip over the event the voters are supposed to be taking part in, namely voting, we find the GOP in damage control and dealing with massive infighting and finger-pointing. The discussion has turned to shifting dollars away from the McCain campaign to senatorial campaigns, including this advice from conservative David Frum: "Republicans need to give up on the happy talk about how McCain has Obama just where he wants him, take off their game faces." Frum in Sorry, Senator. Let's Salvage What We Can says they need to change the message to accept the fate of a Democratic White House and shift the focus to "balance in Washington."

"Otherwise, you're going to wake up two years from now and find a Democratic president, a Democratic Senate and a Democratic House... Divided government is the best precaution you can have."

This message does hit home with people and probably will swing some votes to McCain and Republicans in general.

Today's SF Chronicle has a story with the headline Senate Dems aim for filibuster-proof majority. Meanwhile, Sen. Hillary Clinton went to Minnesota to endorse Al Franken to the Senate, saying that he could be that key 60th Democratic senator.

I think this kind of thing will just fire up people to vote against Democrats. People do fear an unconstrained Democratic leadership. They fear that it will lead to unlimited "taxing and spending" (despite the fact that the worst deficits have come under their hero Reagan and the two Bush's).

The message it sends is one of arrogance - it may be taken by many voters as a signal that Obama and Democrats are so cocky about the presidential election that they can now start to focus on this filibuster-proof "dream" - or "nightmare" to many voters. While, like Sarah Palin for the right, it may inspire the base, it will turn off many moderates and independents.

There is still plenty of time to lose this election.

Richard Dreyfus Calls For Teaching Civics in Public Schools

2008-10-28T14:03:00.000-07:00

The Huffington Post has fun with their story about Richard Dreyfus' appearance on The View today, including video, showing the Academy Award winning actor railing about the Oliver Stone "W" movie (wherein Dreyfus lays down an excellent performance of Dick Cheney, BTW). They decided to make a big deal about Dreyfus being critical of Stone and the film being too soft on Bush - their headline includes the flame bait "Calls Oliver Stone A Fascist." Such is good for getting clicks to your page I guess, but it leaves out the best part of the segment.

Dreyfus goes on to explain, with some eloquence, the necessity in a democratic republic, to teach civics in public schools. The Huffington Post video cuts off before that point, but the video below includes his passionate plea (starting about 5:45 into the clip).

About

2008-10-28T08:29:00.000-07:00

I don't fit the conventional labels. Frankly, I don't think I'm alone in that, which is why I think we need new labels and why the alternative "third-parties", aren't going anywhere.

On the Political Compass™, (take the test yourself HERE), I fall as shown below:

Okay, so I'm a little "left-ish" and a good bit "libertarian" (mostly with respect to liberties and freedom from tyranny). Fine.

I strongly support our civil liberties protected under the U.S. Constitution, INCLUDING the "evil right-wing" 2nd Amendment and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA), which is why I support BOTH the American Civil Liberties Union AND the National Rifle Association, even though I disagree with both organizations on many specific issues. I also support the Electronic Frontier Foundation in this fight.

When it comes to conventional partisan politics, I'm left in the cold. The GOP is controlled by a bunch hypocrites who use double-talk and double standards to push their political agenda.

The Republicans are Pro-Second Amendment but Anti-4th Amendment. They talk smaller government but practice Big-Government.

On the other hand, the Democrats are Anti-2nd Amendment but Pro-4th Amendment.

In both cases, they are made up of Career Politicians who must be Loyal to their Party in order to keep their political careers. Both parties are Anti-Constitution, Pro Big-Government, and Anti-States Rights. Their loyalty lies with the highest bidder.

And then, we have the third parties, such as the Libertarians, who I agree with in terms of personal privacy and individual liberty, but then they just go too far, with their "no government, ever, at any price" policies. They won't accept that some amount of regulation of Capitalism might just make some sense. We've seen where letting the market go its own way gets us. (The market seems to have a preference for useless financial instruments and insane compensation packages.) That's why I'll continue to use the lower-case "L" when referring to my libertarian-leanings.

This 1890's populist cartoon captures my thoughts quite succinctly:

Populists claimed that Democratic and Republican politicians agitated meaningless issues, such as tariff revision, in demagogic attempts to divert people’s attention from the real problems that producers faced. Notice where the politician’s right hands are located.

Sound familiar? My sentiment is that Democratic and Republican politicians agitate meaningless issues in demagogic attempts to divert people’s attention from the real problems the country faces - all the while ripping off the public for their own personal and political gain. As long as we the people are fighting each other and blaming the other side, Democrat or Republican, for everything, the politicians win.

So that might explain why, on this site, you'll see that I question ALL crooked and hypocritical politicians, regardless of their party affiliations. I try to highlight all attacks on our freedoms, no matter where they originate.

Anchorage Daily News Endorses Obama

2008-10-26T22:47:00.000-07:00

Alaska’s largest newspaper has endorsed a candidate for president. We keep being told that Sarah Palin is so popular in Alaska, so of course they must have gone with the McCain/Palin ticket. Nope.

Despite [Palin's] formidable gifts, few who have worked closely with the governor would argue she is truly ready to assume command of the most important, powerful nation on earth. To step in and juggle the demands of an economic meltdown, two deadly wars and a deteriorating climate crisis would stretch the governor beyond her range. Like picking Sen. McCain for president, putting her one 72-year-old heartbeat from the leadership of the free world is just too risky at this time.

Wow. Perhaps we should listen to the people that know her best.

Military Deployment Within US Borders

2008-10-26T21:53:00.000-07:00

The ACLU has put in a Freedom of Information request to the Army with respect to their recent report that the Army has deployed an active military unit inside the United States, the 3rd Infantry Division of the 1st Brigade Combat Team (BCT) for the first time on our soil.

The ACLU press release, dated October 21, 2008 states:

According to a report in the Army Times, the Army recently deployed an active military unit inside the United States under Northern Command, which was established in 2002 to assist federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities. This deployment marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to Northern Command.

"This is a radical departure from separation of civilian law enforcement and military authority, and could, quite possibly, represent a violation of law," said Mike German, ACLU national security policy counsel and former FBI Agent. "Our Founding Fathers understood the threat that a standing army could pose to American liberty. While future generations recognized the need for a strong military to defend against increasingly capable foreign threats, they also passed statutory protections to ensure that the Army could not be turned against the American people. The erosion of these protections should concern every American."

A copy of the ACLU's information request is available online at: www.aclu.org/safefree/general/37272lgl20081021.html

This is some serious stuff.

UPDATE: an interview by Democracy Now's Amy Goodman with Army Col. Michael Boatner, future operations division chief of USNORTHCOM, and Matthew Rothschild, editor of The Progressive magazine, contains some very good insights, here: www.democracynow.org/2008/10/7/us_army_denies_unit_will_be

I love the comment from the Army guy that says, in essence, trust us "American citizens can be confident that there will be no abuses." Unfortunately, that's not the way the framers wrote it up, Colonel, that the citizenry should simply "trust" that the army won't be turned against the American people.

McCain advisers suggest Palin is deliberately sabotaging campaign

2008-10-25T16:25:00.000-07:00

As reported at CNN Palin's 'going rogue,' McCain aide says

Several McCain advisers have suggested to CNN that they have become increasingly frustrated with what one aide described as Palin "going rogue."
McCain sources say Palin has gone off-message several times, and they privately wonder whether the incidents were deliberate.

And get this:

"She is a diva. She takes no advice from anyone," said this McCain adviser. "She does not have any relationships of trust with any of us, her family or anyone else.
"Also, she is playing for her own future and sees herself as the next leader of the party. Remember: Divas trust only unto themselves, as they see themselves as the beginning and end of all wisdom."

Pretty strong stuff, and from the McCain camp too.

McCain advisers Nicolle Wallace, who Palin blames for her Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric bluders went so far as to say: "If people want to throw me under the bus, my personal belief is that the most honorable thing to do is to lie there."

The US doesn't make anything

2008-10-24T09:11:00.000-07:00

My brother, a really smart guy, has long chided that by shipping jobs and manufacturing overseas over the recent decades, the US "no longer makes anything," or, in other words, doesn't contribute but only consumes. While this is of course not 100% true, (we produce a huge portion of the world's food, for instance), there is something to it. He has always said this would lead to a massive depression, if not the ruin of the US.

One metric for what a country produces might be GDP. Will Hutton of THE OBSERVER, LONDON has an excellent article on How to survive the market meltdown that brings this together very well. Hutton suggests that there isn't enough money in the world to pay for the "dark heart of the global financial system" or the US$55 trillion market in credit derivatives: "This is a market more than twice the size of the combined GDP of the US, Japan and the EU."

Try to imagine that: a $55 trillion market now at risk of complete destruction. Even the derivative debt owed by individual institutions stands at nation-wrecking levels. For example, a single bank in Britain, Barclays again, holds more than $2.4 trillion in credit default swaps. This is more than the entire GDP of Great Britain. If all this paper goes bad, there are not enough assets in the entire country to pay it off. And that's just one bank, in one country.

Hang on. This is going to be a bumpy ride.

The Obama relationships McCain should be talking about, instead of Ayers

2008-10-24T08:17:00.001-07:00

Top Contributors to Obama's campaign

Goldman Sachs $739,521
UBS AG $419,550
Lehman Brothers $391,774
Citigroup Inc $492,548
Morgan Stanley $341,380
Latham & Watkins $328,879
Google Inc $487,355
JPMorgan Chase & Co $475,112
Sidley Austin LLP $370,916
Skadden, Arps et al $360,409

This should tell us something about why Obama voted for the bailout with McCain and Pelosi, when he could have taken a stand to show that he really does represent change.

Reuters: Palin is a drag on campaign

2008-10-22T20:07:00.000-07:00

Gov. Palin's unfavorable rating has increased dramatically since she first came on the scene and is now net negative. She is also now rated as a bigger drag on John McCain's campaign than George W. Bush according to new Wall Street Journal/NBC poll.

Here's what the Pew Research Center had to say yesterday:

Sarah Palin appears to be a continuing – if not an increasing – drag on the GOP ticket. Currently, 49% of voters express an unfavorable opinion of Palin, while 44% have a favorable view. In mid-September, favorable opinions of Palin outnumbered negative ones by 54% to 32%. Women, especially women under age 50, have become increasingly critical of Palin: 60% now express an unfavorable view of Palin, up from 36% in mid-September. Notably, opinions of Palin have a greater impact on voting intentions than do opinions of Joe Biden, Obama’s running mate.

Protesters dart in front of Palin's car in Colorada

2008-10-22T19:37:00.000-07:00

John McCain would veto himself

2008-10-22T17:04:00.000-07:00

How Wolf Blitzer let this comment slip by without question, I have no idea:

MCCAIN: I would have vetoed literally every spending bill, even those that I voted for, if I were president of the United States and made them famous the way Ronald Reagan did.

From interview today Oct-22: transcript here or watch the video here.

Republican classic conservatives turning on McCain

2008-10-21T13:43:00.000-07:00

The list of intellectual republicans either officially endorsing Barack Obama, or expressing criticism of the McCain campaign keeps growing.

Last week we saw two prominent media conservatives endorse Senator Obama: Michael Smerconish, a radio talk show host, and the novelist Christopher Buckley. Buckley is the son of William Buckley, one of the key founders of the modern conservative movement.

Many of them, like Colen Powell, have cited concerns over McCains choice of Sarah Palin for a running mate.

Peggy Noonan, a former speechwriter for Ronald Reagan, was the first of several conservative pundits to say publicly that she felt betrayed by the choice of Sarah Palin.

Kathleen Parker, another National Review columnist, wrote that Mrs Palin was "clearly out of her league" and should step down as the vice-presidential candidate.

George Will, another influential conservative writer, raised questions about whether Mrs. Palin is qualified to be president and compared the "Palin bubble" to the dotcom and housing bubbles.

David Brooks said Sarah Palin "Represents A Fatal Cancer To The Republican Party" and said she is "absolutely not" ready to be president or vice president.

Lifelong conservative Republican Ken Adelman says he will vote for Obama, adding "Not only is Sarah Palin not close to being acceptable in high office—I would not have hired her for even a mid-level post in the arms-control agency."

Can we point to any prominent democrats endorsing McCain/Palin? What does that tell us?

NRA members for Obama

2008-10-21T09:50:00.000-07:00

I'm an NRA member and I support the NRA-ILA because there is nobody else supporting the Second Amendment. I also support the ACLU.

The NRA is a one-issue organization so I suppose it makes sense that they endorese candidates based on that single issue. However, the NRA leaders appear to me to have become too entrenched in partisan politics. They think because members are interested in guns, they must also be on the right on all issues, and in particular, republican.

Even as an NRA member, I can't vote against my economic and social self-interest based on a single issue, especially with all the issues before us.

Colin Powell Endorses Obama

2008-10-19T23:12:00.000-07:00

Colin Powell, President Bush’s former secretary of state and a former chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, said on Meet the Press that he is voting for Obama.

Beyond endorsing Barack Obama, Powell also said, with regard to Sarah Palin, "I don't believe she is ready to be President of the United States, which is the job of the Vice President."

He also said Obama would Be A "Transformational President."

In the meantime, Obama's lead in the polls is shrinking, with some polls showing almost a dead heat.

Rolling Stone paints sorry picture of McCain

2008-10-14T10:48:00.000-07:00

The rolling stone article "Make-Believe Maverick" hits hard. The subtitle gives a hint of their conclusion:

A closer look at the life and career of John McCain reveals a disturbing record of recklessness and dishonesty

A companion of McCain's who was also taken prisoner (but never cracked), is quoted:

"McCain says his life changed while he was in Vietnam, and he is now a different man. But he's still the undisciplined, spoiled brat that he was when he went in."

It paints a picture of a selfish person:

This is the story of the real John McCain, the one who has been hiding in plain sight. It is the story of a man who has consistently put his own advancement above all else, a man willing to say and do anything to achieve his ultimate ambition: to become commander in chief, ascending to the one position that would finally enable him to outrank his four-star father and grandfather.

McCain has become the kind of politician he ran against in 2000. He has embraced those he once denounced as "agents of intolerance.

In the end, the essential facts of John McCain's life and career — the pivotal experiences in which he demonstrated his true character — are important because of what they tell us about how he would govern as president. Far from the portrayal he presents of himself as an unflinching maverick with a consistent and reliable record, McCain has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to taking whatever position will advance his own career.

It questions his character on many levels:

Indeed, many leading Republicans who once admired McCain see his recent contortions to appease the GOP base as the undoing of a maverick. "John McCain's ambition overrode his basic character," says Rita Hauser, who served on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board from 2001 to 2004. But the truth of the matter is that ambition is John McCain's basic character. Seen in the sweep of his seven-decade personal history, his pandering to the right is consistent with the only constant in his life: doing what's best for himself. To put the matter squarely: John McCain is his own special interest.

Calls him a "brat":

McCain's admittance to Annapolis was preordained by his bloodline. But martial discipline did not seem to have much of an impact on his character. By his own account, McCain was a lazy, incurious student

When McCain was not shown the pampering to which he was accustomed, he grew petulant — even abusive. He repeatedly blew up in the face of his commanding officer. It was the kind of insubordination that would have gotten any other midshipman kicked out of Annapolis. But his classmates soon realized that McCain was untouchable. Midway though his final year, McCain faced expulsion, about to "bilge out" because of excessive demerits. After his mother intervened, however, the academy's commandant stepped in. Calling McCain "spoiled" to his face, he nonetheless issued a reprieve, scaling back the demerits. McCain dodged expulsion a second time by convincing another midshipman to take the fall after McCain was caught with contraband.

A hothead:

Over the years, John McCain has demonstrated a streak of anger so nasty that even his former flacks make no effort to spin it away.

At least three of McCain's GOP colleagues have gone on record to say that they consider him temperamentally unsuited to be commander in chief.

Read the whole 10-page article here.

We see what we want to see

2008-10-12T21:25:00.000-07:00

Stacy in PA writes in her "smart girl politics blog" about the current Democratic leadership:

"What have they accomplished in the last two years? Not much. It's not surprising that they have a 13% approval rating, 9% at it's low."

This, I cannot disagree with. They have been a tremendous disappointment. For starters, they should have impeached Bush. Of course, their excuse is they have a weak majority.

Then she goes on to say, with respect to fears of an Obama victory:

"There have only been a handful of times in our history where one party has had this much power in government."

Yeah, for example, the prior 6 years to the 2 mentioned above, the first 6 years of the G. W. Bush presidency. A what did they accomplish together, Bush and Congress, under that Republican majority leadership? Oh yeah:

Abu Ghraib
IRAQ
Missing WMDs
Hurricane Katrina
Guantanamo
Extraordinary Rendition
Spying on Americans without warrants
Continued failure to recognize Global Warming as a threat
Torture justified and legalized
Alberto Gonzales
Donald Rumsfeld
$9.1 trillion National Debt, up from $5.6 trillion
Taking a budget surplus to the worst budget deficits in history

Yeah, good times. Good times.

Most disappointed American public yet

2008-10-12T19:12:00.000-07:00

A new Gallup poll finds that only 9% of Americans are satisfied with the way things are going in the United States, which is the lowest such reading in Gallup Poll history, easily beating the 12% recorded in 1979.

The reason is simple: the economy. Almost 7 in 10 Americans mentioned some aspect of the economy as the most important problem facing the country today.

McCain Republicans "stunned" they are losing election

2008-10-12T18:32:00.000-07:00

Civil rights icon says McCain and Palin 'playing with fire'

2008-10-11T13:01:00.000-07:00

Georgia congressman and hero of Selma, John Lewis, said today:

“As public figures with the power to influence and persuade, Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are playing with fire, and if they are not careful, that fire will consume us all.

They are playing a very dangerous game that disregards the value of the political process and cheapens our entire democracy.”

In the past, McCain has praised Lewis, including naming him as one of "three wise men" he would consult as president.

Now Lewis was invoking George Wallace in reference to John McCain:

"George Wallace never threw a bomb. He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks...

What I am seeing reminds me too much of another destructive period in American history. Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin are sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse."

Lewis closed with: "We can do better. The American people deserve better."

Amen.

McCain's latest appeal to racism

2008-10-11T12:40:00.000-07:00

The McCain campaign continues to lower the bar of decency. Their latest 90 second web video is targeted to the extreme right (majority of the base these days I guess), sending the message that not only are the scary blacks stealing the election, but they also caused the economic crisis. Don't blame Wall Street. Blame the n-----s.

McCain knows he's going to lose and he's prepping the base to take the position that Republicans didn't really lose the election, but that it was stolen by Barack Omaba and his army of black street thugs.

Daily KOS accuses GOP of sabotaging ACORN

2008-10-11T12:27:00.000-07:00

from Daily KOS:

How do Republicans get on this so quickly and hammer until it is now spreading to other media outlets besides fox?

The answer, They did it. Republicans are the party of dirty tricks, of putting up billboards in 2004 in black neighborhoods telling people to vote on teh wrong day. They put police near voting places to scare of many. They have sent out fliers listing the wrong polling places. I could go on, but I'm already sick to my stomach.

The idea is to cast suspicions over ALL new voters, who are overwhelmingly Democratic. Then, when McCain loses, to start the lawsuits, attacking the legitimacy of lower income, minority, and ACORN gathered voters.

I wouldn't put it past them. We have seen such things, and worse, from Republicans in the past.

Alaska Panel Finds Palin Abused Power

2008-10-11T12:01:00.000-07:00

via the AssociatedPress

Dems and Reps

2008-06-18T18:19:00.000-07:00

I'm sick of being accused of being a Democrat just because I seldom support a Republican candidate or a given Republican cause. In many races, I've voted for the Democratic candidate because of the "lessor of two evils" situation - anything to ensure that a certain inane Republican candidate doesn't get the office. The worst example was Gore 2000. I was not a Gore fan, but I think we now can be pretty sure there is no way he could have been worse than Bush/Cheney - so I'm proud of that vote. Unfortunately, that particular inane Republican candidate did get the office - and now the country and world is far worse off because of it.

The Democrats are incompetent and the Republicans are criminals. What are we supposed to do?